User talk:Cirt/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

South Park barnstar

		The South Park Barnstar
		For getting the South Park Featured Topic Drive up and running! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cirt (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Opera

Hi Cirt, First, a technical question. The images from the following "selected articles" show up fine on the archive page. But when they are rotated into the portal, the bottom half of the image disappears:

• Portal:Opera/Selected article/4 (Orfeo ed Euridice)
• Portal:Opera/Selected article/5 (The Fairy-Queen)
• Portal:Opera/Selected article/10 (Trial by Jury)

Is there something I can do fix this? Second, could I take you up on your offer to create a "New Content" section. More about it here + the updates/expansions I've done recently.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo done right?

Last August you kindly laid out the steps I needed to take to get a photo to appear in a WP article. I hope I have followed them correctly. How am I doing? [1] When can I add that to Marc Koska? Johnalexwood (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All seems to be well at the moment - do you think the image will stay there this time? Marc_Koska Johnalexwood (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet I think

Do you remember User talk:Boygobig and this incident about a month ago? As I predicted, I think he's back. Check this and notice the guy went straight after Katr without Katr doing anything. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering.....

Yes, you can now delete that page. Just wondering, what is your opinion on me? Am I a Diva, or a Troll, or what?

I deleted that 38 pages. People were coming up to me including the 2 IP's and wondering why I "lied" about them. Someone else actually did that, I had made 1 of my favourites the discussion pages, not the main Page, so only saw those edits and ignored the rest. I decided to give you a random Barnstar.

		The Modest Barnstar
		I think you are a very modest person, so I will give you this Barnstar. I am still awaiting my first Barnstar! ~not asking for one, but if you want~ Koshoes (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry with the tilda... in reference to deletion of Mohit Shah

Hi,

Thanks for your comments in reference to my page, truth be told; I thoroughly read through the comments made on my page.

It has been a compilation of my secretary and a person who works on my PR management.

To address a few of the concerns brought up in both the discussions and speedy deletion messages, I'd like to preface by saying first that there may have been citation errors, when brought to my attention to review the Wikipedia my knowledge of how to code it was unknown. Not only did the posting process not make sense to me, I was getting confused on the citation process and the buttons above this window I'm typing in, didn't really make much sense.

So therefore I handed it over to staffers.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/04/News/Gw.Students.Start.Indias.First.Hybrid.Power.Plant-3011644.shtml http://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitrshah http://www.zibb.com/article/4690884/Gujarat+set+to+get+investments+in+solar+power+sector http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/sophomore_entrepreneurs_high_solar_power http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/mous_2009/pdf/sector-mous/power-renewable.pdf

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_E01189.pdf

Those are links to articles that show 1) Who I am. 2) What I'm doing. 3) Gives me the credibility.

The reason I suppose my story is interesting, is because I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'm 21 years old, I do philanthropic work, I served the community countlessly, I've left college to pursue a environmentally friendly project. Why I'm different is because I'm 21 years old, because I signed an agreement with the Government of Gujarat for a project worth 1 billion dollars. Why I believe it's different is because I've spent my entire youth career as an advocate for education, leadership, and now I'm changing the world at a time when not many people wanted to. 1 year + ago no one cared for alternative energy, and now the boom! I'd associate myself as a part of that reason.

To be honest; I thought it would be motivational for other people who don't know my story and don't have the ability to speak with me in person to learn it. Regardless of whether you decide to stand by your decision or, reinstate my Wikipedia page, I respect your decision. I just know whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, I will make my story heard.

I thank you for your time and patience and consideration, hopefully it all works out, if not -- next time. If you choose to keep the page, maybe you could help me with the formatting of it, and I'll do it myself with assistance to meet your criteria, I feel it's all there, just up to you guys.

Thanks you. OH and sorry for the terrible formatting.

Mshah14 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankie Rayder

In the end, we got some good advice from a third set of eyes. Since I do a lot of different types of articles, I am often not attuned to the intricacies of particular fields. Thus, getting outside help is always good. I think this one was outside both of our expertises. I think her article would be accepted by most as a good article now. I would really like a PD main image though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Mercury

I just wanted to say that it's great that you have started the Eric Mercury page. This singer is something of a singers singer and has an extensive but not so famously known musical history. Well done ! (Sharkey45 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

G&S portal

Please see the G&S portal talk page for an important message. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unification Church political views

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

G&S Portal

No rush, but just a reminder that there is still a list of 5 B-class articles on the G&S portal talk page that can be added. Also, I noticed that we only have a couple of pictures. I know that Shoemaker (and his predecessor) have created quite a few featured images related to G&S, and there are also a large number of nice-looking free images in our G&S opera articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Opera/Selected audio/22

Try that. It gets all the important information in: Without a little explanation, it could mislead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Books and Portals

Hi, there's a new toy out there I'm sure you'll love! Would you care to share some of your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Selected Books? :-) Regards, RichardF (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Clatworthy

When you closed this AfD you missed the News 140 article that was jointly nominated. Nuttah (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done, by Ged UK (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:South Park

Gee, thanks for noticing so quickly. I'll help out as much as I can.--Music26/11 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park

Appreciate it. Apparently, it's just one editor. Originally they were IP 122.108.12.220, who made a comment about how "horrible" the page was. Then, a couple of days later they decided to revert it back under the IP 99.22.220.61. They just came back yesterday and reverted again, claiming some "consensus", yet I could not find any discussion on the matter beyond the two that I started. I assume now that they created the 1234onthedancefloor (talk · contribs) account that just reverted making the same claim of consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cirt (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pride & Joy (comics)

Hi. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review the article; it's been nominated for quite some time. I'd like to point out that while you may make suggestions, I will respond to them immediately - after school is over. My schedule's hectic, but I'll always be able to squeeze some time in to improve the article. I'm looking forward to working with you. Thanks again, -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter! I'd like to point out right now that a fellow user has changed the article's main image. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And this image also looks okay. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

World War Z Good Article nomination

Thank you for taking the time to review World War Z for it's good article nomination. I am the one who originally nominated the article and I am looking forward to working with you to make any changes necessary to pass the article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay will get to a first pass of the article soon. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

O I certainly will, and thanks for all your help. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin help request - Edit Template:Domestic cat

Hi, I need a little admin help. Template:Domestic cat is protect so I can't do this myself. Would you be willing to add the "Cat book" to the title? Here's the code I would use if I could use it.

{{Navbox
|name = Domestic cat
|title = [[Cat|Domestic cat]] – [[Wikipedia:Books/Cat|Cat book]]

Thanks, RichardF (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks! :-) RichardF (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding GA reviews

Hello, I was wondering if you could transclude GA reviews on articles' talk pages? All you have to do is this; it helps make the review more visible for those who visit the talk page. (The review link is kind of tucked away.) Keep up the great work! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant in future GA reviews! :) I transcluded the GA review at Che (film), too, so just wanted to ask you to do this. Anyway, happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why? I don't see it as a big thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and this will be my fourth and final. :) I was just told to do it sometime ago when I reviewed a Good Article, and I thought it was standard operating procedure. I'll get off your case now. ;) Later. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Please see: [2] Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Updike GA nomination

From the only user editing that article, thanks for a vague, uninformative, and thoroughly unhelpful review. I appreciated it. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised nor do I care. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And like I said, judging from your review, I can't imagine what constructive criticism you could possibly have offered. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be perfectly civil towards someone who treated an article I have put a great deal of time into with more respect. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So I should just ignore the problems I have with your assessment in my dealings with you regarding that assessment? That seems like a profound lack of context. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh but you've already added so many tags onto the article! Even without explanation or context, they are enormously helpful. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tool to look into

User:Cacycle/wikEd help. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyy

Dear Cirt, Hello!

Just to make it clear, I don't intend to make an edit war out of it, because I truly appreciate you and your work, and you once helped me in something in the past, which I still remember. I just really respectfully disagree. Hope there's no problem. I'm not going to remove that anymore. I hope the RfC turns for the better. Thanks for starting this one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It was my mistake. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

De-tagging from other WikiProjects

The Simpsons episode articles have now been detagged. I presume that now we should de-tag other episodes articles which are covered by other WikiProjects. ISD (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I can start on some of the smaller WikiProjects like the Seinfeld one. I've also added some more comedy related WikiProjects in the WikiProjects section of the comedy portal. ISD (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out

Yeah, I can take a look — but it will probably be a week or so before I can get to it. If you don't hear from me by Monday 20 April, holler at me. Scartol • Tok 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redlink

You have just reverted a redlink fix. Officious editing often makes for bad wiki pages. You say you are reverting on the grounds that the erroneous language comes from reliable sources. Since the sources are erroneous, their reliab8ility is questionablep therefore please quote verbatim inline sources for the use of this terminology and admit similarly reliably-sourced caveats to these statements. Please do this as quickly as you reverted. I shall supply the Alford reference. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt - a negative cannot be proved. You require a verbatim statement like "Time magazine called her a second in command" for the use of this terminology. "Private secretary" is easy to verify. "Administrator of commune" is easy to verify. "Second in command" is being questioned, "high ranking" is being questioned. I am challenging unsourced statements. You want them there - please source them and admit that they are the opinions of this source. Redheylin (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can say "a US dept of Justice press-release called her "second in command"". The Oregon history article only calls her commune director, which is correct. Neither uses the term "high ranking". The Dept of Justice statement will require a rider, since it is a single statement made by a person who is not an authority on the religion and its structure. Redheylin (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You have sources? Then why not cite them when required? The Oregon history one must go, it is misleading. Please be advised that the Dept of Justice source remains challenged for reliability and can be countered by more reliable sources. It may be best to remove challenged descriptors from the lede, since this will lead to obfuscation. Why not simply use your unassailable references for correct descriptors. You are forcing me to remove a correct ref in favour of a bad one. Redheylin (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are asking ME to be patient? And you are doing instant reverts and accusing me of disruption? Please put these matters right, and bear in mind that the above source is challenged as non-reliable vis-a-vis the nature and structure of religious movements. Why not simply use your accurate source properly? Please do not try to make it say what it does not say - I assure you it is accurate, reliable, neutral and supportable in what it DOES say. You have 24 hours. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

Could you do a DYK update? Should be from queue 3. I can do credits (but I've got to leave in ~15 minutes) Shubinator (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the image is incorrectly formatted in the queue....the |right should be taken out, then it'll be fine. Shubinator (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it also looks like (childhood house pictured) should be changed to (Fillmore House pictured). Shubinator (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorta busy at the moment. :( Cirt (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Holiday Parade

I would like to request unprotection of Holiday Parade since their recently released full-length has debuted at #61 on the Billboard Heatseakers chart. Baselineace (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost IP block

Thanks for chiming in on that. I was a little iffy, but figured it was clear enough to block safely, especially since it was for a short time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent edits Redheylin Can you refer me to the suggestion to redlink Turner, please? (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Hi Cirt, I was wondering if you could help me out with something. This is a statement from Nancy Cartwright:

"Cartwright was raised a Roman Catholic but joined the Church of Scientology in 1989. She has said that before joining she was depressed that she did not have a "committed relationship", and wanted to get married and have children. She "thought that maybe [she] could find a relationship by going to a church". "

The article, however, notes that she was married in 1988. That statement is backed up by several sources, so it's fine. But I haven't been able to fins an explicit source stating that did join the church in 1989 (which does seem to be contradicted by the claim that she joined that was worried about not having a relationship but actually got married before joining). My guess is that she was just affiliated with the church for several years before becoming an official member. Either way, do you think you would be able to find a source? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will look into it. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Turner

Outside of The Oregonian and the other sources you've used, The OSB Bar Bulletin has an opinion piece by him, but nothing else (likely more in old off-line editions since he hasn't been active in awhile). Willamette Week might have articles as well, and their results didn't use to come up in Google, so you might try a search on their site. Off line this book has lots on attorneys, and I think I recall seeing some stuff on Turner, but I don't own a copy. This book might as well, but I have never looked through it. Most of my lawyer sources are for the old dead guys of pre-1915. Good luck, and when I'm finished with a school research paper and finals I'll see if I can find anything else. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

SPTF

I appreciate the offer, but my limited knowledge of the show and where to find information for it wouldn't lend much support. The pages are basically all ready to go, they just need information. I'd be happy to review any when you've finished with them (e.g., you get season 2 or episode 20 up to pay and want a mini-peer review). Just shoot me a message and let me know what to look at. In the least, I'm glad the whole merge talk sparked some interest in forming a group to go through each page one-by-one and develop it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack.

♠TomasBat 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Giveme a sorry

Cirt,you need giveme a sorry,the teletubbies,appears in The Simpsons,please check for new Misionary:Imposible. HA,HA,HA,. I have only 14 years and me can win you. --Arruina cumpleaños (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on RfA

I recently added a discussion re: Goodmorningworld's neutral !vote. I encourage you if you have time to read that discussion, and Goodmorningworld's own additions to his commentary. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...

		The Special Barnstar
		For one great editor, whose work is brilliant, but his attitude, courtesy and admirable politeness are much much more. Your friend, Shahid • Talk2me 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now guess what my answer is... of course... The portal is just great now. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Four award

You may be eligible for this new award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You have high standards and contribute very effectively on the editorial side. I appreciate your work. Keep it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are nominating people. Are you just looking for one for each person or do they only have one. I think you are suppose to ask for one award for each eligible article that you create.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

I noticed while watching recent changes that a user refactored a post left on the AN/I board. I was on my way there to let someone know and saw that you had already reverted the edit. I also read your edit summary. Is this a fairly safe rule to go by? I am asking because I see it frequently on the recent changes and I usually revert when it's as overt as the example referenced here. Any pointers you can offer would help. Reply here or my page. Thanks. Tiderolls 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out Review

It'll probably be a few more days. Remind me again on Friday if you don't hear from me? Sorry for the delay.. Scartol • Tok 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Getting It: The psychology of est.

♠TomasBat 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

talk page protection

No need for this, [[3]], he was already reblocked with no talk page, [4]--Jac16888^Talk 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

HTML help

Hi, Cirt. The banner for the WP:MUSICALS project has a problem. On some articles, it displays the project's to-do list, which should be condensed with a hide/show button. See, for example, Talk:Hair (musical) - the banner takes up a huge amount of space. Unfortunately, the guy who used to help with HTML at the musicals project has not been active on WP for over a year. Can you compress the to-do list? Thanks for any assistance! BTW, I am sending H.M.S. Pinafore for peer review and after I give it a couple of weeks, I'll go forward with the FAC. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops! So sorry. To paraphrase a former President, my brain misunderestimated the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Portal updates

Hey, good point that you contacted me. On my talk, Lvklock left me some more road images along with St. Joseph's Church in Camillus NY. The church pics can go on the Joseph M. Champlin article. Anyway, I'll see.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self - Court cases

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
• Brandenburg v. Ohio
• Cohen v. California
• Cox v. Louisiana
• New York Times Co. v. United States
• Gitlow v. New York
• Edwards v. South Carolina
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
• Jacobellis v. Ohio
• Jenkins v. Georgia
• Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson

---

• Gideon's Trumpet
• Guilty by Suspicion

Cirt (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yashveer r

I looked at all his edits and found a few that weren't reverted. Now everything he touched has been cleaned up. But why did you block him for only 24 hours? He is certain to start up his mischief as soon as the block expires. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

67.79.157.50 was right. As soon as the block expired, Yashveer r was at it again and vandalized 22 articles. They have been reverted but surely he will continue. For some bizarre reason he keeps listing filming locations under studio in the infobox among his other changes. Since he refuses to respond to messages he obviously intends to keep doing this. He should be blocked indefinitely. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Damien (South Park)

Hey Cirt. Right now, the FAC for Damien (South Park) seems to be hung up solely on the image rationales for the infobox image and the Omen comparison image. If the Omen picture has to go, I can live with that, but I can't see justifying cutting the infobox image. I'd appreciate it if you could go to the FAC to voice your support if you think the images work, or to provide me with some feedback on how they can be fixed if they aren't. (Of everyone who has criticized so far, nobody has provided any helpful feedback yet). It's over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot RfC

Hi, Cirt. I saw your note about this on the WikiProject Crime talk page. Before I decide whether to make a comment, I'd like more information about the dispute. It appears the initial discussion occurred on April 16. The talk page includes no other discussions between then and April 23, when the RfC was posted. Have the involved editors sought other forms of dispute resolution? Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'm almost always happy to provide my two cents. :) I checked out more of the disruption history for the article and added it to my watchlist. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, things have totally spun out of control. May I suggest taking a step back for the rest of the day? I'll keep a watch on the article and talk page. momoricks (make my day) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seahouses Festival

Hello - regarding the Seahouses Festival article - I understand that this page should contain factual verifiable information and that is what I am endeavouring to do. I do not want it to sound like a promo for this particular event but it is necessary that it should contain legitimate verifiable facts about the festival, as a useful addition to the 'festivals' subject area in general. I will present the information without hyperbole or unsubstantiated embellishment. The information on this page will hopefully feed into other subject areas which deal with Northumbrian culture. I would be grateful if you would not delete the page so hastily. Coverage in independent sources is available and can be added to the article. Seahousesfestival (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmytik (talk • contribs)

Please don't rename or recagorise my requests for comment without discussing the changes with me.

Please don't rename my disputes with you and recatagorize them without discussing the change with me as you have done here.. as It removed the issues I was wanting to discuss and redirected the discussion away from my issues. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

DYK for Charles H. Turner (attorney)

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles H. Turner (attorney), 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.

Orlady (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Thanks. Heracletus (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

Since you seem to like to help find other deserving WP:FOUR honorees, you may want to look through the work of User:YellowMonkey, User:Piotrus, User:GeeJo, User:Carabinieri, User:Gary King, User:Maxim, User:Sephiroth BCR, and User:Brianboulton. Looking at Triple Crown you might find some more. I have removed your redundant nomination, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed that you liked noming other people. I have only nomed myself. Since you seem to nom other people, I thought these were some names you might want to check. Like the triple crown people will figure it out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Triple Crown

My thanks to you for the Crown, and especially for your words regarding "White as Snow (song)". I certainly hope I can wear the Crown well! MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Please Y'self

• Please note article recreated. Thanks--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is nominated for deletion again at [5]. LargoLarry (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like result was Speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. I tried to reconstruct the article in a new fashion, but it obviously failed. I should have co-wrote it really.

Another article for deletion which has recieved sufficient Deletes is The Boys (South African Gang) or a name like that. Would you like to do the honours?A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

DYK is due for an update from queue 2. The image is already protected at Commons. I can do credits. Shubinator (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The queue can be reset now. (Or you could load the queue with hooks from next update.) Shubinator (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IP Editor vandalising again

Cirt, I've found User_talk:204.8.195.66 has been editing a few pages, all of which are vandalism. Myself or others have reverted, and on the talk page others have previously blocked this IP address. I have posted a message but don't know what else to do. Other admins who have blocked it are on wikibreaks or holiday, but you blocked it in Sep 08, so could you deal with this again please? Bigger digger (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. There hadn't been any edits for two days but some of the edits have only just been picked up - personal attacks on pages that wouldn't be spotted by a bot and only caught by someone reading the article. Anyway, I'll go and register it on the page you suggest. Thanks again, Bigger digger (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks again. Had a look through the vandalism pages and guess a warning would be appropriate, but I'm not on wp for that, just general improvements as I go along. I thought there would be somewhere I could notify low level disruption by an IP address that has been repeatedly warned and blocked. Nevermind! Bigger digger (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I made a comment on a vandalism block of another IP user here User talk:86.131.127.183 but I guess I can piggyback on this section. :) I think the issue is more edit-warring by two users, one new to Wikipedia, but invite you to take a look again in any case. 86.44.29.76 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wheel warring at today's featured article

Cheers mate, thanks for the update! I just made a comment on ANI, and I think we're good now, thanks again and apologies if I've put you out ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out

Starting it today! Done by Saturday evening! I promise! More exclamation points as events warrant! Scartol • Tok 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FL merger discussions

There is currently a merger discussion at Talk:Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders for merging Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders, and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders. You were involved in the original WP:FLC discussion of at least one of these lists. If there is a merger consensus then there will be a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Michelle Belanger

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michelle Belanger. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kheperu (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

indef blocked and barnstars

that's not right! .. or is it? tedder (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Marc Kupper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Marc Kupper|talk 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, and thank you, it was me that did that and kept it up since. Do you think it would pass FAC? I've wanted to take it there for so long!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Damien (South Park)

Thanks man! I didn't realize it passed till I got your message; awesome, awesome news. Just so you know also, I'm going to be going on vacation starting Saturday, although I will have limited access to Internet and will be checking in now and then. I'm going to take one more quick look through Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo and then put it up for FAC too before I go. When I get back, I'm going to work on my two GANs for Tom's Rhinoplasty and An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig. I'm glad to see the membership is doing so well at the featured topic drive! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Centpacrr

I agree his editing was disruptive ... but was there something more at play here? Was wondering why he didn't get a warning ... Blueboy96 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue with that user was editorializing and violation of consensus. Neither of us broke the 3 revert rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Once I ran into the 3 revert wall, I took the issue to the ANI page and to the Baseball Project page to let others weigh in on it. Which they did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After that initial brouhaha, I was told that Centpac has a history of this kind of behavior. Had I known that, I would taken a different course. We often get editorialists making these complaints, that the World Series doesn't have the right to call itself the World Series. Usually a single revert is enough to take care of it. Once it got to 3, I knew this guy was going to persist, so I stopped editing and took it to others to look at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It was symbolically better with 3 r's at the end. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note this comment on the baseball project page [6] by a user who apparently knows Centpac much better than I did or ever wanted to; and which explains why taking it to ANI was the only option, i.e. he wasn't going to stop - which Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unblock request also reinforces. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I've looked back at it, I think Centpacrr actually did exceed 3 reverts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the sequence, I posted on the project page first, then on ANI, and back to the project page. I know all about 3RR. I think it has been a long time (other than fixing blatant vandalism or BLP violations, which are exempt) since I've broken that rule. When it gets to 3RR, you stop editing and take it somewhere. And if he starts editorializing again, I'll take it back to ANI straightaway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I've read Centpacrr's lengthy unblock essay (written after his block had expired), he reminded me of where I've heard his name. He was the one who insisted that the term "miracle" on the Hudson was inappropriate in reference to the water landing in New York in January, because even though all the news media were calling it by that term, it wasn't a true "miracle" or "devine" [sic] intervention (in his opinion - see the trend?) and therefore shouldn't be used. He accuses me of having a vendetta against him for that reason, but in fact I had forgotten all about him until this World Series issue came up, and I just knew the name was familiar but I didn't know from where and didn't bother checking his history. I don't tend to remember specific users for very long, unless they stick out or persist for some reason. I'll probably remember him from here on out, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading his latest essay, in which he claims I reverted 5 times in 24 hours. That's not true. However, it does look I reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. I don't normally do that. I must have lost count. Block as you see fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Phillies own official website [7] labels themselves as "World Champions". Apparently that's also how Harry Kalas called the final out also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not asked that Baseball Bugs be blocked, nor do I think he should be. He can certainly say that this is claimed to be the case on the Phillies website. That is a verifiable statement fact. But a private business making a self serving PR or marketing claim that they are not actually authorized to make (only the IBAF can sanction a world championship of baseball) does not in any way independently verify or actually make the Phillies the "world champions of baseball." A team cannot self anoint themselves with any other title than the one they have actually won: the 2008 World Series champions of Major League Baseball. However neither MLB, any of its member clubs, on any other baseball organization in the world is authorized by the IBAF to call themselves "world" champions. Lots of companies and other organizations make marketing and PR "claims" all the time to be the "world's greatest" this (ENRON comes to mind) or the "world's champion" that. These self servingly adopted titles, however, do not make it true or verifiable that they are actually that, only that they "claim" to be. For such a title to be valid, it must be sanctioned by whatever organization is, by international "consensus" (remember that term?), authorized to do so which in the case of baseball is the IBAF. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I would also appreciate an answer to the questions that I have posed to User:Cirt at the link immediately below.(Centpacrr (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

This discussion seems to be on about 17 different talk pages right now. I think most of what's here is duplicate, so feel free to take the axe to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was actually doing was not making disruptive blanket "reversions" of anything (and was not even disturbing anything contributed by anybody other than myself), but was instead attempting to continually rewrite my single sentence contribution (with explanations posted in the talk page each time, a process which still continues) in such a way that would satisfy the complainant as to the form of the brief edit I was attempting to make. His response, however, was to keep unilaterally reverting every such new modified edit (which he acknowledges that he did a minimum of four times in less than 24 hours) and charging me every time with "editorializing."

A review of the complainant's recent (March, 2009) unsuccessful RfA [8] indicates that he has a long and well documanted history of doing this to many other editors, also with little or no explanation provided in his edit summary. He also frequently seems to claim as his only justification that "consensus" had already been reached to support his position when that does not appear to be the case. Baseball Bugs then filed his "complaint" for which I was summarily blocked just five minutes later (according to the time stamps) without ever being contacted or warned by any administrator to advise me that I had been accused of something, and also (again based on the time stamps) apparently without conducting even the most cursory investigation of the situation.

I have been editing actively on Wikipedia since September, 2006, without ever having a complaint of any kind filed against me, and had followed the rules re: using talk to discuss my reasoning and support it with sourcing. When I requested the complainant to support his contention that I was incorrect in my contribution re: the differences between a "World Series" championship and being the internationally recodnized and snactioned "world champions of baseball" the only responses I got from him were A) "Bud Silig says it's so."; B) "That's where the money is." and C) "It is what it is." After many further requests in this and other talk pages, he or she has still not provided a single source supporting his contention that these two titles are the same as being recognized as valid by any international governing body or other baseball oganiation.

The complainant, by the way, represents himself (or herself) in his/her user page as being "thirteen and a half" and a "student in Jr. High School" which is apparently completely false. I understand, of course, that Wikipedia users are not obligated to identify themselves any more than they care to, but deliberately misidentifying one's self is a deceptive practice. While I did not originally make a request that the complainant be blocked for his/her own acknowledged violation of the 3RR policy, now that I have read the RfA file for this user detailing an apparently long and well documented record of baiting other editors, and have learned that he/she is neither 13 1/2 nor a junior high school student as represented in his/her user page, then I think that some form of discipline may well be appropriate in this case.

It is my firm belief that I was acting in good faith and was actively attempting to resolve this dispute with the complainant by discussing it in talk. Instead the complainant brought it to WP:ANI (which he seems to do very frequently when his views are challenged) where I was summarily tried, convicted, and sentenced in less than five minutes after it was filed without due process of any form. I was not engaged in either vandalism, nor in making personal attacks, only attempting to improve the World Series article by clarifying that MLB's longtime use of the PR/marketing slogan "World Champions of Baseball" should not be confused with that organization's play off ("World Series") champions also de facto holding a second "world championship" title that is internationally recognized and sanctioned as such. (World titles in team sports can only be competed for and won by national teams sponsored by each country's national federation for that sport, and done so only by participating in a sanctioned international tournament for which these national teams also must first qualify.) A unilateral claim to any such "world" title by the champions of a private organization (such as MLB) certainly does not meet any of those criteria.

The bottom line here is that I was accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced for "disruptive editing" without ever being formally or timely advised that such a charge had even been made, without any administrator contacting me for my side of the story, and for a transgression that I do not believe I had committed. Upon review of the Wikipedia blocking policy, it seems to me that this block was instead more likely imposed either by your simply accepting the complainant's charge on its face, or for the purpose of "recording a warning" in my otherwise spotless block log. The former is a violation of my right as an editor to due process. The latter is specifically prohibited by the Wikipedia blocking policy which states that this "practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating (which is exactly how I view it) and is neither appropriate or authorized. For that reason I request that the record of this blocking also be expunged from my block log as having been inappropriately imposed. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

• I would appreciate a response to the unanswered issues I have raised above. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)_

DYK for Breaking the Spell: My Life as a Rajneeshee and the Long Journey Back to Freedom

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Breaking the Spell: My Life as a Rajneeshee and the Long Journey Back to Freedom, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration tag

OK. I got misguided as I saw in Jammu and Kashmir page for a long time. I'll move them. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism

I vandalised nothing, i was only trying to improve the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybritches (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD closed

Hi Cirt you closed this AfD as a redirect could you explain how you reached this as I only see on !vote for redirect and all the rest are delete thanks. BigDunc^Talk 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Malik Ali

Thanks for closing 'Malik Ali'. Could you delete 'Malik Ali: The American Mullah‎', if it hasn't been already? The page was moved here halfway through the AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Abce2|Howdy! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For fixing that in plain sight vandalism. --Abce2|Howdy! 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tasty cookie! Cirt (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much for your help! -- Reconsideration (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about DYK

Not that this is important, but do I have to do something to be listed on [[9]]? I only just found this page but I have 35 DYKS (they're listed on my page) and I'm not listed on here. I see you're on there so I thought you could alleviate my confusion. :) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: FLC

Of course, always glad to be of help. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Bring more stuff like that to FLC! Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

Cirt, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

However many you'd like to do is entirely up to you. Hopefully you do a few and get hooked! If every GA member reviewed five articles we'd be done, but I'm sure every member won't be helping out. If you have any questions or need help, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

I am not sure if you noticed but now the talkpage is the redirect. Kwiki (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You fixed it! Just one more thing, isn't The_Church_in_Singapore precisely the same article? Kwiki (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice teamwork :-) Thanks!  Done Kwiki (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backflip (song)

Just pointing out that the nominator and virtually all people discussing the article asked for creation protection on the article as well.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Spell

I am interested in having this page correct and consistent. That's all.--Orege (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

statesman journal photo

hello. what was wrong with the copyright tag that I put on the upload? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

my tag skill are worse than my reliable source skill. Do you mean the photo in the article of frohmayer? or the article itsself ? have I just tagged it wrong ? or is it not allowed to take photos of newspaper articles .. in auther I was meaning I had taken the photo ..I was the creator of this work.. I have seen of the osho collection on commons some other newspaper articles , I will go and look at there tags and perhaps go to media help to find out the correct tag if there is one. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

I didn't mean to do that . I'll ask at media help and see what they say. For what it is worth would you consider the article and what is written in it a reliable source ? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

no . the online source reference was to the mistaken quote I was trying to insert. This photo which we took is of an original paper that my friend has. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

no . but I could get it . I have the email address of the article writer...Janet Davies, who is still working there. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

ok. I'll look into that , as I said ..having the actual article i'm not sure anymore if there is much worthy to improve anything , perhaps a couple of points about sheela are worthy and beneficial..I am new to lexus nexus so ..I'll see, Is there nothing in the article of any value to you? Shall I move it to commons and retag it with something or leave it here ? is it worth me asking at media help ? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

perhaps you would keep a copy and we can talk about inserting anything from it later? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

right, regards. I am off to feed the ducks. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind but I requested a second opinion at media help and here is the comment..Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#regarding_this_file...Statesman-journal_july_23rd_1986

I have now added the tag you suggested. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

I see you have deleted the photo. Did you look at the comment regarding it's reliable source status provided by Quadell ^(talk) would you comment as to your opinion over that comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Gamma-ray burst

Hey mate! A few weeks ago you did a copyedit/readthrough of Gamma-ray burst, which is currently at FAC. The article has been substantially revamped since then. If you're not too busy and you're still interested in the article, would you mind going through again? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll try to do another run-through. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD of UC article

Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What

what did i do wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oballers4life (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John J.B. Wilson

On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John J.B. Wilson, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paraguay–Switzerland relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paraguay–Switzerland relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- User:Docu 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal took the handle

Dear Cirt, while you're on patrol, care to have a look at a repeat offender? See User talk:117.53.134.189. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Of course, since you act so quickly and decisively, I might call on you again...I hope you don't mind. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

Do you know why the WP:FOUR award has not been updated in over two weeks?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The award creator has notified me that he no longer want to do the reviews. I reviewed two nominees that I did not post. I need you or someone else to review the nominees I posted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that someone needs to second the nominations by reviewing them and moving them to the log. I am saying I can not second the nominations that I have made myself and that you are the most logical person to second those nominations. I will review most other noms, such as self-noms, but I need you to take care of the ones I have nominated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD Prot

Ta. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bart's Inner Child

Hey Cirt! Do you want me to get the production information for Bart's Inner Child? TheLeftorium 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get it done on Sunday. :) TheLeftorium 19:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

temporary block- oops?

This says "temporarily blocked", but it should be indef, right? User_talk:Ridhigupta tedder (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburgefonts

umm, was it merged? what happened to the history? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 12:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

recreation of article Kamran Jawaid

Hello Cirt,

I was searching for Kamran Jawaid and found that his article was deleted because of abuse. Kamran Jawaid is a famous media celebrity and one of the most prominent film critics from Pakistan. Please do authorize this page, as I believe that I can cite sources for the article.

Thank you.

Hamzarauf (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Killing Your Number (Prison Break)

Hello Cirt. I'm wondering if you can help me to re-write the plot, if you have time. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Userify request

Hey can you userify Chris Denney onto User:Giants27/Chris Denney? Thanks!--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPPP

I have responded to your protection at WP:RPP, as I believe it is the wrong action for this problem. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Chiropractic#A_patient-centered_approach.3F, as it shows that there HAS been a lot of discussion about this point, despite what QuackGuru might say. QuackGuru and others have been edit-warring to remove the text, when there is no consensus to do so. As stated on WP:RFPP, your judgement to semi-protect the article breaks the basic premise of wikipedia, which is that anyone can edit it. You have now made a decision that only editors with accounts are welcome to edit Chiropractic, and that the edits of those who have accounts must be better than those who do not have accounts. Some of us are more equal than others. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Henson

Please justify the reversion of all my edits to this page.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, please explain which bit of any edits covered by WP:BLP are contentious or poorly sourced.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Swissair

Hello

Are you an Admin? Finally someone does something about the article. There is one member who always retypes incorrect info into the infobox, various people have been correcting him, but he redoes everything. Currently the article is wrong again, as said User was the last one who changed it. another user asked him why he did it in the discussion page, but he did not explain. please change the last revision and block the page again.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.9.112.148 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the chicagio sun

I dispute the wikipedia reliability of the source (as I said) and as the page is a biography of a living person I removed it this is acceptable and I explained my actions. The sauce is unnessesary to the article . What info is it supporting? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I looked at it and felt it a weak reliable source and I looked at what it was supporting in the article and I saw it was unnessesary and removed it , you will also see that as it wasn't really supporting anything I didn't delete any information only the web cite. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Re: Mumbai FAR

Sorry, I didn't get time to work on the Mumbai sourcing/copyediting last weekend as I had planned. But it is a high priority on my (too long) to-do list and I'll ping you later this week once I have made some progress, so that you you don't have to keep rechecking over the article history yourself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay keep me posted. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Craig679

Greetings, I just wanted to say nice work! I was browsing recent changes this morning, noticed that several thousand characters had been removed from an article and decided to investigate. I discovered thast this guy had done nothing productive for WP and reported him. I left my computer and when I returned, you'd blocked him. So, once again, nice work! Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 10:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome- I don't frequent WP:AIV much (and, with the joys of twinkle, I don't have to really!), but it's good to see such a swift response. HJMitchell You rang? 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Summaries at Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

I think maybe my questions to you about the summaries at the GAR have gotten lost in the shuffle. If you could look over the recent discussions again and comment on the summary issues, I would appreciate hearing your view on how the "Ali's Smile" and "Burroughs on Scientology" texts should be summarized. I will be away from Wikipedia until late this evening, but I will try to respond then. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review: Bart Sells His Soul

Hi, Cirt, I'm reviwinfg this artcile. I've posted comments at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. -Philcha (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Block required

You blocked User:Yashveer r for his vandalism to film articles. Now Yashmanthegreat has appeared and he is making the same destructive edits. Since the names are so similar it probably is the same person. Can you block him before things get out of hand again? Thank you for your help. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else blocked him already. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Please consider protecting the Moodiesburn article from new and unregistered users due to the array of recent vandalism from local hooligans. People are trying to improve this article but it seems like a playground for local morons. Duncun O'Leod (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Repo

Hi, I saw that you were protecting the Operation Repo page. It still shows as unprotectyed is there a time lag that goes with the protection before it's active? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review of bilateral AfD

since you have closed many of these bilateral AfDs, you might be interested in commenting on this closure. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 20. thanks LibStar (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago

There seems to be a problem with a template in the intro. Do you know of any new changes that may have caused this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cirt is conscientious and a good Administrator

Cirt is conscientious and a good Administrator.

I am a new Author I admit I do not write as much as I had planned to originally, but I am responsible for following up and reviewing periodically articles that I have contributed.

I want to thank you for blocking the User:NO-BULLSHIT from the Wikipedia system and reverting the antics, spam, and attempted defamation of an article I wrote about Col. David J. Wright. I would like to know who he is so further action can be taken to find out exactly who he is. Please inform me if there is a way to see from which IP this person logged in from. Ingenosa (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Box-footer

The proper action would be to fix the redirect(s). Now we end up with the same mess we were in before, namely the interwiki bots polluting the template on a regular basis that show up on every portal page (but which remains largely invisible due to the immediate reverts). — Edokter • Talk • 11:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded too soon... I thought you moved Box-header back. Still, fixing a redirect is trivial. — Edokter • Talk • 11:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Lauren Rueda should be blocked for good faith addition of relevant links

Could you please re-consider your decision to block this editor? I have two articles on my watchlist that she added her links to; IMO both were relevant to the subject. I also noted my opinion on her talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, am I reading the history right? There was only a last warning at UTC 21:16 for the addition to Peter Atkins and then, after no more edits, your block at 21:44, after which she comments at 21:56? Is it really fair to block her when she was just warned for the first time and hadn't done anything after the warning? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to the reviewing admin, Daniel Case (talk · contribs) [10]. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be a pattern with this admin who also blocked me (24 hours for "disruptive editing") with no warning whatsoever (or even my being notified that a complaint had been made) despite my having a spotless record over the three years I have been on Wikipedia. Based on time stamps, the block was made just five minutes after a posting of a 3RR "complaint" by an editor who: a) had made four reversions himself on the same article; b) has a personal record of multiple extended blocks and conflicts with other editors; c) spends virtually all of his time complaining about other editors and posting in their talk pages rather than actually contributing anything new to atricles, and d) despite that fact I had posted reasons for each of my good faith edits (which were not reversions) in the Talk section for the article (World Series) I was attempting to edit. (The matter under dispute with the complaining editor was his unreferenced contention that the playoff championship of Major League Baseball is the same thing as the undisputed, internationally recognized "World's Championship of Baseball" and giving as his only support for this: a) "That's where the money is."; b) "Bud Selig says so."; c) "It is what it is." and finally d) "media tradition" in the United States.) (Centpacrr (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

[11]. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This "response" still does not answer the question I asked as to why I was blocked within five minutes without so much as a "warning," or even being advised of a "complaint" against me prior to being blocked. This is particularly vexing for me in that I have had a spotless record (no previous blocks or warnings for anything) in the three years I have been editing here, and have always tried very hard to work within the rules and policies of the community. If you had taken the time to at least make an attempt at providing me with due process by looking at my edit summaries and comments in the article's Talk page prior to blocking me, then you would have seen that I had posted multiple such comments there relating to the reasons for my position on the underlying question and my good faith attempts to achieve consensus in the matter. Additionally you have not responded to my inquiry as to why the "complainant" who has since admitted that he was in violation of the 3RR rule with four reversions in this particular instance (and has a history of multiple previous blocks) was not disciplined at all. I am also puzzled as to why the link you posted above as your response to these questions is of another editor chastising me only for providing my defense in the matter in too much detail.

I would still appreciate answers to the questions I have asked of you here so that I know how to handle these matters in the future. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Already addressed and archived at closed/archived ANI thread. Please stop posting to my talk page about this. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not post here further on this matter and will let it drop, however neither of the links you have posted here in response address the specific questions I have asked above so I guess I will just live in the dark about those and move on. Thank you for your time. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

LaurenRueda unblock

One warning and an indefinite block? I agree it was spamming, but we didn't even link to WP:EL. I really think we should explain why those links were in violation of policy, then give her (assuming it's a her) another chance. Daniel Case (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Greenfields School

I will certainly try my best at it, Cirt! Interesting outcome in the Scientology Arbcase,. don't you think? I didn't expect it to be quite so... Thorough! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, I believe! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested a merge of Beyond Belief (symposium) to The Science Network. Please go to either article for a link to the discussion if you are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival

I think it is notable; I'd be interested to know why you disagree and/or why you didn't see fit to discuss obliterating the article. In case you didn't know, it is considered important by two wikiprojects. I agree it has issues with sourcing, but that's irrelevant AFAICT.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of WP:ROLLBACK: [12]. I posted to User talk:Mike.lifeguard [13]. Response [14], my response [15], subsequently blanks talk page [16]. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minor fix

That was intentional, actually. Links to prior uses of a principle are intended for reference use on the workshop only, and are trimmed from the final text; apparently, that one was missed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Isles

Hi Cirt. I notice you've move protected the article with its current title of "...British Islands". Was that the intention, because the request from User:LevenBoy was really to move it back to "...British Isles" and then move protect? Unfortunately this was not made clear in the request. I don't know if you've studied the move debate on the Talk page in detail, but if so you'll note that an acrimonious dispute was in full flow as to whether or not the page should be moved. There was no consensus to do so (and to be fair, it's unlikely there ever would be) but User:Purple Arrow simply took it upon himself to move the page regardless of the lack of consensus. To make matters worse he's moved it to a title that nearly everyone agrees is inappropriate. However, the page is now locked for moving, so those in favour of the move (about half the respondents) can now abandon the debate; their objective was merely to remove the word "British Isles" from the title. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For detail see Talk:Military_history_of_the_peoples_of_the_British_Islands#Requested move and the subsequent sections. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Work- Ciara

Could you please take off the protection label on work. The song could be coming out soon and since Ciara just announced it, there will be more information to come . No one can edit it unless it is uplifted. TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

You haven't replied. Reply immediately! I have already set up a request for unprotection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.23.226 (talk • contribs)

Why did you do that? It was sourced and it had a future single template on. Reply TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Congratulations

I revisited 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack and noticed it's now a FA. Kudos to you and the other involved editors for powering through the disruptions. Take care, momoricks 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Geesh, I really need to look closer at page histories and talk pages. :) momoricks 05:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

UserRazzinator

User:Razzinator's edits are not obvious vandalism and he has not been warned since the previous block. In fact you could have blocked yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bart's Inner Child

I finished the production section for Bart's Inner Child. Unfortunately, there weren't much information available on the DVD so I decided to merge the production and cultural references sections (since I've seen some other episode GAs/FAs use that format). I hope that's alright. :) Cheers, TheLeftorium 11:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Official Razzie Movie Guide

On May 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Official Razzie Movie Guide, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowfoot vs Bobtail

Perfect - thanks a lot. Micheletb (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeless Heart

I'm not sure as to your fully decision in locking this article but what I'm proposing is getting a music exprt on wiki to review the article as objectively as possible and not reverting it to lessen and provide inaccurate information about the song. if you know such a person on wiki, please pass it on, thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help me do that.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Henson

Please justify the reversion of all my edits to this page.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, please explain which bit of any edits covered by WP:BLP are contentious or poorly sourced.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Only one of those edits added new information. Why were the others reverted? Further, the one edit adding new information contained some copy that was simply information from the rest of that page, and the rest was from the page Carolyn Meinel (although, I admit, I'm not sure what to do about intra-references); why was this reverted? 87.254.80.79 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Homeless Heart

Could you unprotect Homeless Heart? I wouldn't say Jeneral28 and I came to a amicable resolution, but I have told him on the talk page that I will hold off editing the article for a while. Furthermore, I would like to give him a chance to improve the article as he sees fit. Would it be possible for you to unprotect the article so he can do so? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Percy Jackson move

Can you please move Percy Jackson (character) to simply Percy Jackson? There is no need to redirect to a larger name from the more appropriate one. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other titles that start with that name, might be best to start a disambig page, instead. Cirt (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Will work on the DAB page. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowball merge proposal

A user has started a merge proposal to merge Snowball to Simpson Family. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon

Hello Cirt. Since you put full protection on this article, you might be interested by WP:AN3#LebaneseZp/72.10.109.105 reported by George (Result: ). It seems to me that there is not actually a multi-party edit war. Just one guy, with a registered account and two or more socks, who is doing his nationalistic thing against everyone else. (He opposes the view that Lebanon is an Arab country). Note the long list of diffs at the bottom of the 3RR report. Mayalid's opinion in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LebaneseZp/Archive is that LebaneseZp and 72.10.109.105 are the same editor. If you are willing to reduce protection to semi, we could keep an eye on LebaneseZp who would then no longer be assisted by his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the sock case close? It appears none have been blocked, or tagged. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mayalid closed the sock case without recommending action. He was concerned that, while 72.10.109.105 is probably the same editor as LebaneseZp, he does not want to penalize him for editing while logged out. He believes that AN3 is better positioned to closely study the matter. AN3 would (hypothetically) put LebaneseZp and the IP together and see if the combination of the two had violated. Perhaps Mayalid would have recommended a block if he had seen the new list of diffs that was recently added at the bottom of the AN3 report, which gives a better organized view of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, keep me posted if there is a result from that AN3 thread, or a definitive block by an admin and/or tagging these accounts as socks. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you will give permission for modifying your protection, someone might take a crack at closing the AN3. There is a mystic law that you can't do both blocks and protections, which may cause lightning to strike if violated. Since the case is growing stale, I was thinking of leaving a message for LebaneseZp to see if he will stop, or otherwise change his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be much more comfortable if there had been a definitive closure result of that sock report, and/or that AN3 thread, first. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI has been closed, deferring to the judgment of AN3. AN3 can't act decisively due to the protection. (All we could do is close with No Action and tell the submitter to come back when protection expires). Do you want to close the AN3 case? EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the AN3 thread is being handled by another administrator. It also looks like that thread is not yet closed. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Time presses. I have to go now. Cheers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

[17] I usually double-check everything FA-related, but I haven't been full steam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

For unprotecting the Matthew Sanders page. :D Signed, kotakkasut 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Indigenous people... I realized after you did it that I had accidentally selected FULL instead of SEMI, but I am glad you didn't ignore the request all together.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Scientology

Hey there. I see you are active in editing Scientology articles. I have created a History of Scientology article and it is a real basic outline at present. I am off to bed so I left an {{underconstruction}} tag on it. Feel free to do som constructing it it of course. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil Tyson page

Puzzled why you put a tag about insufficient sources. There are about 35 refs & citations if you scroll down to bottom, more than most WP articles on bios. Can you specify which aspects that need more sources? Much obliged --EJohn59 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

Hi, thanks for your response. I'm still dense. The two external links #3 & #4 give detailed bios of him, probably more so than most other bios in WP. See, e.g., this link on curriculum vitae. Since Tyson is such a famous person, I'm worried that your tag is giving WP a bad name.--EJohn59 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Codiceanglais

I am going to create a new user name for Codiceanglais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and counsel him regarding conflict of interest. He has contacted us on unblock-en-l regarding his troubles. I will be watching his activities, as I do those of all accounts I create. Fred Talk 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MIllennium '73

Millennium '73, to which you made significant contributions, has now been promoted to WP:Featured article status. Thank you for your help.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Naked Ali

... what about the new draft of the background section? The move/rename is a side-issue there.. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard good article nomination

I've nominated Military career of L. Ron Hubbard, which I've recently rewritten from scratch, as a possible good article. Seeing as you've piloted numerous articles through GA and FA reviews, would you be able to have a look at the article and advise me on any changes that need to be made? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Retaliation

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Mumbai. I'm waiting for the bhajji-styled hatchet job retaliation. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:SME2009

Hey Cirt. If you have a moment, could you possibly take a look at this unblock request please? They appear to be sincere, but I wanted your opinion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A light! From the dark!

For your terrific work helping to identify and improve portals, as well as your diligent efforts at AfD, I award you this barnstar. – Quadell (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get the message

Please repeat. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Please look a little further into this case or refer someone who may be able to help. If you look at the full history of this article, this is more than a simple "edit war" between two disagreeing parties. There has been a long-standing effort by Debicella himself and/or a close ally to control the content of this article. User Orangeman2 (who has gone by several other handles and IPs) repeatedly hijacks the article and tailors it to their own political ends. Just look at the edit history for as long as the article has existed, it was going on before I even came on the scene. I am trying to maintain a reputable article with a standard of quality and fairness. Help would be appreciated. 69.182.16.126 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenicia

I was starting to edit the disputed text to provide some references and discovered it was protected. As an Admin I can of course edit it, but I wanted to discuss this with you first. I'm pretty sure that this is one editor using socks to push a pov, and a badly written one at that. I've got on of the best books on the subject on my desk right now. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to sign. Also, the sockmaster, if that's the case, now has a 24 hour block. That's 2 remedies for the problem, and the block stops any resolution on the talk page, although I would be surprised if resolution with the blocked editor is possible. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No response, so I shall go ahead and work on it a bit this weekend with references. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, left an 'it' out of Phoenicia but still got a link that looked ok when I previewed. In any case, the protection has expired & I was too busy over the weekend to edit anyway. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin FAR

NEed ideas for a natural structure. All of them feel a bit odd, maybe, or maybe I have been thinking too hard YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will have another look. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Robert Culp Effect

Thanks for deleting this. Please note, though, that the page was moved during the AfD process; the moved page is still up: The Culp Effect. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quick

Thanks for the Ali's Smile AH update. I was just getting round to it, but you saved me the trouble ;) Regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, not an easy one to adjudicate. My talk-page is open for incoming flak... EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed your last (been a busy day). It seems to have stopped though. EyeSerene^talk 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course - it's still on my watchlist, and I've left a note on the GAR. If necessary I'll protect the page, though given the all-round-good-eggness of the editors involved I honestly doubt it will come to that. EyeSerene^talk 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ali's smile

1. Harris, Oliver (2003) William Burroughs and the Secret of Fascination. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 0809324849. PP. 29-30 "... the defining instance occurs in a short story, written at the same time as Wild Boys, entitled Ali's Smile. Here the smile is tied to homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis, so that fascination names a perverse pleasure of pleasurable perversity: Ali loses control of his own body by becoming [snip]..." Talk on previous pages about the literary or psych. aspects of smiles; mentions Wild Boys
2. Eric Mottram Eric Mottram (1977). William Burroughs: the algebra of need. Published by M. Boyars, Original from the University of Michigan. ISBN 0714525626 "Ali's Smile" uses the colonial official and native servant formula for the next stage in the extermination collection. Deep in 'Ye Olde Marl Hole Tavern'..."

• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Will copy to article talk. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

163.153.162.254

Hi. Would you reconsider your block of 163.153.162.254? The edit that you are citing as vandalism was in fact a good faith effort as noted by the reverting editor, that did not contain a citation. The book noted does exist, here is the publisher's description of the book. Thanks. --NERIC-Security (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this now mean that blocks occur without warnings that prompted the block? If you look at it from the user's perspective (keeping in mind that this is a shared/NAT'd address used by many people), one user attempted a mal-edit (no argument there). About an hour later another user (that's an assumption) makes a good faith edit, which is reverted (we can discuss separately if it should have just been tagged to be fact checked), is warned for that good faith edit, and is then blocked five minutes later without any other notice. The assumption from the user's perspective is that the block was based upon the good faith edit. Is this the way blocks should be handled?

Can we keep the discussion in one place? I'll check back here. Thanks --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Unblocked. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best to keep on top of them. --NERIC-Security (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Block rationale

Working on it, I want to get the diffs right.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NERIC-Security

Hello. FYI this user has previously given explicit undertakings that the account will only be used by one and the same user, so it is not a role account. Consensus also has it that the name does not imply undue authority on Wikipedia. There are probably links to the relevant discussions on the user's talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121#User:NERIC-Security on his user page, where this issue was previously discussed. I'm inclined to agree that this issue was taken care of then, and I don't see a problem with the username - especially since his user page very clearly defines what NERIC is. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the edits are in good faith, I don't think the confirmation is necessary. I think the disclosure is pretty open on the user page. Frankly, I think about the only way to handle that confirmation would be to have the user send email to OTRS from his work email account. The OTRS volunteer would then note on the userpage that the user is a single person and does represent the named organization. I just don't see why we need to make the user go through that hoop. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

bilateral AfDs

what do you think of this closure? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Georgia relations. the discussion only yielded one source which was a primary source. and the article only has 1 reference. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good close. Based on strength of arguments, no consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a bad close, for reasons stated by LibStar (talk · contribs). I also do not think that the closer should be closing these things, as he is not an uninvolved admin on this topic by any stretch. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there's a temptation to want to just go with an outright "Keep" based on strength of arguments, but there was sufficient disagreement that the "no consensus" Docu went with seems correct. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad A Nobody isn't closing these. it is borderline no consensus at best. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, just a question. I noticed you usernameblocked Wissman, and was wondering if you could explain why. Is there something I'm missing about the name? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I came across this on the user name board, but I've just read that you actually vandalblocked him. So was he listed on the user names for admin attention board in error, or am I still missing something? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the block, I'm just wondering what it is about the username that led to it being listed there in the first place. Is "wiss" some slang I'm not familiar with, perhaps? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was making a (oblique, i admit) comment about the words of another user. Sorry for the confusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Scientology ethics.

Would the official spanish translation by Bridge Publications serve as a reliable source for what I write on the Ethics (Scientology) article? Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I need your help...

Hey Cirt, first of all, thank you so much for helping me the other day, I need to ask you a favour again, I am having a discussion on a page move, and I would love to have you share your thoughts and comments about the move, here is the link to the page Talk:Fly on the Wall (Miley Cyrus song), sorry for disturbing you and thanks a lot in advance! =) Signed, kotakkasut 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! But it would also be great if you give your neutral point of view on the subject too, since you're an established administrator, I could really use an advice from an expert =) Thanks again for the help, I totally appreciate it! Signed, kotakkasut 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Hey, would you be ok if I redirected The Consumation to the band name, per my rational at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Consumation? Now that the article is deleted, there is no risk of the original author reverting the redirect.Fingers^OnRoids 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting a long section on WP:AN

<sarcasm>Thanks a bundle for starting a wonderfully long section on WP:AN right below mine.  :) Now noone is going to see mine.  :) </sarcasm> The preceding message was intended to be humorous, just for the record. ;) --Rockfang (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on admin

Are you aware this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Docu.27s_signature_violates_WP:SIGNATURE is now closed. is anyone else happening, like RfC? LibStar (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to self - neat template - Afdrescued

{{Afdrescued}} - Cirt (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Portal:Norway DYKs

No problem, Cirt. I'm keeping an eye out for the Norwegian DYKs when they appear on the main page, noting them down and posting them at Portal:Norway/DYK once in a while. This time they got that many due to me being on leave for some months, although I did take a look now and then to write down the new DYKs. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for showing me how to update the portal DYKs. Manxruler (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SuperView

You deleted the SuperView article as the result of its first AfD discussion. The article has been recreated, and renominated. Do you have access to the version that was previously deleted, to ascertain whether a speedy under WP:CSD#G4 pertains? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled Second Camp Half Blood Series

Hi, I have no idea how to edit or do things like that so I hope you can help me. I saw your info on the page for the second Camp Half Blood (Percy Jackson) series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Untitled_Second_Camp_Half_Blood_Series

I had looked at the page a couple weeks ago and then when I looked again today I saw it had been deleted. It looks like the reasons given were because of no reliable sources to back up the second series.

I found a video interview with Rick Riordan where he talks about the second series being published next year. That's pretty reliable to me. The interview is on the Barnes and Noble page for The Last Olympian. The video interview has been embedded in the page.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Last-Olympian/Rick-Riordan/e/9781423101475/?itm=1

Rick Riordan talks about the second series in the first minute of the interview.

If you can do something to reverse the deletion of the second Camp Half Blood Series page, thank you!

AlcyoneRDH (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Like a Surgeon (Ciara song)

I requested the page for this song to be unprotected on WP:RFPP. Though, no one has fulfilled it. It has charted as you will see there, and I was hoping that you could unprotect it. ----TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Im looking at the WP:RFPP page and I see that you have the authority to unprotect it. You owe it to the Ciara fans that want to add new information to that page, since you closed it. -- --TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sara Northrup

You commented a few days on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Northrup. I have completely rewritten and greatly expanded the article (which is now at Sara Northrup Hollister). Your views on the new-look article would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rio (band)

Why did you delete this band's article? don't you know that they are one of the cult bands in Peru????? Who are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.41.150.72 (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC) You're wrong. Rio is touring the USA this JULY, and you will not include it in YOUR wikipedia? it's unbelievable, but understandable, since you are the owner of Wikipedia.190.41.150.72 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of The Online Racing Association

I am writing to protest your deletion of the afore mentioned article.

Users were stating that the article lacked the required notability standards. I then added two notable third party sources, Radio Le Mans and Autosport.

Many users seemed to request deletion on the grounds that they were uninformed of the topic or subject matter, which is against wiki's guidelines.

Hope to hear from you soon and to see this article reinstated. --AJzero (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The process page suggests that I talk with you first. The original issue was that that article did not meet the notability requirements, as this was my first attempt at using wiki. I then added the two references as stated above, which then meant that the requirements were met. My understanding was that the article would be removed from articles for deletion after adding those references. In addition, users have been suggesting deletion due to a lack of knowledge on the subject matter, which I was told would be ignored. Hope to hear from you soon so this issue can be resolved swiftly as you can understand many of our members are non pulsed! --AJzero (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We are regularly featured on Radio Le Mans' Midweek Motorsport Show. --AJzero (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

There seems to be some conflict regarding the above article. When it gets unlocked, it could probably use a few more informed eyes. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. I will take a look at the article and consider providing some input. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd move/rename of Christian cult

You previously participated in a move/rename discussion at Talk:Christian cult. Another such discussion has opened. [18] Milo 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cooneyite/Christ. Conventions

I see you had some input on the proposal to delete the Cooneyite article last year. As this and 2 related articles had lain dormant for some time without citations, I went through the CC article to get it down to material which could be cited. I had also begun to do this for the related Cooneyites and William Irvine article (if those edits preempted anything you were about to add, my apologies to you and Shoessss, as at the time I didn't know you two had proposed adding citations). At this point, the editor who had proposed deleting the Cooneyite article has returned and is disputing RS on the citations, restoring uncited information, and proposing using editor consenus instead of citable sources. I haven't seen this proposed before, so I was wondering if you might comment as to whether this would be valid. I personally do think the citations are RS (but I've spent many days tracking down citations, so I'm hardly without bias). My worry is that editor consensus without citation seems to be an open invitation for someone to delete material wholesale, or again propose Afd'ing the articles themselves. Is editor consensus a substitute for citing sources? Not sure I can preserve a cool head, as this comes on the heels of another member who insisted and dispute-tagged everything on what seems to be a premise that the group cannot be described at all. • Astynax ^talk 19:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lightning-fast response! I was under the impression that editor consensus wouldn't do, and had argued that. But since he seemed so sure that “lowering the standards” (as he put it) was acceptable, I wanted some confirmation as to whether or not I should retract on that point. As for whether the cited sources are RS enough, which he disputes, an independent look at those might also be helpful in getting past this roadblock which the History shows as being thrown up repeatedly in the past. • Astynax ^talk 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najm rehan (film maker)

FYI on this AfD you closed: The article was moved during the discussion for MOS purposes. The ultimate target was Najm Rehan (film maker) and associated Talk. Arakunem^Talk 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination/closing dates on AFDs

Per this edit, the template there should be filled out with the nomination date, not the closing date... or if the closing date is more important then the template should be changed so it reads closed instead of nominated. Whichever. DreamGuy (talk)

Replied at user's talk. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Hi, Cirt. As the nominator of Bart Sells His Soul I think you should be aware of the exchanges at: my Talk page; Scorpion0422's; and mine - as far as I can see, Scorpion0422 is more or less asking me to fail the article. Do you feel the same way as he apparently does? --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. --05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I suggest you work through the exercises at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS-specific section. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the commentary for the episode, the producers say they originally wanted to use Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven as the song at the beginning. I just realized that this isn't in the article, is there a reason, or was that just missed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about the edit-war, as it's a fun article and the content and referencing were already in decent shape at the start of the review. As you requested, I'll close as a "fail" on grounds of edit war. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll wait a few days to see whether the situation improves - if someone continues edit-warring for that long, I guess you know what to do. It seems silly to let this invalidate the work we've both put in so far. --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're happy with the way I handled the review, feel free to ask me to review it again when the situation has cleared up, as I'll have the advantage of knowing the territory. OTOH I'll quite understand if you think the article will benefit from another pair of eyes. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Van Heusen Music

Van Heusen Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested unblocking through unblock-en-l. I agreed to unblock him if he would agree to add no more spamming links to Van Heusen's website and review the guidelines regarding conflict of interest. I will monitor him in the future, at least occasionally. Fred Talk 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All users who ask for an account on unblock-en-l have been blocked, usually due to a range block or schoolblock. Generally the assumption is made that they are not the principle vandal, but obviously they can be; so their activity needs to be monitored. This particular person claims to be Van Heusen's nephew, and he may be, or might simply be a fan. In my opinion, the question is whether he will use the account in an appropriate way, not whether he ought to have an account at all. Generally people who are the subject of articles, or employees charged with public relations for an organization, or even public relations companies hired to monitor pages, can have account, provided they edit appropriately. Please see User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Unblocked_users and User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Created_users for examples of typical behavior of unblocked and created users; only a small percentage engages in, or returns to the behavior that occasioned the original block. Fred Talk 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, continued monitoring of unblocked and created accounts is part of the work of those who monitor unblock-en-l. Feel free to block him yourself if he reverts to spamming or other grossly inappropriate behavior. Fred Talk 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have made more of an issue of his user name; I apologize for that oversight. Fred Talk 01:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather let it go at this point. If he becomes a regular editor, I think we might ask him to ask for a change of name. Most likely, he'll just make a few edits and they go inactive. Fred Talk 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I'm correct the cats, contents, wikipedia, portals, articles, on pt wikipedia. Thanks Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

pt:Categoria:!Portais, please see my constributons. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am doing the pt:Categoria:Wikipedia administração. I'm translating to put in the right place. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Olá Cirt. Someone had made the page with another name, I want to do the page with the correct name so I created the second name, not to move in the article that was already done, so end to translate the page with correct name I propose the portal page. Did not want to change the name of the article that was done because someone could not agree, then did another page. Thank you for your attention. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

However you knew, thank you for stepping in and blocking Dalwadi6. That helps defuse a nasty situation. There are a few others who seem determined to follow in his footsteps, unfortunately; perhaps your action will serve as a warning to them. We'll see. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

France

You have made the decision to fully protect the France article indefinitely, therefore I can not make a change to that article. I have proposed a change to the France article on its talk page. (Talk:France#Energy_independence.) Would you please make that change for me, if you find it fit. Thank you. TheFreeloader (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Guide's 100 Best Episodes of All Time

No prob. I'm actually adding it to several of the eps from that article (which I'm going through right now): Ones from Seinfeld, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Friends, Buffy, The Sopranos, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)

Ah, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Jehochman suggested that I also talk to you about the Boothroyd article and invite you to work on it. I don't see a need to invite specific users to do so (it is a wiki after all), but I'd be very happy if you would help out with it. Also, thanks for the pointer about the new article. I'll take a look at the sources there. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the sources you mainly list are offline. Can you possibly email me scans of the relevant sections or pointers to where they can be located online? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jet article (please protect)

Please protect the Jet article, as people appear to be removing cited genre sources, and adding 'alternative', while removing sourced genre styles like 'Hard rock, pop, american rock, aussie rock', if you could continue to protect it, that'd be ace. --Papermanjack (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Favour

Hey, if you're still around would you mind looking at this article and its' talk page? Thanks, t'shael ^mindmeld 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day Cirt

now you're a wise and clever chap, right? Fancy offering any advice here? :-) (see the talk page too...) Privatemusings (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)it's a liddle article at the centre of the paid editing broo ha ha thing....

Chance of Undeletion?

A while ago, (18 December 2008) you deleted the article Hank green. The consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank green was that Hank Green could not be considered a "notable" person. Quickly, I'd like to refute this and have this matter resolved. Hank Green is easily considered notable, following the guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC

WP:BIO

Satisfying Basic Criteria Hank Green has had over twenty articles written about him and several of his projects (Brotherhood 2.0, Project for Awesome, and Ecogeek). To name a few:
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
(A list of articles mentioning Hank Green has helpfully been provided by JoinTheMadVender, at User:JoinTheMadVender/Sandbox#References that you can easily peruse for further examples.) This easily satisfies the basic criteria (he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject", Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria).

Entertainers Hank Green can be considered to have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Hank Green's channels on YouTube have both had thousands of views and subscribers ("theecogeek": subscribers, 3795; channel views, 11058. "vlogbrothers": subscribers, 84936). His and his brothers videos have collectively been watched over 20 million times. There are over 20, 000 members of the site Nerdfighters, which Hank Green started for fans. There are over 39, 500 members of his other fansite, My Pants.

Creative professionals Hank Green is both an editor and a journalist. He is the editor (as well as the sole creator) of the extremely popular environmentalist site "EcoGeek", which was heralded as "the leading blog on green science and technology" by The Nature Conservancy. He also writes environmentally-friendly articles on EcoGeek (along with the other long-term writers), which are among the most viewed on the site, that broadcast information about all things green. He also, often times, wrote articles for Mental floss.

WP:MUSIC

Hank Green can also be considered notable as a musician. He satisfies qualification #2 on Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles ("has had a charted single or album on any national music chart") by having his album "So Jokes" clock in at #22 in Top Revenue Sales on the Billboard. (Cited here: Billboard.com)

So, please consider undeleting Hank green. Below is my reasoning as stated in Talk:Hank_Green, reprinted for your convenience, for the return of the article.

Call for the Reopening for the Hank Green Page

I believe that there is sufficient notable information on Hank Green to warrant the reopening of his page. I still don't fully understand why, if the information was insufficient, Hank Green's page wasn't simply marked as "stub". The redirection to "John Green (author)" is invaluable to those looking to learn more about Hank Green, because the article only mentions Hank Green in swift passing.
It seems Hank Green's standalone "notability" has also been called into question. First, I will mention his incredibly large following on the video sharing website "YouTube" (which, by the way, is not as isolated a community as some believe). It is unfair to understate the value of his "Project for Awesome" (P4A), which encourages people to spread the word on worthy charities through the internet. This project has encouraged donations to hundreds of charities.
Hank Green is the sole founder of EcoGeek, which (along with its sister companies Carectomy, Envirovore, and Envirowonk) is a large information blog, filled with articles on all things environmentally-friendly. It is "the leading blog on green science and technology", even, according to The Nature Conservancy. EcoGeek has been nominated for a plethora of awards as well. Also, notably, he was a writer for Mental_floss. This is an accomplishment within itself.
These are all things that Hank Green had achieved as of 20 December 2008, and yet, it seems not to be accepted enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (not even a "stub"!), which is, I think, outrageous. Fortunately, he has achieved much more, as of 28 May 2009. So, in addition to the following list:

- Conceiver of the "Project for Awesome", a project dedicated to informing individuals of charities in need of financial support
- Founder, runner, and editor of EcoGeek.com, which has been heralded as the "leading blog on green science and technology"
- Writer for the popular magazine Mental floss
- Co-initiator of the Brotherhood 2.0 Project, which remain among of the most viewed videos of all time on YouTube
- One of several writers for EcoGeek.com

Hank Green has accomplished even more. He has now co-founded a record company, DFTBA Records, which has released his album "So Jokes". "So Jokes" entered the Billboard's Top 20 in February 2009 for Top Revenue Generating albums sold through paid downloads and paid streams. He has been on tour, the Tour de Nerdfighters, and has had several concerts. He was released music videos for his singles "It All Makes Sense At The End" and "DFTBA".
And let's go back to the whole "DFTBA Records" thing for a moment: the record company has signed more than fifteen artists to its label (including Chameleon Circuit, Dave Days, Julia Nunes, Alan Lastufka, Tom Milsom, and Charlie McDonnell). It has its own forum for discussion of its artists (which is more than I can say for many, much more prominent, record companies), a radio show, and a "street team".
So, he's a record producer, singer/songwriter, environmentalist, and vlogger? Well, that seems pretty "notable" to me.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope this can be resolved. (And sorry this is so lengthy! I'm a talker. :P)
-- Madi,Madithekilljoy (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As you would see if you clicked the link presented, that directed you to User:JoinTheMadVender/Sandbox#References, you would see that many, well-known, widely circulated publications, such as Publisher's Weekly, The New York Times, The National Geographic Green Guide, The Guardian, and The Scientific American have published articles regarding Hank Green, and he has been covered in national programs such as the CBS News. He has been covered extensively by the The Missoulian, one of the more widely circulated newspapers in Montana, which regarded him as the "most famous man in Missoula". How can he not be considered notable enough?

"A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Hank Green satisfies criteria for three of the more "subject-specific" guidelines. I went into detail about the first two; the third is "Web Content". Many nationally and globally circulated publications have used Hank Green's website, Ecogeek, as a source. These include, and are by no means limited to: The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, US News, The Huffington Post, and NewWest.net. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube video to be used as a source for something only Youtube could provide with any remote accuracy (such as the average number of views for a specific channel) does not change the viability of any other references. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, just because some of the links don't meet your approval doesn't mean that the remaining links aren't substantial enough to warrant a WIkipedia article. Some of the sources are absolutely irrefutable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madithekilljoy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that a person who questions the deletion of an article try to discuss the deletion with the party who committed the deletion in the first place before going to the deletions review to solve the matter more rapidly, as I have done. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did draft an example Hank Green page with aid from other Wikipedia users, back in May: User:Madithekilljoy/Sandbox. Madithekilljoy (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you very much. Madithekilljoy (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Six Sigma Pricing

Hi, could you supply a copy of this article per WP:DEL? Thanks. 72.208.254.202 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Beam Me Up

I see you have protected Beam Me Up. Could you redirect it to the disambiguation page Beam me up please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Faster than a speeding bullet ... ". Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You gained ten geek points for that one (and lost 5 cool points). Just so ya know. and yes I'm keeping score Durova^Charge! 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Please read WP:HAT#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous as an example of improper use of hatnotes. Those "Pelham" articles are each disambiguated by (YEAR film) or by (novel). They are, therefore, not ambiguous and should *not* have hatnotes. Any ambiguous titles Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, for instance, should be redirecting to the disambiguation page anyway making these hatnotes unnecessary across the board. If you find any ambiguous titles redirecting to a disambiguated one, you should redirect them to the disambiguation page. 24.149.47.30 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

As an advanced admin who works on BLP/N, I'd appreciate your comment on this BLP-related question I've asked of another admin. Thanks for your time. ► RATEL ◄ 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Only problem with using the article's talk page to discuss this edit is that the consensus always goes against me, no matter what the issue. Why? Because the other perennial editors watching that page are the 1) subject's lawyer, 2) the person who runs Copperfield's fanclub (by his own admission), 3) two editors who followed me there from other pages in order to kick me (and who had no interest in the page before I started editing it, eg Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), and 4) an admin (Gwen Gale) who is linked to one of these editors as an ally (in the opinion of many editors). So the Talk page is a slanted, polluted forum. In addition, Collect and Gwen Gale are very active on BLPN, so taking the issue there is immediately met with opposition from them for starters. I'm trying to get the edit simply looked at neutrally, as having nothing to so with me or my supposed motives. I cannot see how, on the face of it, this is an unacceptable edit. ► RATEL ◄ 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to know what you personally think about the edit too, though. ► RATEL ◄ 04:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• You asked for a diff, but I'll go one better. Here is the proposed edit. There are many more sources than the ones mentioned, BTW.

• Here's what I want to insert into the Litigation section on the page David Copperfield (illusionist):

In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, they won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match, although Copperfield's publicist confirmed that Schiffer had a contract to appear in the audience at Copperfield's show in Berlin where they met.

I cannot see this factual edit as a "smear", as it was called by Gwen Gale, no matter how hard I try. ► RATEL ◄ 04:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was hoping for a WP:3 on the material itself. I've tried BLP RfCs on other material for that page before, and the only responders were the "usual suspects" mentioned above. Oh well.... ► RATEL ◄ 05:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, done, see here. Perhaps you could comment at the RFC then? ► RATEL ◄ 05:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. You have been very helpful, and I'll remember the format for next time. ► RATEL ◄ 06:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharing the joy

Cirt, do you have any desire to take over the Boothyrod article in your userspace? You seem to have avoided stirring up trouble and my involvement seems to be problematic in and of itself. I'd be happy to pass it off to the expert who created the article on Boothyrod's book. :) If you don't want to touch it with a 10 foot poll, but want to help edit it or have any suggestions that would be fine too. But I really really really think you'd enjoy taking it on! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for getting back to me. And please do not hesitate to let me know if you change your mind! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul

Both User:Scorpion0422 and I think the article is ready to be nominated for GA again. The edit war seems to have stopped now, as well. Do you want to submit it now or wait longer? TheLeftorium 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. By the way, I will get the production information for your season two articles next week. :) TheLeftorium 06:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Finished the production section for Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment. TheLeftorium 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Eurovision Song Contest

Hi Cirt. You semiprotected Eurovision Song Contest because of a request at WP:RFPP. You left the summary vandalism, but there does not seem to have bin any vandalism to the article after it last protection ran out. Could you take another look at this. Rettetast (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple different IPs were adding blatantly unsourced information, and admittedly unconfirmed rumors. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unsourced info, but it is not vandalism. This was good faith IPs. And for the record they have not even bin reverted. We don't use semi-protection to get rid of irritating anonymous users that does not know the inner working of wikipedia policies. Please reconsider. Rettetast (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if the article improves with the semi-protection during the time period protected. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What will that prove? The protection goes against og protection policy and should be unprotected, and why are you being so defensive? Please respond here. Rettetast (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you raised any of these points with the individual that initially brought the WP:RFPP request? Cirt (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked at the RFPP report. I saw something i disagreed with and are trying to discuss it with the admin that took the decision to protect, and not just reverting the protection. Rettetast (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would first like to hear what the individual has to say that did make the WP:RFPP report. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am getting nowhere here. You have to be able to discuss your own actions yourself. I am just going to unprotect. Rettetast (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please wait, I will post a notice to the original editor that made the request. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait. Rettetast (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[25] Notice posted to editor that made the request. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm the original editor who made the request to semi-protect the page. The reason I requested this, is firstly a few unknown IPs have been adding un-sourced context to the article. But the main worrying one is that one IP user emailed me personally with a hurl of abuse in regards to the "Big 4" section of the Eurovision article, of which I updated. (The information included details about Italy being given automatic finalist qualification if they were to return to the contest, as they are part of the "Big 5". The details were also backed-up with sourced information, which shown valid evidence of the ESC Executive Supervisor, Mr Svante Stockselius, confirming this fact about Italy and the Big 5.) The IP user who emailed me with abuse was arguing and saying I was talking bulls**t - even though the added info was sourced. The way this IP user behaved proves the facts that [A] An act of vandalism; and [B] Abusive IP user. So please could you look into semi-protection of the article. Kindest Regards; Gareth [aka (Pr3st0n (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC))]

Unsourced information should be reverted and dealt with by communicating with the users. There was only a few edits in the days after the protection was lifted. That can easily be dealt with. One abusive editor/IP can be blocked. That is no reason to semiprotect. Cirt, If you won't lift the protection, I'll ask for more opinions at WP:AN. Rettetast (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rettetast (talk · contribs), and I will unprotect. Thank you, Rettetast, for waiting for a response back from Pr3st0n (talk · contribs), I'm a bit more comfortable with it now. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It might not be as easy as we think to block the IP user. Edits made are shown in the history section; and their IP address given also. However, the IP user who emailed didn't exactly say which IP user they were; all that was written in their email to me was the email heading BIG 5 on WIKIPEDIA and then a hurl of abuse about my addition to this subject about Italy. Is there a way of finding out which IP address the email sender is assigned to? I'd appreciate any advice as to how to deal with the email sender; and finding their IP so that we can look into blocking them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Ignore it. Rettetast (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say the culprit who sent me the horrid email I spoke of above, has since been in contact again but this time they made an error. He/she sent me 2 emails over the last 2 days; only thing is the context is exactly the same, word for word, as that used in a discussion on Eurovision 2010 page about Scotland and the UK in Eurovision Link to ESC 2010 Discussion Room: The break-up of the UK. The users IP address is shown in the discussion board. Maybe you would like to view this and see if there is anything which we can do. Thanks in advance for your help (Pr3st0n (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Intercession needed

Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FA review

Hi Cirt, I think I've finished the Bernard Williams tidy-up. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Image issue fixed too, I think. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User LarsLionheartLeBeau

Hi I see you have warned this user multiple times for adding in trivia sections to the pages of South Park episodes. He has continued to do this, adding a bunch of trivia sections to multiple episodes. Not sure what should be done in terms of warning this user since he has already been warned by you.

Oh yeah his contribs list [26] Strongsauce (talk)

Thanks for the notification. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil redirects

Hi, I was fixing some redirects that you deleted because they pointed to Peak oil (disambiguation) (they were a bunch of soft double redirects that should have been pointed to different places) and noticed that Implications of peak oil had a talk page. Do you mind restoring the history for that article? For now it should stay a redirect as I made it to a section of Peak oil, but I think that page has some editing history that may end up being useful to someone and has not been subject to AFD. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What if we build it....

... but nobody comes? If there are no comments on an FPC does the portal automatically get promoted? Regards. —G716 <^T·_C> 01:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The History of British Political Parties

On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The History of British Political Parties, 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) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Thank you for supporting me, I've certainly learned a lot! :) TheLeftorium 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi FAR

Hi Cirt - Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. Thanks for asking me. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield talk page edits

Would you run some interference related to the David Copperfield Rfc? Ratel moved other editors' comments and refactored them, which may be related to RfC formatting and organization, but may not be okay with other editors. Flowanda | Talk 03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Editor Emely1219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is suspected by some other editors of being a sock, is making large, obfuscatory inserts to the page that breach guidelines for Talk pages, eg started a new section called RFC anyone????? directly under the RFC section. This could be construed as a deliberate attempt to confuse the page layout and prevent uninvolved editors from making comments. The other material I removed was Emely1219's completely off-topic discussion of who has edited the talk page, and how many times. I also warned Emely1219 about abusing the Talk page (although I suspect he knows full well what he is doing). ► RATEL ◄ 04:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted to WP:ANI to hopefully get some help from additional admins and/or checkusers. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my feeling is that Emely1219 may have the same IP as Scramblecase (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If so, then raise that issue at WP:SPI. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cirt, you've reverted an archiving action. Please revert yourself. ► RATEL ◄ 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you have been a bit too aggressive with refactoring other users' comments on that talk page. Might be best for you to take a step back from it all. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, the (COI editor) was included in the subsections by the editors themselves because I requested voluntary disclosure (although I didn't specify how!). Flowanda | Talk 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. Cirt (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

COI and any sockpuppets are just part of the problem (and perhaps more of a reaction). There is little indication or history that the article edits can be trusted, so it's devolved into arguing about the editors themselves. The article needs more editors willing to jump in and stay a while, but I just don't see any of the recent attempts to recruit new victims being very helpful. Flowanda | Talk 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what response we get from WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I hope we get a response. I've been through a few RfCs now that garnered no responses at all, sadly. It's really interesting, the way WP is evolving. Nowadays you can face a real battle getting edits onto pages, even if they belong on the page (not talking about the current issue here). But I'm noticing all over WP that because WP has a high Google rank, everybody is paying attention now —all the vested interests too— and nothing is easy or simple like it used to be. WP also seems to have some basic flaw, I fear, in the consensus approach, where someone who's is prepared to change IPs (by visiting local library systems, or using work and home computers, for instance, to make a new edits) can totally mess up the whole idea of consensus with numerous untraceable socks. Then there are the editors who care nothing about the content, and only about subjugating opposing editors (whereas content is everything to me) ... I fear for the future here. ► RATEL ◄ 06:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the numerous arguments among these editors now underway on various talk pages,[27][28][29][30][31] I have no trust that any productive discussion or editing can occur on the David Copperfield article as long as these editors are involved in edits or discussion. It's just another battleground for them. The article has serious issues, and any attempts to deal with them (the article) have been overwhelmed by the kind of abusive behavior that's only been temporarily located elsewhere. Since I cannot muster any more GF, and I really don't have any business or expertise trying to keep a talk page discussion on track when it's being assaulted on every side and the bare-knuckled attitude, I was just going to move on, but, well, I just can't. The COI SPA new editors show a greater respect for Wikipedia policy and community than experienced Wikipedian editors whose abusive behavior just continues to be tolerated and each incident dealt with like it was some sort of isolated incident. There's an open RfC, and instead of trying to find more uninvolved editors or enough participation to gather consensus, they're out trashing each other to whomever will listen or tolerate them on their talk pages. There's no real chance for consensus happening, and if those edits make it into the article as is, then the Personal Life section will contain little more than overly detailed negative and unflattering information that is a total violation of BLP. I would like them to voluntarily agree to stay away from the article and others step in to help with the BLP issues, but if there are other options, I'm all for them. Flowanda | Talk 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the RfC is beginning to get some constructive input from previously-uninvolved editors. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that recent block on the IP, I just can't help wondering how many peoples lives he/she just ruined, it stayed on for 17 minutes. Gsmgm (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Heinzcreamofchickensoup

I accepted this person's unblock request. Immaturity is not a blockable offence provided it is not disriptive, which it had not yet reached the stage of. Besides, the user received no warning's their behaibour might not be acceptable, and people were quite happy to answer him on the ref desk. I actully learnt a little bit by reading those answers. Just a heads-up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tapipline

This user, whom you blocked, has requested an unblock to change their username. They also say that they are interested in contributing constructively. TNXMan 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

XboxNowOnline

I saw that you closed the AfD and deleted the page, I had also nominated another page, Hamza Dar in the same nomination, can you take care of that too? Reason for a separate nom for that was that it started out as a bio although it now is just a redirect. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion on WT:AFD may interest you

After seeing this bold close, I thought you might be interested in this discussion on WT:AFD. I proposed something similar back in April but it was rejected.

BTW I fixed this. Looks like another glitch in the Zman closing script. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh?

Why have I been mentioned? I haven't been active for ages! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can't even remember what the issue was now... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA

That's okay. I'm just trying to look forward right now, and hopefully I will have better luck next time. :) Thank you, TheLeftorium 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conspiracy Encyclopedia

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conspiracy Encyclopedia, 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) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vampires Invincible

You very properly deleted "Vampires in new york" per the discussion at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampires in new york (book)", but we're still left with Vampires Invincible, whose AfD tag points to the same discussion, which is now closed. I don't see how we're going to get rid of this one the way things stand. Do you have another wooden stake? Chris the speller (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dingo (wrestler)

Why was he deleted? He's a pretty big star in the states. He wrestles all over the midwest and now in the east coast for Combat Zone Wrestling. He's worked in Ring of Honor and is the IWA:MS Champion. I see some wrestler profiles that probably shouldn't be on wikipedia, yet he's not allowed on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.161.207 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfication

Hi Cirt. Thanks for your work closing AfDs. I was wondering about getting Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics userfied? I don't really work on those article so I'm not sure how to sue it exactly or if it's possible, but it seemed to include a lot of good information and sources. If there is some bias in it, I wasn't seeing it, but I'm open to input on it. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I thought Inchgarth Community Centre discussion was more in the direction of a merge or a no consensus than a delete. There's a fair bit of coverage of the center as I recall... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Much apprecitated. And thanks for the message about the book project. I'm letting that "mess" play out. There's only so much I can do with it when it's a focus of theater worthy dramatics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ann B.

I just bet you hate to see the new messages banner pop up on your screen. This is a nice message. Thanks! The IP addresses jump all over the place, but I'm convinced that it is the same person using a mask of some sort, although I'm not very savvy about those things. It used to be about Davis herself but then it became about her character. It's way past good faith. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MasterShake1000

Thanks for blocking this editor. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Too often vandals stick around for hours, and get repeated warnings with nothing happening. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD closures

Hi Cirt. I've seen you around the AfD logs lately. While your closures themselves are valid, some are a whole day short of the 1 week length of time. If the nomm'd article is a hoax or consensus is clear, for instance, a discussion might be closed earlier. However, try to bear in mind the default of 7 days; this, and more notably this, seem just too early to me. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think those example closures (and others) are borderline, but they were done in relative common sense, and I don't care to get worked up about something minor. ;) Jamie^☆S93 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Did you notice the q? at Samuel Beckett? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the q has been struck out, and there is unanimous consensus to delist. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot

No, I wanted to register the name first, is that okay? If it isn't feel free to delete it ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 11:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Where? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you expedite things on two OTRS images?

Reason is, is that they are part of a FAC, Matthew Boulton, which is pending, and I'd appreciate getting that resolved, even though it is still early days for the FAC.

Images are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anglesey_1790_Rev_400_(1).jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartwheelrev.jpg

email sender was: chris.leather(AT)sohomint.info. Permission request was sent to permissions-en(AT)wikimedia.org on 22 June.

Thanks a lot in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SHIMMER

Cirt, would you mind dealing with this user? It's an account that is (IMO) in violation of WP:COI with their editing - especially when it comes to the Melanie Cruise article which was redirected to the SHIMMER article. The user has also removed AfD tags. I put a warning on their talk page, but it looks like they have ignored it. Opinion pushing at it's finest in my book. If you're not the right person to approach, let me know the procedure. Thanks. !! Justa Punk !! 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury

Hello, I would appreciate it if you could reconsider your decision to delete this article. I believe that all of the concerns brought up in the discussion were addressed, so I am confused as to why this was closed as a "delete". The claim that he was not notable is addressed by the fact that he competed at the highest level of his sport for over a year and a half, participated in several notable feuds, and had victories over such notable wrestlers as a former WWE Champion. The claims that he was an embarassment (the majority of the delete votes) are nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, which aren't grounds for discussion. The claim that WP:CREATIVE should be used is bizarre, as wrestlers are a combination of athletes and entertainers, but they are nothing like engineers and scientists. He would pass WP:ATHLETE because he competed at the highest level of his sport, and he would pass WP:ENTERTAINER because of his cult following (as evidenced by the WrestleCrap induction). The other concern brought up was the lack of sourcing, but 12 sources were added during the discussion (including three separate books). Could you please clarify this issue? There was no closing rationale, and I can't see that any reason other than the quantity (but not quality) of delete votes would have led to this outcome. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, you made the correct decision to delete. Gary is interpreting WP:ATHLETE too broadly as TJ Spyke pointed out in the deletion discusion. WP:CREATIVE is relevant because pro wrestlers are artists (that's listed) and matches are creative productions with athletic prowess not becoming an essential factor in the WWF until well after Stilsbury's time. Just making the point to support you, and thank you for deleting a clearly non notable wrestler. !! Justa Punk !! 07:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, please explain how you can interpret a discussion like that, in which all concerns were addressed and fixed, as consensus to delete. No valid arguments remained by the end of the discussion, and the article was improved substantially during the course of the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, Gary is opinion pushing. My argument in the nomination was valid, and WP:ATHLETE was being applied too broadly. I ask that you stand by your decision as Peter Stilsbury is not notable under WP rules and Gary has not proven otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to back this up - I just reverted an edit by Gary on the Professional wrestling in Australia article which also mentioned Stilsbury. FYI. !! Justa Punk !! 11:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, as a courtesy I'm letting you know that I've taken the developing edit war between Gary and myself to WP:3O. Personally I think Gary should be pulled into line pronto, especially regarding the wrestler Dingo who he persists in re-adding dispute doubt over his country of origin. Not to mention Stilsbury. He refuses to acknowledge consensus that the man isn't notable and I don't know how to stop his opinion pushing. He is now erroneously claiming that I am claiming owenership of the article - an accusation that I take extreme offence to. !! Justa Punk !! 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The most important thing right now for me is that Gary stops editing until this is sorted out once and for all. As the status quo was my edit and it's his (and the originating anon who shouldn't be taken note of because they don't have an account) that is causing the problem. I only just missed violating WP:3RR last night and I don't want to be pressed to that point. If 3O doesn't work (and I've done that BTW) I'll go to RFC. !! Justa Punk !! 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Cirt. I still believe that only the valid arguments from the previous AfD should be considered, which would result in a consensus to keep the article. However, I would be open to restarting the AfD altogether. The article changed substantially and the concerns were addressed, but the people who commented did not return to continue the discussion. A fresh start would be an approach that could satisfy everyone. If that could wait a day, though, I would really appreciate it. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, this is right out of hand now. I need quick help with this. Gary is going against consensus and hasn't followed the correct procedure - and won't wait. With his present attitude he is in violation of WP:NPOV and he is refusing to listen to anyone on that point, trying to make false accusations against me (against WP:CIVIL) such as "owning" an article and trolling. I am having a hard time controlling my temper with this flagrant violation of WP rules and taking a break won't help at this point. This has to be sorted out quickly. !! Justa Punk !! 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I felt you were in a position to help and this seemed to be the only way. I apologise. !! Justa Punk !! 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikel Urizarbarrena

There was an IP edit with a deletion [32] a year ago, that was undetected by the usual suspects. --Tilman (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be preferable to have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source for this info. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:86.148.111.174

Cheers for blocking this user. Just thought I'd let you know that he doesn't seem to be able to let it drop (see here). Laters. – PeeJay 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Indianslumdog

Nice work catching the rest of this user's edits. An obvious sock of Ron's Popcorn Reviews (talk · contribs), if you ask me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spammers

Thanks! It's nice to get the appreciation.

As to how I find them, I simply open the New Pages from the unpatrolled back end, User pages only (like this and employ a tool known in the U.S. Navy as the Mark I Eyeball. In other words, I just run my eyes down the list and see what pops out, name and/or article text. At the moment, I've worked my way up to June 9th. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for United Kingdom Election Results

On June 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United Kingdom Election Results, 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.

Wizardman 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kendrick Moxon

On June 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kendrick Moxon, 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.

Wizardman 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to close this

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ft12 User just started today.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Meyer (2nd nomination)

I redirected the page, since you closed it as such. Do you wanna full protect the redirect, as some people suggested, so we don't have to worry about someone resurrecting the article, like they did last time? CTJF83Talk 03:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bud! CTJF83Talk 03:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You got time to knock out a FG GA with me real quick? CTJF83Talk 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I am working on a new article on a Missouri politician. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we will have to work on one in between my vacations either this tues, wed, or thurs :) CTJF83Talk 03:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

need clarification on video source policy

why is it considered 'unreliable' and 'unverifiable'?

there are a couple of videos of this incident, taken from various angles. the audio is clear, and the identity of the speakers is clear. the location is clear, the date is clear. i am not writing down anything that is not on the video, and i did not imply anything that happened that is not shown directly in the video. for much of it, i basically just transcribed, almost ver batim, what the police officer said, to Mr Bunker and others, as is clearly shown in the video.

i have tried to look up wikipedia policy on video as a source, but all i could find was 'Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites', which says:

"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided)."

Thank you Decora (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ok i just read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources so i sort of 'get it'...regarding biographical articles. on the other hand, im' trying to understand the larger policy of banning user made video as a 'reliable source', when all it does is show what happened, and calling transcription 'interpretation'. Decora (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

yes there are secondary sources describing the incident. and they are fine. but my problem is not this specific article or incident, it is that i dont understand the larger wikipedia video policy..... i simply wanted to let readers know that there are multiple videos of the incident taken by people who were there, with clear audio of exactly what the police officer said. yes, those videos might be altered... yes, several videos taken by different people from different angles might have all been altered in the same way, with the audio dubbed out just perfectly, and the officer's lips altered by a special effects expert. then again.... Fox News just won a court case where their lawyers argued that it is legal for them to lie and misrepresent facts in news stories. So i am trying to figure out why i cant even describe multiple videos recorded by people who were there at an incident, .... but somehow i can link to fox news all i want, and somehow the latter is considered reliable and the former, well, you can't even mention that the videos exist. Decora (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(and what if i dont even want to use the videos as a source? i just want to tell readers that there are videos of an incident? can i not even do that? where is the policy clarification here?)Decora (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The District Attorney dropped the case against Mark Bunker

When you deleted my youtube-cited text from the Mark Bunker article, you also deleted the sentence I had added to the paragraph above where I cited a newspaper saying Bunker's case was dropped by the DA for 'insufficient evidence'. The newspaper is the Press-Enterprise, (a newspaper which is also cited previously in the story by other editors), and it states stating that the Riverside County District Attorney had dropped the case against Mr Bunker because of 'insufficient evidence' , and also that Mark Bunker and the other protestor arrested were released on the same day they were arrested. This is all in a verifiabe, reliable source, from a newspaper that has already been cited in other parts of the article by other editors. I would appreciate it if you would go back and restore that portion of my edit, because the article, as it reads right now, is missing a huge part of the story, ie, that Mr Bunker was cleared of any wrongdoing by the District Attorney himself. I would also like to know why you erased all of my edit instead of just the part that was badly cited. I believe there is a wikipedia policy to only delete things that need to be deleted for a specific reason, and to leave sourced and verified statements alone. Thank you. Decora (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theodore Hoskins

Hello! Your submission of Theodore Hoskins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wexperts

Blocked, as well as its "spokesman," Wicked Pundit (talk · contribs). How come you didn't block it yourself? Blueboy96 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul

I passed it, but the image could use a more specific rational. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		For making Bart Sells His Soul the WikiProject The Simpsons's 200th GA. TheLeftorium 09:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Cirt (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Lake Burley Griffin

Another round of makeovers. Mostly ready I think YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be fine now. Can you do a 3rd party check for typos and consistent formats please? :) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Cirt. I'm writing to question the decision to delete the Business people bio of my father, D. Dudley Bloom, which was labeled "Keep" until last night, when my younger brother was sent the text to read. The initial decision to delete was accompanied by the sentence, "Just squeaks by on relevance but needs citations." I then went back to the dozens of articles written about Dudley Bloom during his consumer products career--articles kept in the family because my mother kept a scrapbook that I digitally restored--and so after the revised, referenced article was posted, the decision was to "keep" it. My brother is living in the distant past and is being treated by a psychiatrist for (basically) not growing up. He has a lot of money and, forty years later, still bears his father a grudge. It is not in his interest that the article be destroyed, since if he must grow up, he must make his peace with his father as his father is now and not as he was years ago. Dad will soon be 87. I know how these things happen and I know that the decision to delete the article was influenced by my brother's "plan", but having a plan eventually makes one suicidal, by definition. I am educated in psychiatry. I don't think this was a valid reason to delete the article. Also, yesterday, I discovered a NY Times article from 1949 that documented the fact that Bloomingdale's department stores--no relation to us but an interesting coincidence--sold a "gadget" with wheels that attached to existing luggage. Dudley Bloom's idea was basically to make this permanent, and it was his idea, alone. I thought that, combined with the design and marketing of the " Pet Milk magic milk bottle", which is still among the most popular toys for little girls, Dudley Bloom's contributions merited posting in Wikipedia. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

Halperin Source

Regarding the Halperin source, thank you for your message. My concern with your citation was that it struck me as misleading. If Halperin predicted Michael Jackson's death six months in advance, and if that prediction was published six months in advance, then why cite a source that was published AFTER Michael Jackson died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skere789 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

It's been promoted. Thanks for your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD: Glanford Park FC

This article was deleted with your username, so thought I would take the time to write. Hi Curt, as a new wikipedia contributor, I would like to question why this article was deleted. All content was factual and verifiable. I had not yet finished citing references. Granted the team is not in a professional league but I do not see the harm in putting this article up. Alternatively, is there a way I can use the wiki templates for this article to place on my own site? Please advise. GPFC01 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AGF?

Please explain to me how tagging an entry with issues fails to assume good faith of an editor? These tags are here to remind us that issues exist. When the issues are dealt with tags come down. Calling this "tendentious" is a bit insulting especially when clearly it is my "good faith" which is being questioned here. Besides the tag relates to an issue I brought up months ago which was never dealt with. I hardly see applying a tag as assuming bad faith of anyone.PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated ... "Then, knowing already that I stated my intention to improve the article and that I am aware of the concerns raised, you tagged it and reverted the tag back, after I stated I was aware of this." I'm glad that you are aware of these concerns but the thousands of other editors out there might not be. Since when are entry tags for Cirt's eyes only? Could you also refrain from edit summaries like "Remove disruptive scare quotes". Maybe instead explain why scare quotes are not needed. Academics use them because the term "cult" no longer signifies what it used to. A small minority of the academics who still use the term "cult" instead of or along with "NRM" do not use scare quotes. How is it "disruptive"? Are your WP:AGF accusations meant to reek of irony?PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Theodore Hoskins

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theodore Hoskins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection request.

Hey Cirt. I have been re-writing the Beauty Killer album article, which you had deleted and and protected last May, to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. You can find a draft of it here (told where to put it by other admins). I was wondering if this would be suitable for the article to be recreated? Thanks a lot. =] Dark Horse King (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion question

why was the list of video games with female protagonist deleted Tony2077 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)tony

Jan Sramek (economist)

I see you just deleted this article as a result of an AFD. There is also an article at Jan Sramek (trader) which is linked to the AFD but not mentioned in it. If this is the same person then maybe this article should also be deleted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Cirt. I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ttc ridership per year

You deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annual_Toronto_Transit_Commission_ridership_per_year The consensus was to move the information to the regular TTC page. You did not, you just deleted it all. I want that information. Give it back please. Or at least give the two links that were the sources, as all the information is on the two links. (76.29.100.8 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)).

Please, just the ridership statistics links. (LAz17 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)).

Yes, same person. I just want those two links that were sourced in what was deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)).

They appear to be [33] and [34]. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

+

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work at FAR. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Reporter (Parks and Recreation)

Are you still planning to review The Reporter (Parks and Recreation)? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, will get to it soon. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Parliamentary Monitoring Services

On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parliamentary Monitoring Services, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 08:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Opera

A HUGE thank you for all your help in getting this to Featured status. We literally couldn't have done it without you! All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you so much! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian folk dance companies

I see that you are the admin that announced the deletion of this page. I would like to discuss the criterion used to come to that decision, as well as any means for retrieving that page. Thanks!--tufkaa (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalek

I know it's probably low on the list of old FAs that need to be reviewed, but I though I'd ask you anyway if there's anything that you think needs doing to retain FA-ness, so that any FARs go smoothly as possible. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay will take a look. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting other editors contributions

If you are going to delete other editors contribtutions, as unsourced[35] please consider adding a fact tag first or moving the deletions to the talk page. Thank you. Rumpsenate (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, your very nice. Rumpsenate (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BDTaylor

Hi.

Re. BDTaylor (talk · contribs)

This user (that you blocked) has been on IRC, seeking help and advice; they have requested unblock, but it was declined for 'username' issues. I'm not sure why.

I remain neutral, and have merely been trying to facilitate; we (in help) explained to them about COI, spam, userspace, and such things; they appear (IMHO) to be willing to cooperate; the user has shown that they want to resolve their block issue, and is prepared to take whatever action necessary.

I'm puzzled as to why a namechange might be needed - if it is, that's fine, we can do that.

The user (and I) sought advice in the unblock channel, and I was advised to put a note here, on your talk.

Please let me know how to proceed. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FashionIndustry

I have unblocked FashionIndustry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following a request on unblock-en-l After being counseled regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations the user has agreed to limit self-promotion efforts to requesting creation of an article. Fred Talk 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk: 92.0.49.21

I'm having difficulty with an IP that you had previously blocked. While it was tagged as a shared IP, it is clear it is the same person making all the edits to Wikipedia. They seem to be radically pro Pakistani, and have been adding controversial and unsourced information to articles about India. Many of the comments appear to be POV. They have also been changing several geography related articles. Many places that are 'disputed' but recognized by many maps and countries as with in the Indian border, he has been changing to Pakistan in ownership. He has yet to input a single reference in regards to his edits. Other editors have been reverting his work until his drastic changes can be verified by a reputable source, but he continues on his edits. Mkdw^talk 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:BDTaylor

Hi Cirt. I noticed you blocked User talk:BDTaylor saying that the username was blocked. I have a feeling that you pressed the wrong button, is that correct? If not, and I just haven't seen the connection, let me know. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Work" (Ciara song)

Hey there Cirt, just thought I'd drop by to let you know that it's now safe to unprotect Work (Ciara song) as the song has charted. I also recently found out about Work (Ciara Song) (they got around the protection yet again through capitalization). Perhaps after unprotecting the former, it would be best to delete it to move the latter to fix the capitalization? Regards. — Σxplicit 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. — Σxplicit 05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

oxley gin

Hi Cirt, you've deleted the Oxley Gin page i posted. I'd appreciate some guidance on how i can rewrite it more appropriately. I had added some responses to a couple of concerns which were raised. Tomjefferies (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Busy?

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a bit actually, yes. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Divini user blocked by you

That was a company username. OK. This doesn't imply that it's used for promotional or advertising purposes. In fact it was used for educational reasons only, being ITIS Divini a school and being the information put in the articles created not only by a single persons, but from the joint efforts of teacher and students. I have already tried to explain you that I am only the man who copy, past and adapt those information, doing his better to take in account the increasing mole of criteria in wikipedia. We can also delete any direct references to ITIS Divini. That doesn't matter, because we only wanted to give a positive contribute to wikipedia because we were thinking that this enciclopaedia was maed by fre contributions of everybody. On the other hand, if I would sign the editing with just my individual name, I would be wronging to the contributes of the people who have worked on the project (at this point it is impossible to recognize the contributions of everyone). I am sure you will understand these motivations. User:Tifialf (unlogged). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.20.149 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive2

Can you revisit this? Thanks for all your work at FAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I see your username on just about FAR that's up. Ironically enough, after I contacted you, a host of issues arose: dabs, dead links, sources of questionable quality, etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sun/archive1

what do you think of the article in the present state? Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Divini

He has issued an unblock request. It does seem like he was making constructive edits... If only one person is using the account, and they don't use the user page for promotion, I think unblocking would probably be a net gain. The username doesn't strike me as a huge issue, it's an Italian word and surname. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal - request for reinstate page

No reason for deletion except for generation of a new term, which is supported

Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal

Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. Based on generation of a new term. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sirs:

The article for “Sport Tractor” is to show a new design in trucks that has not been seen in the Light Duty Truck arena. This is a non-commercial truck and is used similar to a sports car.

If new designs cannot be shown as explicit on your site this needs to be known to me.

Based on the following: "Delete The original author of the article added this comment on the talk page "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "Sport Tractor" will have originated here in Wikipedia". He admits it is OR and a neologism. There is no evidence of the term in this context in a Google search. The truck in the article appears to be some sort of home made modification. 1. Malcolma (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"

1st: The above is a true statement. Unless Wiki refuses to support creation of new terms, (which I haven’t seen, and if so, show me the rules/guideline) I will comply. I am willing to generate this on a new URL webpage, but I thought that Wiki was a better source for defining new terms, designs and innovation in existing technologies. Again, If I am wrong in this, I will not contest this deletion and will move forward in a separate venue.

The term is new, noone, except myself generated this new term “Sport Tractor” a new classification for those who enjoy light duty trucks that are non-commercial use, similar to sport cars that are not used for racing. A term exists for “Sport Trucks” namely the personal trucks manufactured by the major automobile companies and are less than 11,999 lbs GVWR. There is a term for “Sport Cars”, there was no term that my research found that used “Sport Tractor” in the same light. There are terms mentioning the word in context of tractor pulls, but the term is meant for farm tractors that are not licensable vehicles.

2nd. The statement is not a home made modification, the Isuzu is a commercial light duty truck that is continuing to be sold throughout the world. The body is design by Ralph Sanders, but the body manufacturer is by Frontier Truck Body of Santa Ana, Ca. Therefore, this is not a home made design. The definition of “homemade” is not defined in Wikipedia. Hence, should not apply to support deletion. This statement is also subjective in this context.

Therefore, since the deletion is based on a new term or as malcolma states “neologism” I request that the “Sport Tractor” page be reinstated.

Excuse my noviceness,(wasn’t sure where to file rebuttal request), therefore this was also sent/edited to:

User talk:Vossanova,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sport tractor,

User talk:Cirt (new section),

User talk:Malcolma,

Please excuse the tone by which I state the above since this is an emotional event to me. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note to say I have now copied this to WP:DRV on the user's behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sport tractor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sport tractor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic deletion

This topic was set to KEEP about 2 weeks ago "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_hobden" now its down as delete and has been removed, but the problems people had with it the notability was sorted out on a number of topic edits.

86.163.102.241 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

TGUK

The person behind TGUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l asking to be unblocked. They know they edited inappropriately and would like to start over. I think in this case, simply allowing them to create a new account that could be monitored would be the better way to go, the editing history of TGUK being so ugly. If you wish to continue monitoring them I can email you with the new account name. Fred Talk 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SQuentinQuale

The user has been blocked but still can edit their user and talk page. The talk page is being used for blatant personal attack at this point. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Reporter (Parks and Recreation)

Hey Cirt. I don't mean to be a nuisance, but it's been a month now since you've taken on this GAN review. Maybe we should relist it? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks.--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Cirt, I've responded to your comments but could use a bit more feedback. Take your time. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Will take another look soon. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Article on The Passion of Ayn Rand (book by Barbara Branden)

I have begun providing citations for statements made in this article, and plan to provide more. I took the liberty of removing the "unreferenced" tag that you recently placed on the article. If this poses a problem, please let me know.RLCampbell (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is now pretty close to its final dimensions. Please check The Passion of Ayn Rand (book) and see whether you are still inclined to question it on NPOV grounds.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay will take another look. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

source issues

Dear Cirt,

i am the one who added youtube videos to the Mark Bunker article that you deleted. Now I have come upon a question.

First off thanks for fixing the edit and putting back the sentence that i had added that was sourced to a newspaper article. (ie. the sentence stating the DA had dropped the case because of insufficient evidence)

But my issue is now this: the arrest of Mark Bunker at 'Gold Base' was a 'citizens arrest', caused by a high ranking member of the church of scientology. it was not a police initiated arrest. This is stated by mark bunker on one of his videos, ... but also the police officer who did the 'taking into custody' told this to mark bunker, and this conversation was captured by multiple cameras at the police station and the reesulting video was posted on various websites and blogs.

i feel this fact, that it was a citizen arrest, is a very interesting and pertinent fact to the paragraph describing the arrest. in fact, i would go so far as to say that an article that fails to mention this fact is ... not telling the whole story and thereby doing a disservice to readers.

my problem is this: how do i get this information, that it was a 'citizens arrest', into wikipedia? since videos are not considered reliable sources... what do i do? i am betting there is some creative way to solve this problem and get the info into the wikipedia article. . . perhaps asking mr bunker to post a scan of the arrest document? or something like that? id rather not bother him though.

thank you. Decora (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island portal

Hey, if you get a chance, comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Rhode Island/archive1. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

You closed this AfD and deleted the main article, but did not also delete the also-nominated article, PUMA Circuit Technology. --EEMIV (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

I've sent the permission for File:Donna-Lee-originals-Corbin (1).jpg and File:Donna-Lee-Emmaline-comparison.jpg to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Can you do the OTRS thing for me, like before? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened with this and with this? Just wondering.PelleSmith (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Been a bit busy lately, will get to it soon, thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kingwarren

To Cirt: Cirt, I am unfamiliar with the layout of this site. My aim is to get a message to you via the suggestion of ThemeFromSpace. I am writing to inform the proper Wikipedia staff of an improper redirect of "Domaining" to "Cybersquatting". Below is my request and comments first directed to ThemeFromSpace ...

ThemeFromSpace: The "AfD" discussion could have only been participated in by misinformed or biased individuals. The resulting decision to redirect "Domaining" to "Cybersquatting" is unacceptable. Cybersquatting is the registration of domain names that specifically infringe on existing trademarks. Cybersquatting is a Federal offense and punishable up to $100,000 per instance. By definition "using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". "Domaining" is simply the monetization of generic (non-trademarkable) domain names via many strategies. There is nothing illegal about domaining. These are not synonymous terms or activities, and allowing a redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting is a factual misrepresentation and a deliberate attempt to categorize domaining as a criminal activity. I can easily refute anyone's claim to the contrary, and would like to speak with a Wikipedia administrator at the earliest possible time. I am not familiar with this site and am having difficulty navigating to the proper person and location in order to get this redirect corrected. Please advise. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Assistance please for uploading foundational article on Domaining and Domainers

Cirt - I would like to upload an article I have authored which explains domaining (and the term domainers), and which will provide Wikipedia users with unbiased information and many useful related links that will allow them to explore domaining as a legitmate industry separate and apart from the condemned activities of cybersquatters.

Can an administrator please help me proceed? I will have to build the internal and external links referenced in my article, but can do so in about 1.5 hours if I can have a page to work with. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)