User talk:Cirt/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

GA Sweeps

Do you want to lend us a hand? We can definitely take more experienced reviewers onto the sweep team. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, what would be involved, how many articles does each editor normally take on in a sweep? Probably I think I'll just stick to occasionally doing a few reviews directly from the WP:GAN page, but I'd like to know a bit more about the sweeps first. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You just pick a sub-category of GA and review it, so there's no set amount of articles per editor. It's totally voluntary and you can go at your own pace. Some people reviews fast, some (like me) tends to go slow. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but is there like a minimum or average number people review in a set period of time? How long do the GA Sweeps themselves last for? Cirt (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely no set numbers. How long will the Sweeps last for? As long as it takes to sweep those 2808 articles. (We joke around and said it won't be done till 2010.) To be honest with you, this job will never be over. Since GAs get added everyday (at least more than the # being delisted), we're always playing a catch-up game. Up to today, we have 3,587 GAs. Subtract 2808 from 3587 leaves around 700 articles. That means even if we finish the sweeps today, we still have 700 articles that requires sweeping (and from the progress table, it does look like we're finishing this somewhere around 2009 or 2010). When we're finish sweeping in 2009 or 2010, we have to visit those 2808 articles again, in addition to those that aren't swept yet. You can see the complexity and the magnitude of this sweep. Right now I'm playing a time-game, waiting for more editors who are experienced reviewers to sign up as editor on Wikipedia, hop onboard and sweep GAs.

We definitely need more people along the way. So you may ask how come I don't open the sweep to everyone. As you know, anyone can review and classify an article as GA. A lot of these articles fall through the cracks and degraded over time but unnoticed for a few years. Only experienced reviews can join, ensuring that articles won't fall through the cracks again. When I invite you, I place my trust in you that you'll make sound judgements and positively affecting the community because this job could have collateral damage (e.g. affecting Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team or upsetting users along the way because they think we're delist-happy editors). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for considering me! But my only question that remains is: Doesn't the idea of the sweeps in some way detract from and/or slow down the amount of reviewing going on at the WP:GAN page itself? Cirt (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there's only 24 hours a day, it does pull some reviewers from GAN to Sweeps once in a while. I don't know about other reviewers, but I myself haven't done much GAN since summer. But hey, there's more people joining wikipedia everyday. So GAN reviewers quickly replenish (at least faster than sweeps) OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

Okay, I'll help out a bit. Now what? Cirt (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), I've given your offer a bit more thought, and much as I am very flattered that you'd put your trust in me to offer me this opportunity, I think I'm going to decline at the present time. I'd rather put my efforts into other areas, such as increasing the quality of articles' content, and getting portals to featured status, and other areas. I'll still pitch in when/where I can and do some GAN reviews though. I haven't ruled this out completely, but just not right now. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disconnection

Thanks for comments on the Disconnection article. I have attempted to deal with the quotefarm issue. Have I done enough? What other copy editing issues are there? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, I'll take another look and comment at the article talk page. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I honestly didn't know that barnstar even existed. I just hope I can measure up to it. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V PR

I've exspanded the lead as best I can. Buc (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond at the PR. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

Thanks for the excellent work you're doing over there on that article. Shawn was a fellow critic of mine and a good friend. I started the article but you're making it great, thanks. In honor of this, I'm giving you the Paul Horner "The more you know about Scientology" award of excellence. Enjoy it. Tell your friends.K69 (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, still trying to find some additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, then I'll expand w/ those sources. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Let me know how I can help in anyway. It's important that that section gets on there K69 (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

re: The Last Temptation of Krust FAC

Hey there, I certainly would support again. I haven't quite gotten the gist of how the closures work yet (for example, I'm not sure how to request a "restart") but maybe it's matter of prodding the commenters a bit more. It also seems like it's difficult to get a lot of support for pop culture articles for some reason. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will notify you when the next FAC starts (only because you commented in the last one, and I'll also notify the 2 other editors that commented in the last one). Cirt (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem

I just got the mop tonight ... nice way to get my feet wet. Blueboy96 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and congratulations! Cirt (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Justahulk hasn't edited since February 12--no need to block him. As for the IP, you may want to take it to WP:SSP. Blueboy96 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Imperial triple crown jewels

Thanks for the crown jewels, it's a great honour. P.S Thanks for the warning about the template for deletion, I didn't notice it. Kyriakos (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob, you deserve it. And no worries bout that template thing, hope that all gets sorted out. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Scientology(footer)

Hi. Thanks for your message; I realized I'd misunderstood the instructions for an uncontroversial requested move. Have now posted request here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Book cover in author article

Hi Cirt. User talk:23skidoo is on my watchlist, and I noticed that you tagged Image:Junkieace.jpg for deletion because it was not suitable for William S. Burroughs. I've taken the book cover out of the author's article and removed the image's delete tag. When I come across a book cover that is used in both the author and book articles, I remove the image from the author article with an informative edit summary rather than tagging for deletion. I've done this quite a few times and have had no problems. Doing this might save you some time in the future. I hope you don't mind me offering some advice :-) All the best, Bláthnaid 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice/note, but I think in this case, especially because a third-party editor took action to remove the image from the inappropriate page(s), things worked out better this way. I also refer to the points at the top of Betacommand (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's good to come across another editor working on cleaning up images. Bláthnaid 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Justanother

Cirt -- I reviewed Justanother's recent block under the Scientology article probation. In reviewing the situation, I find your conduct to have been somewhat troubling. Specifically, this is about Shawn Lonsdale. (1) You were edit warring over a source in the article. (2) You inappropriately gave a vandalism warning when there was no vandalism (and obviously there was no testing going on.) Unlike Justanother, you were at least civil. I would probably have banned you for 24 hours if I had been the one to look into this initially but I consider the situation old at this point so I'm not going to. However, I'm going to log this warning at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. If you really did know that the IP editor at Shawn Lonsdale was Justanother from the start, as he claims, I would consider that to be much more serious. You can see my separately written assessment of this at User talk:Justanother. Moving forward, please remember that Scientology-related articles are on article probation, and that you should not accuse others of vandalism when they are making apparently good-faith edits: even new users. Mangojuice^talk 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Justanother is paid by Scientology to keep as much critical material off of Wikipedia as possible. He'll push the limits and if no one is watching or not careful, suddenly Scientology looks like a legitimate religion. Too bad the critics don't have millionaires, like John Travolta donating to Scieno associations like IAS with the sole purpose of paying trolls like Justanother. K69 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, how is that additional section for Scientology's possible involvement coming along. I provided you with secondary sources. What's the holdup? K69 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

K69 (talk · contribs), please refactor your above comment. It is not really appropriate for you to comment on this matter, especially in the manner you did. Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't "Refactor" my comment. Justanother is trouble and the post is appropriate. K69 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the possible section on Scientology's involvement is still not up. What is the holdup? K69 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will get to that soon, but I would really appreciate it if you would refactor the inappropriate comments you made, above. If not, I will (as it is my talk page, after all). Cirt (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Mangojuice

Hi, I saw your warning and would like your advice. I was busy editing the Shawn Lonsdale article when Justanother (talk · contribs) came along on the IP, and I didn't know it was him until he revealed his name. I'm worried that he's following me and trying to bait me into a block. He keeps changing IP addresses so it's hard for an uninvolved observer to track his actions, and he refuses to remove the personal attacks against me from his user pages. What do you advise me to do? Most Wikipedians don't edit under the worry that every new IP they encounter might be someone who has an old grudge. I've got a featured portal nomination in progress (Portal:Criminal justice) and I'm working on a couple other potential featured articles and featured portal drives, and don't want them to get disrupted by this issue. Really, I just wish the fellow would leave me alone. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PR template

I don't see the adavantage, but if you do then feel free to make that change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to personally thank you for reverting my edit which was identified as vandalism, but was actually my removal of false and/or misleading information.--Can Not (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to this, it certainly appears that you removed information that was duly sourced to WP:RS/WP:V cited material. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Nice to see that all your efforts to collect information have resulted in a balanced and informative article on the ol' 'post. I was pretty impressed. (Still unconvinced that it's likely to be one of the more noteworthy aspects of JW's bio in the long run, but that's just my humble.) -Pete (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The credit should really go to Ral315 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was about to, but since I kinda know you, and since it seems pretty apparent that the collection of links was an aid to collecting all that info...well, I just think you're being too humble. -Pete (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, I'm sure Ral315 (talk · contribs) would appreciate a note. Cirt (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Film/Did you know

Hi Cirt, I saw your name at Portal talk:Film/Did you know, and was hoping you could help me. I just added a Did You Know entry to Portal:Film/Did you know but I'm not sure how to complete no.3 in the instructions ("Update the "Random subpage" start and end values above to include the new DYK and evenly distribute the number of items across all three display templates.") Hope you can help! Cheers, --BelovedFreak 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I saw your addition and I went ahead and adjusted the end value max. Thanks for the contribution to the portal! Cirt (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

Re Shawn Lonsdale - I'd suggest starting from scratch in your userspace, there's nothing in the article that was deleted that should be in any new article. Nick (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Textile arts newsletter

Hi, the textile arts project had an exciting month in February: 7 featured pictures, 2 good articles, and 4 Did you know? entries. There's still time to join our featured portal drive. Our March newsletter has all the developments. Regards, Durova^Charge! 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work! I'll check out the newsletter. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Gude and DYK

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad to see some of my work spreading around the project! Feel free to use anything on my scratch HFG article, but if you wouldn't merge it in just yet, that's be great. I'm not done writing it, and I'd like it to qualify for DYK as well! Hope to see you around (I'm sure I will since I plan on work on a few more painting articles)! --Falcorian ^(talk) 09:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Secret of Treasure Island

Cirt, I looked at what was available to me, and I couldn't find very much that was accessible online. I have a feeling most coverage about the serial would be found in books, as seen at Google Books. It's a bit old and not so famous, it seems, so coverage is pretty minimal, it seems. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Last Tempation of Krust

I'm not sure if I can guarantee my support, as I'm not sure what to expect from a featured episode. The quotes seem awkward, and I just feel that the writing is not professional enough. Perhaps ask Tony, as he is the guy to ask. Granted, he might be a bit busy, IDK. I don't think I'll comment on the next FAC. That way, I won't influence any other editors. If it truly is FA worthy, the community will prove that it is, and the opposite is true. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair. I'll try to take a look at those points and give the article's prose/copyediting/style another once over. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give it a once-over myself, iron out any defects and support. Sadly, I was busy to death the last four days so I couldn't do anything. If you were to re-nom in a week, I should be done with my copy-edit by then. indopug (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can wait that long, that's fine, and I'd of course appreciate any copy-edit you wish to contribute. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll start with the lead; is "Some sources mistakenly refer to this episode as "The Last Temptation of Krusty".[2][3][4][5]" necessary? It seems too trivial to merit inclusion in the lead and the [2][3][4][5] hampers readability greatly. indopug (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, yes. And the GA reviewer suggested it should be removed at the time because it only had one source, so that's why I added some more. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished with the majority of my copy-edit. Will sort out minor details, if any, later on. You can nominate for FAC now if you want. indopug (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks for your work on the article. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't want to !vote support until I sit down and watch the episode, since I haven't actually seen it in a while. I'll do that sometime tonight, then read over the article afterwards. Zagalejo^^^ 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Zagalejo^^^ 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't get that disc to play on my laptop without skipping, so it might be a couple of days before I can watch. Zagalejo^^^ 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will vote to support once all the factual concerns have been addressed. I noticed it will need a final run through on prose, and may pitch in myself for that. But have no fear, I will change my vote. Good work. Eusebeus (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V PR

I'd really like to nominate this soon so anymore would be a big help. Buc (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merkey

In answer to your question on the article talk page as to whether such an accusation has been made before: Obviously the Marsden case is in the same general genre. There was a discussion some time ago about organisations paying people to edit their wikipedia pages. I recall it was regarded as poor form and we do of course have guidelines on conflict of interest WP:COI. It would appear that if Wales had had discussions with Merkey and if Merkey had donated to the Wikimedia foundation in exchange for even a perceived editing favour then this would run contrary to the project's guidelines. It is very disappointing (and very bad press). It is not merely an editor that breached the guideline but the project's most visible editor. Regards Matilda ^talk 06:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, most interesting info. It will be interesting to see if this new development gets any other coverage past the Sydney Morning Herald. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Merkey of course claims on the Wikia mailing list that he was approached by Assicated Press for a statement - you would think they would be doing something with it - but maybe not.--Matilda ^talk 06:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We shall see. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Last Temptation of Krust FAC

Still outstanding issues that have not been addressed. Buc (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still two fairly minor issues outstanding. Buc (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it has passed you may by interested to know that I have a couple of simpson ep that I hope to get to FA status soon Treehouse of Horror V and Homer at the Bat. Also more long term, Bart's Girlfriend. Buc (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. You may also be interested in getting involved with WP:DOH/TOPIC. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm more intrested in my own projects. But I'll give it a look in some time. Buc (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

g'day Cirt....

thought I'd let you know that we're lining up the next Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly chit chat at the mo... - there's no date and time suggested yet, but I'm thinking of proposing an evening early next week - head over, and sign up if you're interested! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised I haven't given you one yet...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions to the portalspace and mainspace, I award you the Editor's Barnstar. Wear it with pride! Rudget. 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was unexpected. Many thanks, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Salmonella image

Honestly,

I think it was fine where it was originally, that image guideline really doesn't prohibit stacked images, in fact it doesn't even touch on it. It's just a small thing, but you guys are putting a lot into the article so I just threw in my 2 cents worth.Awotter (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we'll see how the FAC goes. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Secret of Treasure Island

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Secret of Treasure Island, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Cirt, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly did garner a lot of support. Good luck in the future. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: additional Rickroll source

Thanks! InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC) No prob. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merkey lead too short?

Hi - I saw you readded the tooshort tag. Your earlier tagging had been removed by another editor who had commented on the talk page. Perhaps you need to discuss readding the tag there. I have no strong views one way or the other. In some ways I fell WP:UNDUE applies to the whole wikipedia incident in terms of its inclusion in the Merkey article. Doesn't mean I am not upset about an apparent exchange of editing for donations but I am not sure it needs to be in the article and I don't think its ommission for the Merkey article lead is significant. I think there are other places to discuss the ethics of the alleged transaction - eg the Signpost. Regards--Matilda ^talk 03:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually did respond to that talk page post, hopefully that will stimulate some discussion on that article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disconnection

Hi Cirt, a lot of work has been done on the Disconnection article. I think the quotefarm tag can be removed and as for whether it needs more copy-editing, I welcome your (or any admin's) judgement on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinPoulter (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not an admin, but I'll take another look at the article. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Next update

We need to be doing the eight here. I know I might seem a bit biased, seeing that I have a nom from the eight, but it really is ludicrous to use an article from thh tenth when there are at least a couple, excluding mine, of fine ones to be used from the eighth... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And the one from the sixth is eight days. That is actually, iirc, absolutely unprecedented. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi Cirt, sorry for adding to the stress. I got into a few edit conflicts with you as you probably noticed. Sincerely, best of luck with the FAC, I should have said that it is very well written and v. interesting, but I'm backing off— I think I'm in danger of bringing personal opinion into the discourse. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, many thanks for the olive branch and for reaching out to me! I appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet

Congrats on the TFA, I didn't even realize it was going to be on the main page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that such a controversial topic as scientology doesn't merit automatic protection, but I guess TFAs are very rarely protected. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandal of Scientology - the CoS response

Turns out the CoS published a full-length response to Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology, titled "False report correction : [a response to] the Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper", by the U.S. Ministry of Public Relations, Church of Scientology of California (undated but probably 1975). WorldCat lists a copy in the Graduate Theological Union Library of Berkeley, CA. I don't suppose you know anyone in the Bay Area who might be able to get hold of it? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not, but I could try to look into it. Sounds eerily similar to their advertisement pieces in USA Today in response to "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Cirt (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that; they published a full-length response to that, too. They seem to make a standard practice of publishing full-length responses in pamphlet form (usually a few dozen pages long) in response to especially damaging articles. They did that for a Boston Globe series in 1997; they did it for "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" as well, publishing a pamphlet called "The story that Time couldn't tell" (the British Library has a copy) alleging that the article had been sponsored by Eli Lilly or the Rockefellers or some such nonsense. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that in the article on "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Cirt (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet

File:Pie.jpeg

Basketball110 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congradulations on getting Trapped in the Closet (South Park) featured. Great work. Basketball110 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it on the Main Page when I was on at some ridiculous hour of the morning. You did great on that. Qst (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Major update

He there- thanks ever so much for your comments on the recent major update! To be quite honest, I had been working on the update for quite a while in a sandbox elsewhere and when it came to actually performing the update I simply copied and pasted the code/article content etc from my sandbox over the top of what was on the page, thereby removing anything that was there previously. In hindsight, this probably wasn't the best way of doing it and so a few things - like the links to other language WikiProjects and the request for assessment - got deleted in the process. The good news is I have gone back through the history of the pages and have managed to reinstate these now - thanks a lot for pointing these out. Please do let me know if you come across anything else like this which is missing or which could be improved - any help is much appreciated! theolimeister (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FA

No problem -- sorry I haven't been able to work quicker on it. It's a very good article, and important chapter in Oregon history...I'd love to help ensure it gets to FA! -Pete (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: FPOC

You're welcome. Thanks also for your support to the English football portal. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, that portal is certainly up to standards. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

portal:cinema

hi.thanks for your help.I am a persian user and mostly I write n Farsi wikipedia and i have written an article about Orson Welles ,the genius director of 40s.this is the page.it's going to be promoted and improved.tell me your suggestions. thanksBbadree (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks alot.I want to start writing in English wikipedia.what articles aren't written yet as you know.The more cinematic,the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbadree (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V

No one seems to being any more feedback. Do you think it's worth nom yet? Buc (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will take another look and give some more feedback on the peer review. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V has been nominated. Buc (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You are correct about the Leo Ryan error on my part (good faith edit). Thanks for straightening it out for me. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Newman (computer programmer)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Ron Newman (computer programmer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet

As Cartman would say: "Sweet, dude!" - http://stats.grok.se/en/200803/Trapped_in_the_Closet_%2528South_Park%2529 . Nice one! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help on TFA day. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		From one FA writer (as well as FT) to another, I thank for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Don't worry, I'll curb my administrative duties so I keep on churning out some FA's! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck to you, and thanks for the kind words. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple crowns

The Imperial Napoleonic triple crown, for your trophy collection.

I, Durova, am pleased to award the coveted Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown to Cirt. This special award recognizes the rare editor who contributes 15 pieces of featured content, 15 good articles, and 15 "Did you know?" entries. All hail Cirt! Durova^Charge! 18:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your most honored conquering majesty, please accept these triple crowns with my gratitude, both for outstanding editing work and for your assistance maintaining the triple crown awards. (Psst: I've rolled out the Genghis Khan edition...) ;) Durova^Charge! 18:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cirt (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments

Your comments are noted, but you are incorrect. My edit was valid. The mask is meant to represent the 'Epic fail Guy' meme, not Guy Fawkes. Please check this and you will see I am right. Chump Manbear (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to chime in here and say that Chump Manbear is factually correct - EFG is the true source of the masks meme, although finding a WP:RS sourse for it will be very difficult. Z00r (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well thanks for commenting, and I appreciate both of your comments - but again it is inappropriate to add info that is unsourced, and especially to remove and then change info to something else, if it is unsourced without any citations to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, and is thus basically a violation of WP:OR. But if you come across any potential cites for this info, please let us know at Talk:Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

On the FA! Sorry I didn't get more done. A lot of the stuff that came up seemed to be more detailed than my limited knowledge could handle...looking forward to a nice read of the final product, though! -Pete (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Journalism portal nomination

The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on March 12 2008 has been promoted to featured portal status, and the 107th to do so. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Best regards, Rudget. 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chanology information and sources

Hi there. I've been watching the article on Project Chanology, and there are quite a few things still to be done. I would do these myself, but I'm still getting to grips with how to use references and sources. In the meanwhile, I thought that perhaps you could take a look at these links and add to the article accordingly:

http://forums.enturbulation.org/forumdisplay.php?f=40 (Topics on March 15th protests. Almost all have some sort of photographic evidence)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-063clxiB8I (Anonymous code of conduct.)

Unfortunantely there appears to be very, very little media coverage on quite a few details concerning Anonymous, which is somewhat frustrating. BTW, don't forget about the comments I posted in the actual Chanology topic. If you need to discuss this drop me a line. kthxbai. Blue123AH (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for posting a comment to my talk page. Please take a moment to read up on WP:RS and WP:V - it may not be fun reading, but I'm sorry to say that the two sources you cite above might be good places to find secondary sources, but those 2 themselves aren't acceptable to cite in Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's frustrating that there isn't as much media coverage, etc. as I'd like to see. For example, I've mentioned the fact that Mark Bunker has praised Anonymous. While he has posted a video onto YouTube stating this, it appears that nobody at all has picked up on this- meaning, there are no useable sources. I tried posting the link in an attempt to inform people about this, so we could try to find some. Sorry about that. Blue123AH (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, me again. Again, my apologies (spelling!?) for this- please be patient of the bumbling newbie! I've happened to come across an interesting article, about the CoS's video "Anonymous- Hate Crimes & Terrorism Directed at Scientology"(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/03/youtube-video-d.html). Could this be worthy of a mention? It appears to be a valid source (coming from the LA Times). Just wanted to check this was OK, so I know what kind of stuff is good and what's not. All these Wikipedia guidelines are confusing me. Thanks! Blue123AH (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be useful, I'll take a look. Cirt (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, you too! Cirt (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I'm not sure, sorry. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Bill Oakley responded to Xihix, you can see his replies here. For the most part, he complimented our work, anyway, if you have time, I wanted to talk to you on IRC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Winter is finally over...

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

hey

aww, did u leave me? :( Ctjf83Talk 07:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many windows, focusing on other multitasking stuff atm. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, tty tomorrow! log on more, as I'm gonna try hard on this wiki break Ctjf83Talk 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

hey

hey, as you probably know, my RfA crashed and burned...oh well. Ctjf83Talk 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about that, there were things pointed out in the RfA that I was unaware of, if I had been, I would have advised you to wait a while longer a seek out a bit more Admin coaching. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well no big deal...wow, who would have thought my hatred of bush would somehow cause me to fail the RfA Ctjf83Talk 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes RfAs can get pretty heated and people can phrase things in harsh terms, you have been a pleasure to work with as far as getting articles to WP:GA status and beyond - and I hope this rough experience doesn't stop you from contributing positively to the project. I would encourage you to seek out advice from Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) and other experienced Admins and editors, and continue to work on collaborating politely and positively to Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That song is "I'll Be Missing You" by Puff Daddy and others...I'm on IM if you'd like to join Ctjf83Talk 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Norway

Hey, just wanted to stop by and say you've done great work on that. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken a few of the layout design for Portal:New York. Cheers. Qst (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American Civil War

Thanks for your feedback on the portal. While I have almost 1000 portal edits, they're almost exclusively on this portal, the mechanics of which were created by another (now inactive) user. I'd really love to create such a page (explaining how to create new portal articles), but I'm sort of without reference as to how to do so. Could you suggest a few examples, if possible including one on a portal which uses a dynamic queue? BusterD (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I have your attention, I might ask a few other questions on the subject of portals, since I'm researching another at this time, based on Civil wars, and the preliminary research of which is on my subpage. For this portal, I'd like to use a more modern randomized construction. Would you point me toward particularly well-constructed or interesting portals amongst the FP group? It's a bit strange; I've been working on the portal for a while, as I've said, but now I feel inexperienced because I realize I've been working down a somewhat obscure design fork, set up as a pilot program by a user who no longer edits. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm staring at Portal:Norway, commented upon above. I'm starting to see what you're talking about and how to build it. Doesn't look so hard. Give me a day or two to process this. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help/guidance with that. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I'm shamelessly swiping code from a couple of good portals, and trying to mesh the two styles. Please feel free to watch my contribs and comment appropriately. This is almost as fun as trying to figure out the dynamic queue all by myself (no sarcasm, it was a real eye-opener to me). BusterD (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've brought one section into the style your suggest. Please observe the difference between "Selected biography" (which I haven't changed) and "Selected article" (which I believe is finished). If you would, please comment on what else I need to do inside the single section. "Featured article" is sort of halfway transformed at this time, pending your comments. Thanks again for any attention you provide. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi Cirt, I wonder if you could possibly look at something for me? I've recently been reviewing an article of dubious notability and have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham. As the issues it raises are essentially the same as the ones you've been addressing with the Scientology articles, I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my opinion, I appreciate that, and I will take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Work needed for Chanology to FA

How much work do you think there is to get Project_Chanology to FA? Is there a snowballs chance it could be done by Apr. 12? ;-) Z00r (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it could be done by then, there is a lot more work needed. Lots of good secondary source material that I haven't yet had a chance to add, like at least 30 or so more sources. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sources in the first section of the talk page? Z00r (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and probably other places too since I sorta stopped compiling them there after a while. I'll get to it all soon, just not immediately. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I might get working on some of these if I have time next week. Z00r (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well the cites I already compiled on the talk page are all properly formatted according to WP:CIT. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Gude

You asked to be informed when Hans Gude hit the front page on DYK. Well, it has now! --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have already grabbed it for the portal though. Well done! --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Cirt (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Wales

Everything has been done, aside from the last. Rudget. 17:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

HI!

Thanks for the message. On the Profit movie, I know what I posted is wrong..... but it will eventually be there in the next few days. Feel free to remove it if you want.

I appreciate your work here. It sucks that Shawn Lonsdale page got removed. I came to terms with the decision and I agree with it. Take care! K69 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitty Lange Kielland

Hello again. I've just finished Kitty Lange Kielland (unfortunately short, my sources are less plentiful on her) and it should be up for DYK in a few days. I'll let you know if it makes it so you can add it to the Portal! --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a real world chit chat at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

G'day Cirt - hope you're good - this is just a quick 'heads up' that we've scheduled another skypecast for tuesday evening, US time (click above for full details) - and I wondered if you might make it? Be glad to have ya! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at the link, can't guarantee anything, think I'll be busy. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

Yes, I would love help bringing Portal:Chicago to featured status. Last fall User:Teemu08 did some work, but no one has edited it since last November. What is necessary to attain and keep featured Portal status. I imagine the hardest thing is keeping the news current.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, utilizing User:Wikinews Importer Bot, that will be the easiest part. I'll work on that first, later. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I dumped a bunch of DYKs and FAs today to help out. It seems that everything is done on back pages. I will not have any actual edits at Portal:Chicago the way things are looking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the bot logic. I.E., does it look for items in the news with {{ChicagoWikiProject}} on the talk page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the category tree and got the DYK started with 17 sample random selections. I also changed the images in the intro.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have to get to looking at it later, busy w/ some other stuff atm but will get to it soon, glad to know you are on it already. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Header link broken

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology is not going anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the Portal:Scientology

Like I said there's something wrong with it; the very bottom part is extremely expanded. I'm not very good with technical syntax, but I'll see if I can fix it...so there's something wrong like I said. Lighthead ^þ 0:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago Update

DYK issues

1. Alignment not good
2. Some pictures not showing
3. Got to go get sources still

Portal issues

1. I threw a bunch more cities in the section that are hidden in comments at the bottom.

News issue

1. You still did not explain my query above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Content issue

1. Should we transclude WP:CHIFC and possibly WP:CHIGA, which I keep current?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies

1. Please use the "layout" format from Portal:Norway/DYK/Layout. (You'll have to create your own layout page, or I'll do that later). Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I can work on formatting the other subsections later. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I went ahead and reformatted the News section, nothing else needed there really. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying to Portal talk page where future conversations should be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Minton

I checked the source that said Bob Minton admitted fraud. When I checked the source I found nothing stating Minton Did Fraud rather I alluded to Scientologist Claims. I personally find the Previous version more libelous and debased thats why I edited it (the claim was also untrue the website said nothing of this) . If a man makes a lie and gives it a source to make it sound unPhoney how in the hell can I find a page that disproves a lie so sneaky and under reported I cant. The data I wrote on the COS claims were on the same web page that the Phoney claims were on. by the way mr cirt I have been on wikipedia for three years the first two years were moderately productive. I try to help Wikipedia but I always make some mistake or my efforts prove futile. Do you have any Idea what I can do with lots of time little money to help wikipedia. Seriously id like to know thank you. by the way I see you are involved in Scientology projects perhaps we could work on one together. perhaps could you give me some guide if you have time on how to make a good article that is perfect or perhaps easy to start maybe something stub related. Thank you it is greatly appreciated. Zaharous--Zaharous (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of questions to respond to here. I'd start of by reading WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. WP:CIT and WP:CITE will help you with citing sources as well, which should preferably be secondary and not primary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, are you a Scientologist?

Greetings, Cirt.

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but I'd just like to know, and not for frivolous reasons. I'm inquiring simply because there's something else I'd like to ask you, but whether or not I do is predicated upon your response to this question. By the way, if you'd like to know, I'm NOT a Scientologist. No prejudice is implied or intended here - I Love and respect ALL.

With my gratitude, I thank you. Monk777 (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no, I am not. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos, my friend!

Thank you Cirt, I appreciate your candor (and wisdom!)

OK, so now here's what I'd like to ask you (now that I know I can potentially get an honest and unbiased response): You recently deleted an addition I made to the "critical reception" section of the Scientology flick (technically it isn't - I understand) Battlefield Earth's page here. Now, I realized as I posted it that I was adding a "Subjective", rather than an "Objective" edit, and was wondering if it would be removed or not (I half expected it might be). It was, and I can accept that just fine.

One thing I truly value about Wikipedia is it's objective nature, and I realize this is due to the diligence of it's many contributers. This is great, and I want to be sure that all my future contributions are in this same vein. So my question to you is about my admittedly editorial insertion that you deleted. Would there have been a way to re-word that sentiment so that it would meet with Wiki guidelines, or is is just 100% subjective editorial material regardless?

If a statement like I made reflects the view of the vast majority of people, or if it could be substantiated with multiple reviewer's references, for example, could it then cross the line from subjective to relatively objective (enough to withstand deletion, at least)? I understand that this is a complex and multi-layered issue, but any advice you have, or referral to the appropriate help pages, would be quite helpful.

I really appreciate your time and assistance (Yes, I am a new member here, and still "learning the ropes", so to speak).

Gratefully,

Ed Monk777 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: take a moment to read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Essentially, the answer is yes, if the information could be backed up to secondary sources like reviews, it could be added. However, you are also correct that the info you tried to add was pretty subjective. Myself and ChrisO (talk · contribs) received some comments in the article's WP:FAC discussion, while working to get the article to Featured Article status, that the Critical reception section was overweighted towards criticism, so I tried to balance it a bit. I think at the moment it's at a pretty good balance, and would rather not overweight it too much. Not to mention the fact that the size of that section is pretty sufficient already as well. Cirt (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Neddy

Sorry, I missed your comment on my talk page (due to someone posting after you). Unfortunately, I'm a little busy with some of my hurricane articles, but I'll give you a few things that should be done to the article before you put it up for FAC.

• The couch gag summary is rather long. Seeing as none of them are complete sentences, there should be no periods (full-stops). Additionally, I just noticed that it was taken directly from SNPP.com. That should be re-written.
• The lede should be a bit longer – ideally two paragraphs. I don't think the name of the hurricane needs to be in the lede, but perhaps some more plot could be thrown in up there. Be sure that the writing is professional, and avoids any flowery language. Hurricane Barbara viciously strikes Springfield but, by pure chance, the house of Ned Flanders is the only one destroyed. viciously? Additionally, stating that Ned Flanders' house being the only one destroyed is a bit of Original research, I believe. Does anywhere in the episode state that specifically?
• The plot is rather long, and I would say in need of a re-write before taking it to FAC. In the second sentence, is it necessary to state that Homer poorly secured the family home? Personally, I would say something like, "...resulting in panicked citizens storming the Kwik-E-Mart and causing the Simpson family to take refuge in their basement." This eliminates the hole when the next sentence says, "and the family cautiously leaves the basement" without ever saying they were in the basement. "Meanwhile, next door Flanders" reads awkwardly, and it should either specify that it was Ned, or the Flanders family in general. "Distraught with annoyance, Flanders begins to believe that God is punishing him and, seeking answers, he goes to read the Bible in the church but receives a papercut." This sentence is a tad long. Additionally, Dictionary.com says that papercut is not a word, and needs to be written as paper cut.
• Quick question - was Jay Sherman really billed as a guest star? I find that perplexing, given that he only made a brief cameo in one scene.
• In the production section, I'm confused about the inclusion of the second paragraph (the stuff about "John Swartzwelder"), since that doesn't appear to have anything to do with production. I recommend moving that paragraph to the "cultural references" section.
• In the reception section, it'd be great to see some reviews.

Good luck with improving it further, and if you need any more comments, feel free to give me a post. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers! I'll get on this when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your AN3 report

Your AN3 report against User:Mesplay has been declined under the unclean hands rule. You and User:RelHistBuff have removed good-faith votes contributed by Mesplay from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. This revert removed only the vote, as the new listing was commented out. Removing other people's votes from discussion pages isn't justified. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realize I was removing a vote along with Mesplay's addition of an entirely new nom, which was in contradiction with WP:TFA/R - I also acted assuming RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) had reverted in good faith, but perhaps RelHistBuff also accidentally removed the oppose vote with the new nom. I also responded at WP:ANI/3RR that your decision was appropriate, considering the user's later edits. While adding back in his new nom for a 5th time, commented out, is a bit unorthodox, his edits are no longer disruptive to the page, and as blocks should not be punitive, your judgment is sound. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(laughs)'No longer disruptive', try 'never were'. My oppose vote stands exactly as reasoned. What have you learned from that? Share it with RelHistBuff.Mesplay (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, after noticing that Mesplay (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), it seems that my judgment was not that far off about the "disruptive" nature of this user. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More questions about Objectivity on Wikipedia

Cirt, Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. I'll read up on the links you mentioned to better educate myself.

Generally I've always been able to recognize and separate my personal opinions from a topic so as to address it rationally, scientifically, and objectively, but there are times when such abilities are indeed tested. The Battlefield Earth Critical Reception page is one of those instances, IMHO.

I mean, as far as that specific section being "overweighted towards criticism", well hey, if that alleged "bias" accurately reflects the consensus majority view, then it is hence de facto objective reality, or at least consensus reality, right? Either way, I'd assume that this qualifies it as maintaining proper standards of objectivity, but is my judgement in error here? Now mind you, I'm not just talking about my original insertion (you pretty much answered that), but rather about the work that you (and others) are currently doing on that section.

And if so, then where does debate legitimately enter into this particular topic? If, for example, there are 99 extremely negative reviews of this film out there (and in all fairness, this should probably be additionally weighted in some way, since many of those reviews are written in an exceptionally harsh and condemning tone - i.e. "Worst film of the century"), for every 1 positive review, does this not REQUIRE that an objective account of Battlefield Earth on Wikipedia in fact BE "overweighted towards criticism"? Indeed, if this is a film which remains at the BOTTOM of IMDB's Worst Film List year after year, and is also listed as "THE WORST film ever" by numerous sources on that page, doesn't that tend to mean that "excessive criticism" of Battlefield Earth actually IS objective, and thus cannot justifiably claimed to be negatively biased?

I mean after all, I did first run across the Battlefield Earth page via Wikipedia's own " List of films considered the worst" page - so Wikipedia is already acknowledging this film's inherent and objective "badness" (to some degree), right?

And honestly, would this even be an issue if the "overweighted towards criticism" complaint were being leveled at the film Plan 9 from Outer Space (a film which was compared to Battlefield Earth by many reviewers, by the way)?

I ask this partially because I imagine there are many Scientology drones out there looking to edit Wiki pages to conform to a particular self-serving image (yes, an opinionated remark, I admit). On a personal note, the negative tone of the critical reception section for Battlefield Earth made it incredibly entertaining to read, and had me laughing out loud! I realize of course that Wikipedia is meant to inform, not entertain, but if the truth itself is already inherently funny, so be it!

Anyway, these seem to me like good questions in general (that many readers might benefit from), and I imagine it's something which you and others here wrestle with on a daily basis. I know I'm asking alot here, so please don't feel pressured to address all that I've brought up. If you would like to, please do so at your leisure. Also, feel free to refer me to an appropriate Wiki forum, to a staff member, or wherever you think this would be best suited. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this subject, and I thank you again for your time and assistance.

By the way Cirt, it sounds like you're doing great work here, and I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

One more thing, I'm very new at messaging back and forth like this on Wikipedia, so I'd be receptive to any tips you might have on how to post here, proper format, etc.

Gratefully, Ed (Monk777 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for acknowledging my work here, much appreciated. As far as Battlefield Earth, I continue to maintain that the representation in the Critical reception at present seems fine, but if I come across any other interesting secondary sources I'd consider them. If you'd like to know more about that, take a look and read the article's WP:FAC discussion page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mesplay and DavidYork71

Given the flurry of activity and the types of contribs this user is making I am almost certain they are yet another one of a gazillion DavidYork71 sockpuppets. I'd do a checkuser instead of reporting for 3rr if I were you. I'd do it myself but I have to go to work (plus to be honest I'm new enough to this Wiki thing that I don't exactly know how). Changchub (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt cannot perform checkusers, only users with checkuser rights can. Qst (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Mesplay (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked, as a confirmed sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, figures... he'll be back in another form before too long though. I know you can't do checkusers, neither can I... I meant checkuser request. But heck, what does it matter now anyway! Changchub (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for notifying me about it anyway. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Request from Crystal08

I kindly ask that you do not refer to me as a sock or sockpuppet. That is a derogatory term used to describe people that create multiple accounts to deceive. I have been completely upfront and have only one account. The only reason my username changed was to comply with the naming convention and I posted that information clearly on the talk page and my user page.

I do appreciate your looking at some or all of the sources I provided in my edit and your comments about the edit to the "Observers ... have noted" paragraph. Please also note that I have not reverted to my edits, but instead have put more information on the The Hunger Project talk page about those suggested edits, including a list with links to the cited references. I hope that you or another neutral editor will read and respond to the comments and perhaps make those edits that seem good to you. I think this is consistent with your suggestion on the article’s talk page. Crystal08 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. I will check out those sources you left on the article's talk page when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother et al

I am removing myself from this situation, including my restrictions, as they were not the core issue. If you wish to seek my input on this in the future, as with what I attempted recently, do not bother.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GAH

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For being so bloody good at portals, I give you this barnstar. Long may your skill put shame to influence us all. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cirt (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, seriously. All those stars at the top of your userpage make my head spin... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your continual "small fixes" to the Project Chanology article - formatting cites, being vigilant about OR, etc. I always hated such things when I was in school, and could never bring myself to spend my spare time doing them, which makes your work all the more impressive. Thanks. Z00r (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for noticing/thanking me. Cirt (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Marge Gets a Job

Hey I did a lot of work on Marge Gets a Job recently, but due to my break, if you want to finish it up and submit it, that would be great! Ctjf83Talk 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to intrude - but Ctjf83 and I discussed this on IRC a couple of weeks back and this was one of The Simpsons articles that we were going to work on together. I'd be happy to finish this off, if you want. Qst (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Norway

Thanks for telling me, hope I didnt come off too strong. --CPacker (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for edits on The Hunger Project article

I wanted to inform you that I've just posted a request for edits and editors along with my proposed edits to the introductory sections and infotable of The Hunger Project article. I hope you do get time soon to participate in editing the article, but didn't want the burden to be yours alone. Thanks. Crystal08 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine, posting in the manner you did to the talk page seems appropriate to me. I'll try to take a look at it if I get a chance, but I have some featured content drives I'm in the midst of at the moment. Cirt (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Account creation template

Is there a specific template that we could use in Talk:Project Chanology and/or Project Chanology asking users who are going to edit to consider creating an account so their IP Address would be hidden? I'm not sure if the Partyvan wiki asks them to. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the partyvan wiki does but it would be best to just welcome IP users with {{subst:welcomeip}}. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query

I meant that it's a shame that it has to come to an AfD until an article is cleaned up with sourced and such - although I agree with you that it should be encouraged in both situations. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Danke!

Thanks for the warm welcome! Micahmedia (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. Hope you have fun on the project. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

How do you think we are coming along?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really had a chance to do any work on it myself at all yet. I would still like to see Portal:Chicago/Did you know standardized with the same type of layout and formatting as Portal:Norway/DYK, and so on for the other subsections of the portal. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by standardized. I put the hooks in groups like that and sourced all of them except for one. I just beefed up the intro to make it featured portal quality, IMO. It could probably use a second pair of eyes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can do some of the standardizing myself, to show you some examples. I'll get on that soon. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chanology

Well, the Road to February 10th vid is up there. The video documents the actual protest, and gives further reasons as to them. So how can it not be notable and unrelated? Blue123AH (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I saw that one cited in a few secondary sources, but have yet to see this new vid mentioned anywhere, yet. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. Thank you!

Hello. Thank you for cleaning up the crap on the Church of Scientology International chapter. It was the first time for me that someone had vandalized something that I had worked on. I was quite shocked when I saw it and I didn't know what to do. But then you had already swiftly recovered the previous version. Thanks again.Geo1967 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for thanking me! Cirt (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing Mistake

Thanks for pointing it out, I noticed it myself, and I will admit I didn't RTFM on how to make aritcles like that, thanks for doing such a nice job fixing it though :) uberushaximus Talk 02:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I've reopened it. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know about the tag, but I'm wondering how to go about the readding to AFD part... I'll probably just add it to today's page, sort of like a relist. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

fancy a chat?

I wonder if I can persuade you to consider a 'real world' chit chat at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly? - I think we might look at a conversation next Monday 7th, at 22.30 UTC (early evening US time) - it'd be great to have you along! If you're interested, you can 'sign up' at the wiki page.... cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I think that might not work. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Universe question...

I was struck by the wording of the article Lord of the Universe (documentary) even the first time I read it. Why does it say it's a satirical documentary? I can find no reference or source that claims that, IMDB certainly doesn't. I have not seen the movie, although I have it ordered. I read the page regarding the award it won, here, and that page would lead me to believe that only serious journalism of the highest calibre receives this award. Certainly not given out to satires and parodies. I noticed you've done some recent work on the article, and was wondering what your thoughts on this matter are? Typecasting this article as a "satirical documentary" would seem to cheapen or lessen it's importance, don't you think? Aside from the opening sentence using this word, and the "See Also" section (which I think should also be removed), there is no reference to any parody within the article. If you think this is worth pursuing, I'll move this over to the Talk page for that article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will look through the sources/citations to see where I can find mention of this, but I am relatively certain that it was referred to as such. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it, All Movie Guide. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that, at least I have some starting point for that context. The video is on it's way to me already, between that reference, and actually watching it, I hope to get a clearer picture of this thing. Thanks for digging that out for me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and if you come across any other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that could be used in the article, please let me know. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! You've procured some great contributions for Wikipedia (all these stars really do make me, well, starry-eyed). You've been a great asset to Wikipedia, and I've been glad to help you in any way I can. You'd be happy to know that I'm going to explore options on how to assist WikiProject Films editors in finding and accessing resources for the articles. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Scientology beliefs and practices

No problem, we are all in this together. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal woes?

Any idea of how to get rid of suggest and archive on the Wales portal subsections? Thanks in advance, Rudget (review) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure that's simple, I'll fix a couple subsections and show you and then you will understand how to do the rest by example. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. Thanks. Rudget (review) 12:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

I have created Portal:Chicago/Selected landmark and Portal:Chicago/Selected list and added sections. Feedback would be appreciated. I have added many articles to Portal:Chicago/Selected article and Portal:Chicago/Selected biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I have added free images to all the selected articles that you removed fair use images from.
2. I think those additional sections are interesting. In some sense though the things you can do seems like it should be on a project page and not on the portal. The main topics is sort of redundant with the category tree and the main header. So I am not so sure either is needed.
3. I assume you want biography and landmark in the same format as article
4. I don't know what 10 lines is because it will depend on your screen resolution. You should suggest a character count.
5. All the landmarkd as you can see at Portal:Chicago/Selected landmark are official landmarks. Seven are National Historic Landmarks and four are Chicago Landmarks. I made space for two WP:GACs that are on hold and likely to be promoted in the next week or so.
6. The point of the featured portal is to put forth the best that the project has to offer. We have WP:FPs highlighted in the selected pictures, WP:FAs highlighted in the selected articles so why not WP:FLs in the selected list section. Agreeing on a layout for the hook is part of the reason lists have not made the main page. Lists vary in format so much that designing a clip is difficult and the easiest solution is to use a blurb from the WP:LEAD as the hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I will be hands off until you say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Secret of Treasure Island

Hi Cirt, thanks for writing. As to the changes, I always expect that when books are used for research purposes that they are part of a bibliography, which is actually a list of reference sources that are important to the research and writing. Even if they were read for background information they then become part of the bibliography. I did make one slight change to the article to also establish a true bibliographical record. The use of the term foot/endnote is also being established as part of the refernce section.

In creating a bibliography, it is different than a list of notes. A bibliography is actually a listing of reference sources, which is sometime called "for further reading" in Wikipedia. If you assume that the editor has already read these sources before assigning them to the listing, then they are actually used for background research. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

I'm done, no use trying to continue this line of discourse. Have a good day. Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

I'm now assuming that you do wish to continue a dialogue. Be prepared, I was a former reference librarian with a backgound in cataloging, so some of the comments I may make come from that experience. The response will come in parts. Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

I am a writer and filmmaker, having directed two documentary films, screenwriter on two others and worked variously as an extra, gofer, grip, gaffer, consultant and on-screen actor on 10 films. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Articles with major edits by Bzuk:

• 1941 (film)
• 633 Squadron
• Air Force (film)
• Always (film)
• Anna May Wong
• Angels One Five
• The Aviator
• Battle Hymn (film)
• Battle of Britain (film)
• The Best Years of Our Lives
• Captains of the Clouds
• The Dam Busters (film)
• Firefox (film)
• The First of the Few
• The Flight of the Phoenix
• Fly Away Home
• Flyboys
• Flying Tigers (film)
• Forty-Ninth Parallel
• Frank Capra
• God Is My Co-Pilot (film)
• A Guy Named Joe
• The High and the Mighty (film)
• The Hindenburg (film)
• Humphrey Bogart
• Island in the Sky (1953 film)
• It Happened One Night
• James Stewart (actor)
• It's a Wonderful Life
• Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
• The Lion Has Wings
• Marlon Brando
• Michael Powell (director)
• Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
• One of Our Aircraft Is Missing
• Pearl Harbor (film)
• Reach for the Sky
• The Right Stuff (film)
• The Rocketeer (film)
• The Spirit of St. Louis (film)
• Strategic Air Command (film)
• The Hunters (1958 film)
• Thirty Seconds over Tokyo
• Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
• Tora! Tora! Tora!
• The Tuskegee Airmen
• Twelve O'Clock High
• The War Lover
• William A. Wellman
• Wings (film)
• A Yank in the RAF}}

As the majority of my Wikipedia editing was aviation related, I joined the WP:Aviation Group where I found a number of other editors who were grappling with format and referencing issues as well as content concerns. One of the strengths I may provide is in utilizing the standard referencing protocols that underlined my previous career as a librarian.

One of the major issues I see in WikiProject Films as well as in other groups is in dealing with a consistent referencing format and a clear example of that issue is the use of the "References" section. The use of "Notes" is now established as a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a "Bibliography" and not a "Further reading" section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and as a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.

The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The "Further reading" section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, It's A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff (film) and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.

As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available)<style guides> for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide that editors may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing as shown in examples such as the The Rocketeer (film) and Anna May Wong citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.

As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per editor Jeff Finlayson's suggestion. and FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. You may have to read this background note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.

Excuse the pedantic rambling, but I thought I might want to establish my background and where I may be able to help in WikiProject:Films as an assistant as I certainly do not consider my experience in the film group as being extensive.

In terms of editing style, I enjoy working in collaboration with other editors and regardless of the complexity of the discussion, I always endeavor to explain my rationale in editing (sometime to the point of eye-watering essays) and have made a commitment to use the tenet of AGF (Assume Good Faith) and never revert an edit but to alter it or ask for clarification, other than when encountering clear examples of vandalism wherein a revert is the more common alternative. As to writing style, I tend to write in declarative, simple sentences and use standard paragraphing and context connections. Use of attribution is also important to me and as explained earlier, I have adopted a combination of Harvard citation and Modern Language Association bibliographic record but I am familiar with other systems and can use or adapt to many styles of writing and editing.

I am currently working on the following film-related article (where you can see the use of a reference guide). The list of film articles that I primarily researched and created is an eclectic group composed of adventures, biographies, comedies and classic films but nonetheless, here it is:

• • • 1941
    • Always (film)
    • Anna May Wong
    • Battle of Britain (film)
    • The High and the Mighty (film)
    • It's a Wonderful Life
    • Marlon Brando
    • James Stewart (actor)
    • One of Our Aircraft Is Missing
    • The Right Stuff (book)
    • The Right Stuff (film)
    • The Rocketeer (film)
    • Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
    • William Wellman

FWIW, sorry I have to get back to real world, I will write back to you this evening (Canada time) if you wish to continue our conversation. As for Battlefield Earth, it's Ok in terms of referencing, slight errors in style, mixing MLA, APA guides but that ISO dating is really not easy for users from other countries to read and understand. As to the content, you didn't find this a "bit over the top" considering this film is not exactly an example of classic filmmaking? Cheers. Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

I do detect a slight layer of frost removal which is nice. As to:

1. Especially because I was already using the WP:CIT convention on this particular article, I would appreciate it if it is not removed. It is fine to add new sources not formatted that way, I can always reformat later, but this keeps things uniform in the future, when potential new editors to the article might not be as familiar with citing formatting. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, as I mentioned, once a style is established even the %)(*())Y*Y templates, I stick to it unless there are grievous errors, then I painstakingly rewrite the whole, cotton-pickin' (I love that phrase) mess.

1. Your resume and accomplishments are impressive, as are the list of articles that you are working on and would like to focus on in the future, and maybe I could collaborate with you on some of them at some point, but I'd prefer to focus on one article at a time, for the most part. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, you name the topic and I would be happy to collaborate with you.

1. My understanding is that "Further reading" refers to recommendations on sources that the reader of the Wikipedia article can refer to for more information on the subject matter, yet that was not used at all in references for the article itself. "Bibliography" implies that all sources listed were used in some fashion in the article, and in this particular case, that would be false. Cirt (talk

Not in the publishing world, bibliography means a list of references. There is no such thing as "further reading", you either identify and recommend reference sources or not. What you are referring to as "references" is actually the endnote or footnote record. Check any definition and you will find a clear and unequivical notation on the use of a bibliogrpahical listing. Think of it this way, if you read that source to get a better appreciation of the subject and then list it as a place for others to go, then either include it in the bibliography even if there is no specific mention (BTW, many of the Secret of Treasure Island citations could have appeared in a Harvard citation with the full bibliographical record appearing as part of the Bibliography) or leave it out. I do have to go for now. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Do not take my grousing about Battlefield Earth to heart. It was the one film in a great while that I "walked" out on, (actually saw it at an "ozone" (drive-in) and drove out not wanting to watch any more; my wife slept through it??). I just made a snide remark about the film receiving such a "star" treatment when it isn't an example of great filmmaking- see Pearl Harbor (film). The writing was fine on the article, I might not have expended so much energy on it is my only retort. Remember, take this in good humour, I may not be the only critic of the film... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading

This explains it best: This section may also be titled "Bibliography", but that title is best reserved for material authored by the article subject, as it is ambiguous and may also refer to the references.

Put under this header in a bulleted list that should usually be alphabetized, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers. This section follows the same formatting rules as the "References" section, but is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article.

Cirt, I did mention that this is the Wickywacky world. This section may also be titled "Bibliography" yet when you look at [1] the direction is further confused by indicating end and footnote references. That is why I stick to the established order of "References" further sub-divided by "Notes" (citations), "Bibliography" (full bibliographical notation) and yes, even "For further reading" as that makes the most sense. I cannot change every article I see but I do try to make a dent here and there (bumper car style). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Norwegian DYKs

Thanks for the positive feedback, Cirt. I really enjoyed writing those articles and I've got many more on my to do-list. I'm a big fan of your work on Portal:Norway/DYK, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, will drop you a notice if and when. I'm going to be busy IRL for a while now so it might take some time but I'll get to it. Manxruler (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you catch that DYK on Thorbjørn Jagland? Manxruler (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

hey Cirt - just thought I'd drop you a note to say that there's another conversation planned for tomorrow evening US time - further details at the link above... you'd be welcome, of course! - Privatemusings (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note, will take a look. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American Civil War at WP:FPOC

Hope I didn't come across as testy last night in FP talk; I was fighting bandwidth issues and was frustrated with my provider. I should really thank you for helping to make the portal better. I can see you've been watching portals as they evolved (this is a 2006-era antique portal). The candid feedback you've provided was just the tonic I was looking for during portal review, but I left the portal up there for a month and got nothing. I'm just starting to help the P:ARW, and I want to incorporate the lessons learned here to start that project off on a more modern path. Any helpful words will be appreciated. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that portal when I get a chance - feel free to message me again when it goes up for WP:PPREV. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I've resolved all the issues you've raised, with the exception of the "things you can do" list. Please give the portal another look when you have time. Thanks for spending so much time making this portal a better one. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you here (as to redundancy), but I'll defer to your first hand knowledge of what is expected for an FP. I'll concede this portal is a bit "busy" compared to some FPs. Is the redlink block in the to do list going to be a sticking point? BusterD (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus may differ from my positions, but yea, I still think there are too many redlinks - better to highlight 3-5 requested articles and have the rest on a "Suggestions" subpage of the relevant WikiProject, or something like that. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The big issue here is that this may not be up to me; I'll need consensus at ACW task force to change one of their tools. I don't suppose collapsing it would help. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy fix - just create a separate subpage of the portal for that, and include selected contents from that template, just more succinct/concise. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm committed to using the TF tool. I might claim a Portal:WWI precedent; this issue was never raised during that FP process. Looks like they use the same template we do, and they've got just as deep and rich a subject matter as we do. The other way would be to use tabs, like P:USN. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean is to put a smaller list of Things you can do, right at Portal:American Civil War/Things you can do, instead of transcluding the entire Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/American Civil War. You can still link to that template "For more ..." or something like that. See Portal:Comedy/Things you can do for a smaller version. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the example (and the reset). I was having a hard time visualizing your suggestion. Let me absorb that today. Is this your only still unresolved issue? BusterD (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been AFK for a a day or two, and now P:ACW is featured. Thanks for all your input. I've already trimmed a bunch from the redlinks on the to do list, and now I have a bunch of remedial editing to do to get the blurbs shorter, but thanks enormously for teaching me what's expected in a FP. I'll try to pay you back by volunteering for Portal Peer Review, getting other portals into a position where you have less work to do at FP. IMHO, we've got enough portals to start a "Good portal" strata along with "Featured portal." By creating this slightly lower performance bar, we might be able to get a more dynamic portal promotion process going. Again, thanks! BusterD (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no question I chose the harder path on this portal. I also agree that we need more volunteers for the processes as they are before we could add the GP process. I'll be helping Kirill with Portal:American Revolutionary War first, then trying to create something very special with Portal:Civil war. Please feel free to stare over my shoulder and make suggestions. Plus I'm submitting myself for editor review soon, so I may ask you to contribute there. Again, thank you! BusterD (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the crown

Thanks for the Imperial Triple Crown and your kind remarks. JGHowes ^talk - 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nice cup of coffee

blocked?

this is the library of a college, so please don't block it becuase of some idoit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.166.24 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speier

Thanks to you to.I'll see if I can help get it into further shape in the next few days.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for correcting my spelling errors and not giving me a hard time about making them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Augusto Roa Bastos

I just heard from User:qp10qp, one of the editors working on Augusto Roa Bastos, that he now thinks the article meets the criteria for a good article. Would you be able to take another look?

I also wondered if you were aware of the FA team project, which is currently supporting the project that the Augusto Roa Bastos is part of. I know you have a lot of FA experience, and I thought you might be interested in participating, if not now then in some future mission. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take another look at Augusto Roa Bastos shortly, sorry, been busy w/ other stuff lately. Yes, I am aware of WP:FAT, quite flattering really to ask me about it, thank you - but I have a list of pending articles I'd like to get to FA status before committing to something so ambitious as the FAT. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe your points have been addressed now. Many thanks for taking the time to review and re-review the article. qp10qp (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for letting me know DYK included a fact from Payment on Demand. Today I nominated an article I expanded two days ago. Do these nominations generally get seen, or do they tend to get lost in the shuffle when submitted two days after the fact? MovieMadness (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they get seen. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB

My e-mail is now enabled. I can't send attachments through Wikipedia's email system, so email me first and I'll reply with an attachment of the AWB file. Epbr123 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Film/Did you know

No problem, thanks for the appreciataion! Just keep hoping that I don't break the portal when I keep tweaking it! --BelovedFreak 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not right

This is not right for a news report, and not good for Wiki's credibility.[2] You don't slant the news to make a good story if you want credibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I passed the message along to you, because you have an account over there, and I don't plan to get one. Especially if they cook up stories like that :-) I guess I'm a nitpicker, but that kind of slant troubles me. Anyway, I didn't know if you were following that thread or if he would come back to it; just wanted to make sure the message was delivered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, where would I find the time ?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, this page is ironic reading. They're seriously talking about being Wikipedia's "watchdog" on the one hand, while actively advocating to falsely slant a story for better publicity impact on the other hand? This is bothering me more and more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buckskin Brigades, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry, I think that this is my fault.  :( --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite request

Thanks for creating the article Final Blackout. Could you please add cites to the ends of the sentences where the References displayed are used, so that one can tell which references are used where? Cirt (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, I'm not sure which items in the article you thought needed inline citations. The relevant paragraph of the style guide to which you directed me states that articles can be supported with both general references or inline citations. It further states that inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. I've drilled down to some of the other guidelines and essays and WP:WHEN seems to indicate that inline citations are appropriate for data and statistics but also makes it clear that it is an essay and not a guideline. In the article for Final Blackout, the two references I cited generally both support nearly everything in the article. They are both essentially bibliographies. However, only the Chalker/Owings gives the print count. And only the Tuck gives the number of installments of the serialization. I've added inline citations reflecting that. If there are other statements for which you still have concerns, please let me know. Thanks.--Rtrace (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The way you did it looks good. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I tweaked the footnotes a bit further, if I took your meaning correctly from the note on my talk page. I look forward to your work on the article. I haven't actually read the novel, which is why the article is so sparse. Both my sources have only single line summaries.--Rtrace (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castle Kyalami, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the updating! Cirt (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Swift

As per your interest on the subject - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Drapier's Letters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated refs on The Drapier's Letters. No line should be unsourced as of now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all of the ref/citation problems, so it should all work properly now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added scans of the original five letter title pages and added two sections on post production. I hope most of the problems should be fixed by now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant at first about the notes and references until I dug through the template section looking for something else and I found the citation template, which explained the complicated (but amazing) process of connecting two sections together in that manner. It does help organization, even if it takes a lot of effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help making changes to the "Getting It" page, drop me a message and I will comb through it to address some of the concerns listed on the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will get to it soon and let you know. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson

hello, would you mind reviewing the Janet Jackson article which is a current FAC? Its been up for a few days and is being widely ignored compared ot the other candidates. I'm worried the FAC will close without any reviews. If you choose to review, thankyou in advance. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

oops. I didn't realize you were nominating an article yourself, when i was scrolling through the FAC page I misread and thought you were reviewing Getting It: The psychology of est instead of nominating. I'll understand if you do not have time to review mine. thanks! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States portals by city

What do you think about creating a template including all Category:United States portals by city portals. I think if we do that, then as new portals are created they will add the template and add their portal to it. Thus, all portals would have a current listing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cor Scorpii

Hi, Cirt. Just dropping by to tell you Cor Scorpii made DYK. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might you have a look at this?

I've posted a topic here [[3]] and was wondering what you thought?Smatprt (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain why these links are firstly inappropriate and secondly why they hurt the page ? these are not acts of vandalism but relevant links that add substance to the page. For example in the page it states that this movie was leaked to the internet, well Ive just provided verification to that statement with proof that it was. Please explain. Wogglelump (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the PirateBay link is probably inappropriate

On the other hand, there are quite a few links to digg.com articles on Wikipedia. I think it might be optimistic to assume that the The Profit article would be allowed to make FA... even the Jonestown article comes under enough attack as it is. John Nevard (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the PirateBay link doesn't fly, and others will probably also have concerns about the Digg.com link as well. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

Thanks for updating, and for notifying me (I'm sure I would have missed it, otherwise ;) ). Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've only three DYKs, though, compared to your twenty. Therefore, the "good work" is obviously yours. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the standard triple crown, and requested the Imperial one. However, Durova seemingly forgot to award it, and I don't care enough so as to request it again. Besides, only 1 FA, 2 GAs, and 1 DYK (assuming this one gets to the main page, else 2 DYKs) left until the Napoleonic crown, which should amount to a couple more months of work (and I'm perfectly happy in the meantime). · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I might, we'll see. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK, Giulia de' Medici

Thanks but I only added a comment, it's not my nom! Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was going by the next update credits. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For the tremendous work you do. Dlohcierekim 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown awards

After you hand them out are you updating the winner's list? Lara❤Love 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will update it soon, just haven't gotten to it yet. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. No big deal, just checking. Thanks for helping out with it! I saw it was quite a backlog. Lara❤Love 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.

Congratulations on writing the 2,000th FA. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no one "the 2,000th", but rather a set of 5, but thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the DYK note! And congrats on...well, whatever the right way to say the above is. I'll check out your 1/5 2k FA :) -Pete (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK at Portal:Journalism

I just wanted to thank you for adding my DYK article, John Roderick (correspondent), to the Portal:Journalism. I really appreciate it! I took a look at the Portal. It's very well done and very professional looking. I do have a couple other journalism related biographies which appeared in the DYK over the past year or so. They were all created by me, except for the article on Bill Hosokawa, which I expanded:

• ...that Ah Jook Ku, a journalist and writer based in Hawaii, was the first Asian American reporter for the Associated Press, as well as the first Asian American female reporter for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin? (appeared in DYK on Sept. 9, 2007
• ...that Augie Hiebert not only built Alaska's first television station, KTVA, but also founded the state's first FM radio station, KNIK-FM? (appeared in DYK on Sept. 23, 2007) - this may have more to do with broadcasting than journalism though.
• ...that when Manolo Reyes created and hosted one of South Florida's first Spanish-language newscasts in 1960, the station received a number of complaints from non-Spanish speakers? (appeared on DYK on January 15, 2008)
• ...that Japanese American journalist Bill Hosokawa and his family were released from the Heart Mountain War Relocation Center in 1943 in order to take a job as a copy editor with The Des Moines Register? (appeared on DYK on March 5, 2008)

• Thanks again! Have a great day! Scanlan (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

top ten wikipedias

Hi there. Since you comented on the discussion before, I would like to hear your opinion on this suggestion. Cheers, --Waldir ^talk 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Profit

Please explain why these links are inappropriate. Other pages have external links to Digg and The Pirate Bay has its own page on Wikipedia ( how about calling that whole page inappropriate !)You have also tried to delete the link to the official website that contains the trailer !! Explain why this is inappropriate? Wikipedia is big store of facts but you seem to be deleting certain facts. Why ? I have asked you before to explain your actions and you haven't. I am again asking you to explain why you consider these links are inappropriate. While I wholeheartedly commend you on your attempts to make this page tidy and presentable, I am concerned you are maybe being a little dictatorial on the content of this page. I thought that the wiki is open to all to contribute information that others may use to enrich their knowledge of the world. Selecting what information the public has access to stinks a little of censorship. Wogglelump (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page, Talk:The Profit, where I have opened a Request for Comment to solicit some outside input on these very issues, namely, the inclusion of the 2 disputed external links to Digg.com and Pirate Bay. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Profit

I've added the sanctions template to the article and advised the IP that any actions which might be considered vandalism is potentially ground for blocking, and also said adding an external link you've been told doesn't qualify co an article could qualify as such. I hope that'll be enough. If it isn't, then we might have to semi-protect. I hope the warning will be enough, though. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They've been given notice as well. Personally, I'd love to protect a lot more pages around here than are protected. But we still have to be "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" as much as possible. I in particular am probably a bit more "self-righteous" (as those who disagree with me would probably say) than a lot of others around here, and would love to see some of my more frequent vandal reversion requirements protected so that doesn't happen. But we are supposed to apply them only in extreme cases. I'm hoping with the warnings whoever this is won't make things get to that point. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Universe

I think the MOS issues are now fixed. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see jossi has jumped in regarding your removal of "satirical", you should probably know, he's nothing if not tenacious with his viewpoint, might wanna prepare for a bit of a grind, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought "satire" was out of place here. Maelefique ^(talk) 05:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How long is usually given for discussion to be ended on an RfC like this? (It doesn't seem like we're getting too many opinions on either side yet). Maelefique ^(talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that posting it to WP:JOURN would be the most useful place to post it, since I think that's the category it belongs under, however, just in the interest of fairness, posting it to WP:FILMS is probably a good idea too, although I'm not sure about how helpful that will be. I'll post to them in the morning, if you don't beat me to it. Maelefique ^(talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Both done. Maelefique ^(talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty much conclusive, and with surprisingly little argument, any objection to taking off the RfC tag now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC tag removed. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks

Hi, sorry for reverting the dyk portal credit template from t:dyk/n, I didn't realize it was that new. And thanks for cleaning up the credits after me, on at least two occasions. I'd give you a wikithanks but I'm not really sure how it's different from regular thanks, so you'll have to do with an old fashioned one. - Bobet 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and my pleasure. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

Thanks for the head's up. Scary incident... Dreadstar † 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK

Thanks for the DYK on the Robert H. Storey article. I greatly appreciate it. Chris (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Principal and the Pauper

I agree that the page is close. I have two exams next week then I'm done for four months, so I'll nominate it after that and then I'll be able to devote my full attention to an FAC. Until then, try and find some people to take a look at it (perhaps asking people who opposed the THOH V FAC to take a look would be a good start). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to jive_filter page

Apologies in advance if I get this commenty-thingy wrong... I just undid your undo of my changes to the jive_filter page (so it is back to the state I set it to on April 1, an admittedly poor choice of dates). I am one of the principal authors of Jive, and know Clem Cole (the original creator) personally. Feel free to contact me at dan@klein.com for whatever validation I can provide. I have original source files (which I could have forged the creation/mod date), I have emails (which I could have forged in their entirety), and I have a few dozen people (who I could have bribed) who will back me up. Or you can look at my long publication history and resume, and see that some of my facts actually jibe, and just take my word for it :-) Dvk5606 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Other subjects

(copied over from my talk page:) Hi. I've only just seen this message (sorry). Not to my knowledge, though there is interest among other people. So we'll see... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Controversy

Cirt, I understand your comment on the Scientology Controversy was addressed to both me and Will. You stated the discussion to this point was pointy. I wouldn't mind if you could elaberate on that (on my talk page). I didn't "think" I was beeing pointy, however obviously I was...and hearing how you personaly read the discussion would give me some insight into my own behavior (and improve my editing practices). for obvious reasons I am in the middle of it, so I can't see it as a whole. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On April 21, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jason Beghe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks again for all your work Cirt.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note and thanks for doing the updating! Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Training routines (Scientology)

Would you please review the notability tag on this article when you get a chance? WillOakland (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Murder!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your support, encouragement, and contributions, particularly with reviewing. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition! Really appreciate this, especially coming from WP:MMM. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again to you!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK: My Brother, My Executioner

Thank you... (Sorry for being late in sending my thanks... I was a little busy...) - DaughterofSun (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you add Jesus in Scientology to Template:Jesus?

It's locked on me.Childnicotine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to add the summary of Jesus in Scientology into the Jesus article (with refs) at the appropriate place. I'd eagerly do it myself but that article, also, is locked on me :( PS. do you think the article is B-class or still only start-class? Thank U for adding refs and content in.Childnicotine (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you try posting a message to that article's talk page? I think that the article at present is still Start-class. Cirt (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did request on Talk:Jesus. I hope they follow through.Childnicotine (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Deepundergroundmilitarybase

To be honest nothing good has come from this account, and I was borderline going to block anyhow. But I figured they ought to have a final warning, and behold! They gave up. Sometimes the final warning does work! Of course if they vandalise again, even if a day or so goes by, I think they've used up all the warnings they are going to get. You were perfectly right to report, as it was clear and ongoing vandalism. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you an admin? Pedro :  Chat  10:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, per your user box. Sorry. Shame, as well. Pedro :  Chat  11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Though at a later date the bit would help you with updating DYK.... If you ever change your mind hit me up for a nomination - I'd be delighted. Pedro :  Chat  11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Textile Arts's portal nomination

The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on April 16 2008 has been promoted to featured portal status, and the 112th to do so. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Best regards,

Rudget 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help with our portal! - PKM (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Way cool – a portal's portal! ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks again for your help! Cirt (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Percy Hoskins

Thanks for the appreciation:)) Malick78 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to The Way to Happiness, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I use "preview" quite frequently, but it is quite hard to re-format and standardize a whole bunch of citations at once in one save, sorry. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaysuma Saidy Ndure

Hi Cirt. Did you catch the article on Gambian-Norwegian sprinter Jaysuma Saidy Ndure for Portal Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manxruler (talk • contribs)

You know, I saw it but didn't get a chance to add it yet, thanks for reminding me, will do that soon. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I have two more Norwegian articles as DYK nominees right now. Someone should update DYK now, by the way. Punkmorten (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanzania Wikinews

Hi, thanks for the message, and the welcome over at Wikinews! I'm definitely interested in helping out there. Have no experience at Wikinews yet, but I will have a look around & start contributing there.--BelovedFreak 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I wish to express the deepest apologies for the timing. If you have any specific questions or concerns, or need a suggestion on how to fix certain things, I will definitely help, via my talk page. I will just not be editing as much, especially not outside of my little niche, and I won't be active on the FAC for a while. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination - a thank you

Hi there. After several continuous hours of editing this yesterday, I really didn't fancy sorting the citations in this article. Many thanks for sorting them all out for me - it all looks much better. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Making relevant case law available

Hi Cirt. Thank you for the welcome. I'd like your advice on an issue. I have noticed that some articles dealing with events or individuals that have been the subject of lawsuits lack verifiable sources. For example, the article on Judith Richardson Haimes, a woman whose lawsuit became famous in the tort reform debates of the 1980s and 1990s, lacked the legal citation to her lawsuit or links to the text of the decision. I have the text of that decision, but am unsure of the best way to make it available within the wikimedia framework. Currently I have simply created a wikisource page [4] with the text of the judicial decision (categorized under Wikisource case law)[5], and then provided a link from Haimes' Wikipedia article to the Wikisource page. I also included a Wikisource template notifying readers that the original text is at Wikisource, but this seems a bit redundant since there are two links to the same source. Which is more preferable, the in-sentence link, or the Wikisource logo with link? Or should I insert a reference with the case name and include the link alongside it in the references?

I've created a similar setup with Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Gerry Armstrong, [6] and [7]. I have made basic attempts to tidy up the formatting on the judicial decisions located in wikisource, but I have not underlined legal citations or italicized case names as this would literally require several hours for a novice like myself. I am limited in the amount of time I can devote here, but assumed that it is better to make the text available with less-than-perfect formatting, than to withhold it. Take a look at these four pages and tell me if there is a better way to make these judicial decisions available and/or to link to this material. Thanks. Taiwan prepares (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

date in tags

I just noticed that you had added a date ie '25' to the tags in 'jesus in scientology'. Evidently, Wikipedia doesn't use the day, just "date=month year" format in tags, as this caused them to show up in a list of articles with invalid date formats. --Editor2020 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		"Neutral Scientology article"? Must be an oxymoron. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to include material from many varied secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Not any more, it's been too long for me to remember where I got it from...so it can be nominated for deletion, I don't care Ctjf83Talk 02:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

was that deletion notice really necessary? I said to go ahead and delete it! Ctjf83Talk 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies for "yelling at you" :) we still buds? lol :) Ctjf83Talk 05:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

Great. I'll be watching your edits and help where I can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a few new articles and a DYK hook. User:IvoShandor has become active again. He has many Chicago DYKs. I mentioned the portal to him, but I don't know if he is interested in contributing his hooks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you are busy being productive, but I think I am going to die of anticipation of your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

FYI info the Wikinews article on the School threat is in the signpost. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/School threat). --Smallbig (Anonymous101 on Wikinews) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I saw, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I need some assistance

Hello,

you are probably aware that I did some work on the articles on a handful of Scientology organizations. I got three warnings due to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. These are the three documents in question: Image:Application-8718-CSI.pdf, Image:Application-8718-SMI.pdf & Image:RTC-1.jpg. And these are the administrators, who complained about it: Jusjih & Sfan00 IMG.

I gave additional information on the discussion pages: the discussion, the discussion & the discussion.

So far no response. I am afraid that at one point some idiot will delete all my reference documents, because he doesn't comprehend the status of these documents.

I mean, I have written explicitely in the description part of every uploaded document that the document was obtained from the IRS:

Source : Office for 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporations, IRS Office Washington, D.C., Public Record of Church of Scientology International's Application for Tax-Exempt Status

Why do I still get these warnings? What the heck can I do? Thanks for any good advice.Geo1967 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Problem is solved, I think. Look at this nice little paragraph on the IRS website:

What tax documents must an exempt organization make available for public inspection and copying?

An exempt organization must make available for public inspection its exemption application. An exemption application includes the Form 1023 (for organizations recognized as exempt under § 501(c)(3)), Form 1024 (for organizations recognized as exempt under most other paragraphs of § 501(c)), or the letter submitted under the paragraphs for which no form is prescribed, together with supporting documents and any letter or document issued by the IRS concerning the application. A political organization exempt from taxation under § 527(a) must make available for public inspection and copying its notice of status, Form 8871.

I will copy and paste this in all the summaries of the uploaded IRS documents and it should be fine. Thanks for your suggestions. Geo1967 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RFD 4 U

Heya Cirt, this WP:RFD rang a bell: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 29#Curt Wilhelm VonSavage → Werner Erhard. Thought you might be interested. -Pete (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not really interested. KleenupKrew (talk · contribs) makes a good point, people will be searching under the primary namechange, not the other(s) he goes by/went by. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your prior actions

This user that you previously warned, Gabef8008 (talk · contribs), did it again Diff. I thought you would be the best one to notify about this. Previous info is archived here. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And again Diff. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and final warning given. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw that, looks appropriate to me. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Featured portals

Alright, if that's inappropriate, I apoligize. I just felt it fit the criteria, that's all. Teh Rote (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Alex Auld

You added this guy to Portal:Norway (Portal:Norway/Selected biography/8), but I was reading the article and I could find no connection to Norway at all. Could you explain why/if he is related to the Norway portal? Røed (talk · no) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn that that bio was actually selected prior to my work on the portal, but perhaps not. If there is no perceived Norway connection, I will just swap it out with a different bio. I will do that shortly. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, replaced w/ Jens Stoltenberg. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have removed you from the list. Useight (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

New Norwegian DYKs

Hi Cirt. I just wanted to tell you I just got a new Norwegian DYK: HNoMS Honningsvåg. Also, did you see Helge Seip? Keep up the great work. Manxruler (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check those out, and update the portal. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got "it"

Congratulations. What's that make, like 398 bronze stars? Show-off. --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thank you. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown.

W00t! thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, nice work. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dianetics

Whoops...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Just so you know, I have protected the article Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for one week at your request. Cheers, Malinaccier (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason Beghe

How is a picture of him being there not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.253.194 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being to anal about the sources. If there are multiple primary sources, including pictures and videos, how is anyone going to deny the factuallity of that? If People would dispute the quality of ana rticle over that, why would you even bother? I Don't want to sound degrading about wiki policies, but Jason beghe was there, it's an undisputable fact. multiple witnessess pictures and video's prove it, they just happen to be posted on that messageboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs)

See responses from other editors, at Talk:Jason Beghe. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jason Beghe

Replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)

You know that Spiegel cite is a load of bollocks, right? I can't disprove it, so it has to stay in the article, but all they're doing is repeating and grossly exaggerating pre-existing ham-fisted media speculation about the film. I've been following this from the start, and the evolution of these rumours to this point really has been something to behold. Someone could write a paper on it. Steve ^{T • C} 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot presume to know any more than what is stated in the WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, no. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was just letting you, er, know. Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Cirt; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

I had included Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) in WP:WPMEDIA rather than WP:JOURN. I am not sure, which is correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are appropriate, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My logic was that non-prose war propaganda was more of a media factor than a journalism factor.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is a neat angle with the connection to The Saturday Evening Post, Norman Rockwell himself, and of course Freedom of Speech (painting) as related to Freedom of speech. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTM

I am not sure if you are familiar with my effort to get something going at WP:LOTM, but I would appreciate it if you would drop by and vote for June's candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look if I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI this is where you vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

Please try to give the article a rest from protection once this stream of vandalism goes away, I just protected it for the second time this month. Also, the blanking selectively of that review could be viewed as a good faith contribution, depending on your perspective. I chose to semi-protect due to the other vandalism and the lack of communication on the IP's part. I suggest you try and engage that IP and explain how NPOV and source attribution works. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice, hopefully the IP will engage in positive discussion on the article's talk page, where I left a note about sourcing. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant that I made the 2nd protection, not both. best of luck, VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Hi, the addition of the birthdate info to this article [8] was unsourced, so as it was in a WP:BLP I removed it. Do you have a WP:V/WP:RS source for this new info? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

per this edit by the man himself on Meta...--Cometstyles 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Not sure if that is the best source, but it is verifiable. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about hat but this does show he was born probably in 1979 though...--Cometstyles 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

Cirt:

I noticed your support for my RfA, and thought I'd drop you a special thanks, as I know we've had our differences as we've been editing and reviewing articles. Your !vote of confidence is therefore all the more appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) You're very kind. And I should say, in turn, that you show admirable patience and responsiveness to criticism. I'm half-aware that that's been something you've been working on, so all the more reason for congratulations! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Möller

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erik Möller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Cirt/Archive 3, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt - and, as I recall you voted for my first RfA as well, make that a double :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible subject of interest

Given your interest in Scientology, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

Hey! Mr. Are We Done Yet here again. I see last week you chanced upon the portal. How are we standing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I did some work last week, I still have a lot more to do, will get to it soon. This is the next portal on my list. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I missed your earlier post. I apologize if my disagreement is discouraging. I am usually one to stay away from the politics of WP. We have worked well together on numerous sections and I think we just need to hash out the intro. I have tremendous respect and admiration for your contributions to the project. I am very impressed by your dedication to the pursuit of excellence, especially in terms of portals. Recall, that I backed down on the selected list section even though I would still like to see such a section on the Portal. I had hoped for further discussion on the intro rather than us each sulking away. I want to continue to work with you and encourage your continued efforts. It is my belief that there are two better places for the intro images dynamic that you have added. First, we already have a selected image section. These could be added into that feature. Additionally, the categories would be improved with representative images. In truth, I would rather just have a single image like most other portals than the dynamic one for the intro. Let's keep the dialogue open and see if we can come to a compromise and move forward on this portal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are better than me. I am still three GAs behind on our project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On Lists

Hello Cirt! I'm here because you seem to be active on the Journalism Wikiproject. I'm seeking your advice on whether lists of past staff (especially when those staff are non-notable) of newspapers are generally considered encyclopedic or not, or whether they should be removed as listcruft per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm personally not a fan, but I thought I'd solicit the opinion of someone who's more experienced with precedent. Yours cordially, --129.67.162.133 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The specific section I'm talking about in this case is here; there's another list in the same article here. My main beef is that it seems to be a vanity list, and is not particularly encyclopedic since almost none of those on the list have their own WP pages and there are no sources, either. I've been reverted twice by another IP (with the reverts as their only edits) and I wanted to get some advice before getting into an edit war with what appears to be a SPA since I'm only 90% sure I'm in the right. Thanks for your time, --129.67.162.133 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As regards NOR, you're absolutely right about that, so I'm going to try to improve the sourcing on the article as much as I can when I get the chance to do so. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hi Cirt. I don't know whether wikipedians leave response notes on their own pages or those of their correspondents. Greetings. Hypatea (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey Library Association

On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Jersey Library Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Blackout

Okay. I'm reluctant to put anything on the front page that might be considered a promotion of Hubbard, so I just wanted to be sure. I do think the word "early" should be added though, because I doubt very much that any of his work is still considered classic SF today. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

James H. Howard nom at DYK May 27

Hi Cirt, I wonder if you'd do me a favor and check the status of this DYK self-nom? It's now expiring and seems to be in limbo, with no definitive yes, no, or maybe decision on moving it to DYK. I would think it's a good hook for DYK, especially timely because the 64th anniversary of his Medal of Honor award is June 5th. Regards, Jim JGHowes ^talk - 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see it's now been moved to the next update... JGHowes ^talk - 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Why did you remove this from the Todays featured article requests? I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP.

Replied. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Village Voice

Responded on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS TV

Good idea. I went ahead and notified them as well. They were the basis for the guideline that I wrote for the TV community, so it seems right letting them know as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

interlinking at Template:Anonymous and the Internet

Hi. When I was filling the template, I just went clicking on all the articles that talked about Anonymous, to see all the related topics. The information linking them is on the links themselves that appear on the templates. Them for that I made a nice work, you know how people will usually only speak to you when you screw up :) --Enric Naval (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You should thank to the guy that told me to "do it", lol. Just for a moment, I thought that he was linking a different "do it" --Enric Naval (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LRH biblio copyvio issue

Cirt, I just spoke with Katja Tripplet from the Marburg Journal of Religion on the telephone and she said their policy is that it is fine to use material from their peer-reviewed internet journal provided there is attribution. Hypatea (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry.

I'm sorry, but my edit was very constructive, and was not vandalism. I have reverted it back. The dangers of the cult known as Scientology must be made aware. Attempts to remove the truth will be seen as the editor being one of these brainwashed scientologist folk. DragonDance (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Karin Pouw

On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karin Pouw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Revolt in the Stars

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh. I've removed the caveat. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about a more specific hook? Something like: *... that according to the Washington Post, the plot of L. Ron Hubbard's 1977 screenplay Revolt in the Stars mirrors a sacred scientology text? Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Final Blackout, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good job with all of your DYK articles! --Royalbroil 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you, and thanks for the nice comment! Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked DYK hook

The tweak looks fine - I just knew that Heinlein was dead by then and about when he wrote his novel and it didn't make any sense. If you want me to reply on the DYK nom page I will, but what you wrote looks fine. Always nice to cross paths again, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I verified it and suggested a better (more reliable source) reference than IFSDB. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to help - nice article (on a book I have not read). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Revolt in the Stars

On 9 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt in the Stars, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To the Stars (novel)

On 10 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article To the Stars (novel), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

HNoMS Kjell

Hi Cirt. Just wanted to point you towards my latest Norwegian-themed DYK: HNoMS Kjell. Manxruler (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I added it into rotation. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicago FPOC

I wish you wouold take a more active role in the FPOC. I am unable to respond to items 4 and 8 from the 2nd respondent. Would you be willing to help with these?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit bogged down at the moment with other stuff, but I respect Sd31415 (talk · contribs), who usually has some great things to say at WP:FPOC. I will try to take a look when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the Stars (album)

On 10 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article To the Stars (album), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up because it is redundant. What is the difference between allmusic being in the work parameter and www.allmusic.com in the publisher? I learned this in one of my FACs and it was SandyGeorgia's suggestion. Anyway, the article was passed, without my response or Indopug's regarding the reviews in the lead. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay well thanks for the response but I still think the publisher info is useful and at the very least it doesn't hurt to have it there. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your call. =) --Efe (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics

Why do you continue to class my edits as vandalism? If you're going to revert them, you'd better be able to come up with some reason (any reason) to do so and to class this as "vandalism."

Saying that Dianetics is a pseudoscience is a verifiable fact. The edits are constructive. They contribute to the content of the article. I suggest we open this discussion to the community at large, rather than attempting to stifle free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4chanwakka (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

News part of Portal:Chicago

How does Portal:Chicago/Chicago news work? It has missed some major stories recently. For example, any of the wikinews stories on Barack Obama should appear in our news section. He lives here in Chicago. The Portal:Current events/2008 June 7 story that "Hillary Clinton suspends her presidential campaign and endorses "Barack Obama" is doubly important because we consider Hillary a part of our project since she was born and raised in Cook County, Illinois. Also, the June 3 story "Illinois Senator Barack Obama wins the Democratic Party presumptive nomination" should have made it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not so familiar with the WP:ITN and Wikinews. How does a news item get categorized. Is there a way to have all Barack Obama news and Hillary Clinton news categorized as Chicago news?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some advice

Hey, just wondering if you could help me out with something. A user wants to include the fact that he used the word "fucking" in one particular song in the article on Jon Courtney, as he considers it a lyrical breakthrough. I think it's unimportant, and explained the WP:NOT rule that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but I was wondering if you knew of any other guidelines I could use to convince him. Alternately, if you just chip in your two cents on his user talk {User talk:Samsmallish) so we can get some consensus going. Many thanks in advance! Ironholds 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist :). I'll reference that if he comes back to complain (which he most likely will). Ironholds 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will answer Ironholds' complaint. I edited the article on Jon Courtney to show that, in the context if dream-inspired Lyrics, whilst it seems that pretentious lyrics ('Deus ex Machina' Bold Anteus darts)) prevail, there is nevertheless place for common vulgarisms. Maybe I did it wrongly by appearing to express an opinion that it was was 'groundbreaking' (it certainly is for PRR), so I will rewrite it in context with the earlier passages of the article to exemplify it. Hope this answers any queries you have and that, in future you will not simply bow to the first complaint without requesting a re-write. Best wishes - Samsmallish (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had initially removed the material in question because it was unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My reply here. -- RyRy5 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

Improvements have been made to Ali Faik Zaghloul and extensive dialoge on the notablity have occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul would you like to reconsider your "Delete" vote? Jeepday (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Temptation of Krust

Hello there. I'm waiting for an IP to give me the page numbers. As you probably saw on my talk page, they've given me the ISBN and some of the details, and they've said they'll get the page numbers shortly. I'd say give them a few days, and then I'll leave it up to you whether you think what's there is sufficient for a FA. Ged UK (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

New Norwegian DYKs

Hi. There's now two new Norwegian DYKs: Jørgen Aall and Skabo Jernbanevognfabrikk. For some odd reason Skabo isn't at Wikipedia:Recent additions. Manxruler (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Space Jazz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Leisa Goodman

On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leisa Goodman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kurt Weiland

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kurt Weiland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

George takei book DYK

On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Still active on Portal:Norway/DYK?

Hi. Are you still active over at Portal:Norway/DYK? There are like a ton of new DYKs ready for that portal. If you're not active any more, could you tell me how to update that portal myself? Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am still active, you could leave an updated list of the pending DYKs that have not yet been added to the list, at the portal's talk page - Portal talk:Norway. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Manxruler (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Manxruler (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:20020321-googleback.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:20020321-googleback.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC) --The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will address this. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, Cirt! -- Victuallers (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weiland

Hi - there appears to be an issue with the DYK nom of Kurt Weiland. Please check it out, Vishnava _talk 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kurt Weiland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava _talk 02:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments on List of Scientologists

I am sorry for being rude, and I will lay off. You've obviously have done a lot of work with sourcing on this article (on looking through the most recent updates, you've done much better than I have). I think my frustration built up over what other editors, mainly in the past, have done (or not done). I do appreciate the fact that you didn't just revert me, but went and got good sources when re-adding names. --Rob (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hancock

Hello, how are you doing? You added a detail about Will Smith providing Scientology gifts to crew members. It was later removed by an IP. I restored it for you, but in reviewing the content, I was wondering if the detail was really that appropriate for an article about the film. Also, The citation, The Guardian, seems heavily opinionated. I don't feel that readers would get a better understanding of the film with this detail. I noticed that it's also mentioned at Will Smith and am fine with it, since it is directly relevant. What's your take? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xenu

Does a link to a still from the actual video not count as a reference then? Bane II (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Replied at user's talk page.) Cirt (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

You asked me to drop you a line when Lives was up for FA consideration. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review?

Hello, I noticed that Midas (Shelley) was tagged as under review by you back on the 19th, but I didn't see any further notes or a generation of the GA review sub-talk page. I was wondering if you are going to be reviewing it or should it be untagged?--Finalnight (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been meaning to get to it. If you want to review it, feel free, otherwise I will do the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just noticed it as I was reading the bot exception log. I don't think I am familiar enough with that type of material to review that article but good luck!--Finalnight (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New Village Academy

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Village Academy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

Despite our disagreements, you still deserve at least half the credit for this one so you may want to post the following somewhere and adjust your header:

This user helped to promote Portal:Chicago to featured status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can You Help Me?

Hello Cirt! :) Durova told me I should ask you, so I will refer you to the conversation I was having with Durova [[9]]. Can you tell me what I did wrong on the "Selected Picture" on the Feminism Portal? I hope you can help. Thanks in advance! --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out, Thanks to Cailil. ;) --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comedy DYK?

I'm afraid I am not familar with how the system works, but I could learn, given time. ISD (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I can manage it. I'll start with those two nominations. ISD (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added both entries. ISD (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem.

You weren't intentionally reverting me. You were trying to get rid of something unsourced, I can see that, sorry if the edit summary was too harsh. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase

Hi. In order to try and save our season 8 featured topic I decided to rewrite The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase. I think it has a chance to become a FA. I just need a little help. I know I don't write brilliant prose, so if you could look it over, I would appreciate it. User:Gran2 has already done a copyedit. It just needs a little more polishing. --Maitch (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll see what I can do. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and User:JDPhD

Hi, he's been at it again, adding an unsourced paragraph about leaking of CoS documents, and even linking to them. As far as I can see, this is a breach of copyright. I've reverted him for now but he just goes away and comes back later. I'm getting towards the end of my tether on this and all Scientology-related articles are on ArbCom probation. Do you want to take a look at it and see if what he is doing has any merit, because as far as I can see, he's just not getting WP:RS and not communicating? I'm tempted to ban him from those articles, but I doubt if he'd take the hint. Cheers --Rodhullandemu 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He has actually now replied on my talk page and I've set out my concerns back to him on his. However, I'm not so much an expert on CoS related matters and would still welcome a second opinion. The WP:AN thread sort of died through lack of interest, I guess, but I'm wary of unsupervised and wholesale additions, particularly dubiously sourced ones, and those which go unchallenged and are not discussed on talk pages. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:FT?

Well, the way I see it The Principal and the Pauper is the last FA for season 9. It only needs a professional copyedit. I can't help with that, because I don't exactly write brilliant prose in the first place. Scorpion found a person, who was willing to do a copyedit, so I'm just waiting for that to be completed. All in all I can't really do anything about that episode, so that is why I turned my attention to season 8. I think Spin-off is close to become featured. It might also need a professional copyedit, but we have succeded in getting articles featured without that before. I have some ideas about how to expand the reception section slightly. If we can get it featured soon, I will start working on The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, which is also close. --Maitch (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say that if you want to work "The Principal and the Pauper" then I think you should do so. I just needed your help if you had some free time. --Maitch (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Disney characters

Why not simply merge them to a list of minor characters in [whatever] ? I dont want to have to take them to afd, but I think a decent case could be made that every signifc. Disnewy character is notable. How about a suitable compromise, preserving the redirects for future development? DGG (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Show me evidence of significant discussion of each of these characters in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources - but otherwise I don't think that is the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cat

I agree it shouldn't included, mainly because of the PoV pushing by the other user, but the fact that no one has been convicted is a good enough point as well. If anyone brings up legitimate arguments about it, it could be discussed in the talk page. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if there are no (or very few) reliable third-party sources of someone referring to Anon or Project Chanology as cyber-criminals, than the category should not be included. I'll remove it in the mean time and leave a mention to discuss on talk page. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe that is first party and not third party. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Attack therapy

Category:Attack therapy, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Project Klebnikov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work maintaining WP:DYK stuff. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many archive repair cooks

Please, I wasn't done working on the solving the archive problems when you jumped in and moved false Archive 1 to Archive 2. I thought of that but that creates an Archive 1 that is too small, which makes later research more difficult by requiring extra page searches.

I was working on the proper fix which is to empty Archive 1 then put the missing material in it. Now there is a new problem of a ghost archive 2 that will screw up future archiving to 1.

Also redirects can really mess up the history of fixes. The early history was lost that way of Purported Cults, Destructive cult, List of cults, List of groups referred to as cults (not exactly sure, LOGRTAC history is inaccessible now; I think the original list was in Cult) when Ed Poor went on self-styled rampage of title changes that others objected, then self-reverted with back and forth redirects.

And - articles that are worked on with long fallow periods in between should not be automatically archived. Rather they should be manually archived by work era. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from user Milomedes)

At 160 kilobytes long - Archive 1 is already large enough. And I fixed the counter so new archiving will go to Archive 2. I think that fixes everything. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2008

Mizabot is currently set to 250K archives. That means the first archive is only 160K, and all the rest will be 250K. That creates the extra search that I've had to waste time on elsewhere.

And I strongly object to automatically reducing the talk page to one thread between editing eras. (I and others went through a long and bitter debate on this overarchiving issue for a completely unrelated article). It means that newcomers typically don't see the complete previous work session and may start the same debates again. Milo 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi Cirt, I have nominated Space Pilot 3000, an article you passed as a GA, for FAC. There are apparently some copy editting issues with the article and I was hoping that since you and User:Qst did such amazing work on Hell Is Other Robots one or both of you might be willing to have a look at this article as well. If you don't have time/interest that's fine as well, I figure it doesn't hurt to ask. Stardust8212 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look over the next coupla days. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate any assistance. Stardust8212 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Guru of Sex

Hello, I noticed that you created Guru of Sex... I was wondering if you are able to update the status of the project. It does not seem that Ben Kingsley is involved with it, and the film is not listed at IMDb. The writer, though listed, is not credited with any such film. Is this possibly a planned project that never took off? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome! :D I know it's probably just a template, but it still made my day to have someone notice I'm here. Cheers! Brynn (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Synanon

Do you get my email? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF

I have reverted edits you made to How to keep an idiot busy for hours in which you removed the Example of the joke style placed in the article. As such, I have decided (because this has been removed and replaced twice before) I am filing a request for comment. Details of this will be posted with you once completed. You will be welcome to take part. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deepest apologies for removing the formatting changes, in addition to the revert on How to keep an idiot busy... - this was human error facilitated by twinkle - I reverted the wrong set of diffs. Please feel free to redo the formatting, and I will not do anything this time! Thanks for understanding - It was a mistake. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK 9 speedy deletion

I am   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk), I see all :P. Nah it appeared in my new pages list.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

editing others comments

I think you're missing the distinction between prose and headers/sub-headings, in the context of other people's words. When you place a heading between you and another editor, you can effectively apply you're in one group, and they're in other. If you label a section "uninvolved" it implies others are "inolved". If you label "independent" you imply others are "not independent". It's not my prefernce to alter or label anybody's comments. No such labelling or alterations should occur at all. --Rob (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk speedy deletions

Hi. You have tagged a number of image talk pages for speedy deletion under the reason of "g6". The pages have remained in the speedy deletion category for some time, indicating that I am not the only administrator who doesn't understand the reason for deletion. Care to explain? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, see recent deletions of image-talk pages with no discussion on them and only {{talkheader}} tags, by MZMcBride (talk · contribs). There is discussion about that at User talk:MZMcBride#Question on talk page deletion?. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. These pages contain WikiProject tags, not just {{talkheader}} tags, and also a notice about arbitration restrictions. I'll quote from elsewhere, "he's deleting Talk pages that have Template:Talkheader as their only content", and he appears to have been rather specific about that particular point. I will remove the speedy deletion tags as they do not fall within the CSD, and there appears to be a consensus among the admins working the speedy deletion category about that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

portal feminism

Just dropping by to say thank you for a doing great work at portal:feminism--Cailil ^talk 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Russia topics

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARussia_topics&diff=229605759&oldid=223651223

A good idea, I think, except the linked text on the #D98282 backgrounds (i.e. the groupnames and 'below' section) now seems more difficult to read. Any ideas about an alternate color for these words? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just white? Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Have implemented white and will see what people think. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Taken a look at both {{Russia topics}} and Portal:Russia/Russia topics with fresh eyes and decided it's possible to "have the cake and eat it", i.e. adapt {{Russia topics}} to be used in the Portal again. Have tried formatting Portal:Russia/Featured content similarly, but the "Featured content" box now ends before the transcluded featured content links begin. Can't yet work out why, although I guess it's a consequence of mixing {{Navbox|child}} with Portal:Russia/box-header. Any ideas? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. I just got it to work here by replacing the "|child" with a "|border = none" parameter. Haven't worked out why that should make a difference yet. Hope it's okay where you are too. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the barnstar! That was a pleasant surprise and thoughtful act of kindness. I'm simply glad I was able to use things I've seen in new places. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Portal:Film

Ah, so that replacement will cover the rest of the film icon's appearance in other portals? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! :-P I gritted my teeth when I saw it happen. At least we have the page history of the original article to resurrect if the film does start up. Are you that much up-to-date with news about the film, or...? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Portal deletions

Hi, Cirt!

Would you mind taking a look at the list of Pages that link to Template:Russia portal/Things you can do, change those links, then re-request the speedy deletion? Thanks! The other pages/templates/portal pages have been deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I deleted it =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous on Reddit

I came across this on Reddit today, thought you might enjoy - [10] - DigitalC (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most intriguing, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for your comment on my latest DYK. I'm especially proud because it was my 25th DYK entry. ISD (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pauper

I think you were the one who added the Gile Richards quote to the page (if you didn't, ignore this). Does he say anything else that could be added, such as a specific useable quote where he defends the episode? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the FAC, I'm on it. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lolita Lebrón

Thanks for the review again, I just finished implementing your suggestions to the lead, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Cirt! I just wanted to stop by and say "thanks" for working on Portal:Feminism. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Feminism_Task_Force as well. I think the portal is looking good so far! Keep up the great work and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category removed?

Hello, thanks for adding the verify code to the userbox {{User Wikinews admin}}. Curious as to why you removed Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects ? Cirt (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm slowly working on doing that with all the admin-related userboxes. (The syntax is trying to say the least...)

As for the removal of the cat, I'm in the process of breaking it down into subcats (for example, see Category:Wikinews administrators). Noting also that Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects is a Template:Parent category, and shouldn't have non-subcat members. - jc37 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that was my whole point in creating the category, I think users should be present in both the parent cat and the subcat. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See below for why that isn't appropriate. - jc37 23:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are utilizing some subcategories. I think the users should be outputted into both that main category and the subcategory, so we can see how many Wikipedians use a userbox showing they are an admin on a sister project. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. In most cases, something should not be categorised both in the parent and the child cat. It's a hindrance to navigation. (See the template text, and the related notice at Wikipedia:User categories#Categorization.) - jc37 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and I will defer to your judgment on this - I just thought it interesting to see the Wikipedian administrators on sister projects all in one category. No worries, whatever you want to do is cool. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.

In addition, there are several userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sister projects which I may be nominating for merging/renaming. Just in case you wanted to keep an eye out on WP:TfD. (I'd be bold, since I doubt these will be contentious (simple duplication, or to have them all follow similar naming conventions) but I really would like a bot's help, since there are so many transclusions : ) - jc37 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for letting me know. If it's not too much trouble could you drop me a note if/when those go up for deletion discussion. Not sure yet if my sentiment would be to retain or remove, it'd probably depend on the box. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. (Though please pardon me if I forget.) - jc37 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

CFR

I've nominated the category for renaming at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects. - jc37 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown

Five or six? ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's okay :) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference Link

I tried putting the link as a reference, but you damm filter would not let me post the link link to that website and it this website is not spam it is a informative website about TV series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigelarkin12 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know alot more about Family Guy since I do the person that dose the Family Guy Press Release at FOX so there. I use to like this website alot, but now I HATE it since it is impossible to update a section of it.Bigelarkin12 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal help?

I'd like to revise and get Portal:Featured sounds up to featured portal status. It's... probably the worst of the Featured content presentations. I think we could do a lot better - adding descriptions to the sounds, say (there's a field, but it's currently used for an unmaintainable list of articles they're in!) What do you think? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit of a unique case - Portal:Featured sounds collects together content, it's not just a regulatory page. While WP:RS is obviously not suitable for FA, I don't think Portal:Featured sounds is prima facie inappropriate, even though it might be voted down in practice. =) Featured sounds by and large have articles attached to hem, and these articles could be used to provide context. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, if I made a Portal:Sounds, and used only featured sounds, I' think it'd be a reasonable featured portal. Outside of name, and the very very very well-established nature of is update mechanism, how is this different? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there you may well have a case - I'm not quite sure why Featured sounds is a portal, unlike every othe rbit of featured content =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the most timely discussion at this point is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages. Personally, my position is these types of portals that do not focus on "content in an area" — "A featured portal exemplifies our very best work; it showcases the best of Wikipedia's content in an area and encourages contributions to that area." Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria — are not eligible for featured portal status. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject. RichardF (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ last by RichardF (talk · contribs). Will also check on this thread at Pump. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)