User talk:Cirt/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Talk:Eleventh Doctor.
Message added 12:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 12:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic Krill Uwe Kils

Hallo Cirt! Happy New Year. I added a gfdl self tag to my high resolution Antarctic Krill Microscope Photography. I hope I did it right. If not let me know, best by sending an email to uhseeliteuniversity at gmail.com . I want all to use it free of royalties. You can add the right template if you want, then I will sign it. Have a nice day Uwe Kils 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Talk:Eleventh Doctor.
Message added 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢

And again. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

List of NRMs

Thank you, I did look, and I noticed that my reference is noted elsewhere on the article on Discordianism. Why is it allowed as a verifiable source there, and not here?

Makbawehuh (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, considering the fact that Discordianism tends to stay under the radar. I mean, I could in theory send out a few hundred thousand envelopes with pony stickers in them to try and generate a news article for you if you *really wanted me to*. "No original work" prohibits using the Principia Discordia itself. Makbawehuh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Geeze-o-petes, this is convoluted. o.0

Probably not, considering the fact that Discordianism tends to stay under the radar. I mean, I could in theory send out a few hundred thousand envelopes with pony stickers in them to try and generate a news article for you if you *really wanted me to*. "No original work" prohibits using the Principia Discordia itself. Makbawehuh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the fact remains that the source I listed is listed elsewhere as a source, and has not been removed. So....

...Why exactly am I being discriminated against, when it's been used elsewhere as a source and clearly met your guidelines- Since it's still there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makbawehuh (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek/archive2

Looks like someone is working on the article; you might want to add cleanup tags to the article where necessary. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Madisen hill

When you deleted Madisen hill, you deleted the redirect. The article is currently at Madisen Hill. Joe Chill (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Cirt (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics

Similar to above, Concerns, controversies and opposition was deleted but it's merely a redirect. The article was moved to Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics after the AfD was created. Please update, and thank you! PKT(alk) 13:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Cirt (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientology

Thanks, but I'm busy with cat as my main project at the moment, so I'm afraid not. Please feel free to ask if you need any medical or biology sources though, I have good access to these on-line. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to incautiously taming and adopting a pregnant stray I now have six cats living in my house, so the subject is much on my mind at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor bit of vandalism

This looks like trivial vandalism by User_talk:80.58.205.34 (the IP has a history of that) who pronounced Ron Newman (computer programmer) dead with no cite. Theoretically, as BLP was more-or-less established as senior to Arbcom RFAs (during that ArbCom RFA), I could fix it, but that's a can of Daleks worms that's much, much bigger on the inside than the outside... AndroidCat (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall/GA1

So...it's been about four weeks since my Beck v. Eiland-Hall GAN review. lol. I know you had other things going on, but might it be better to fail it for now, then you can renominate it after you address the concerns in the archived GAN, rather than leave it on hold for so long? — Hunter Kahn 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, but I will get to it very soon. Sorry about that, Cirt (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed

I have reviewed Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (which I can see you already know). Most of the reason I'm telling you this is to thank you for being patient with the review. I was a bit busy(ish). Thanks for being patient with the review. :) --Hadger 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pak Ab Sabalan

You deleted this article awhile back due to this AfD, but the article was recreated sometime afterwards. Can you look it over and see if it meets the criteria for a G4 speedy deletion? If not, I'll probably have to put it up for AfD again. ThemFromSpace 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look! Cirt (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes portal

I've done my best, now it's time for some experts to tell me what's wrong with it. I've listed Portal:Volcanoes for portal peer review here. Cheers, ResMar 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good luck. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GA BLT

Congratulations on the first Good Article in the history of the Bacon Challenge! Well done. Or over medium, if you prefer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

<cite> tags

I just found them from when you added them to Saginaw Trail a few months ago. I added them to U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, and I think that this system is very neat. Is there any documentation or guidelines on them? Any suggestions on what types of sources should be used. The US 41 article has a separate section for books and a magazine article since the same book was cited repeatedly with different page numbers. If I'm going to use it, should I be segregating out all dead-tree sources (even if hosted online)? Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed

I reviewed Bacon: A Love Story. Click here to see the review. --Hadger 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job on your second Bacon GA, Cirt =) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ;) Cirt (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkmarx deletion

Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding.
I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike).
Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here?
A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion.
The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements.
The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses.
(correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads.
There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BESTCOI. But also before doing anything, I would suggest working on a version in your userspace subpage. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will!! Adarw (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago

Can you revert your deletion of it please? Before the COI user appeared and put up a ton of spam on it, it was a redirect somewhere. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

About your comment to me

Thank you for advice. I appologize to you for my mistake. I will watch my edit more carefully from now. have a nice day. -- Kookyunii (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it, sounds like an interesting proposal but I don't have the availability for that sort of thing right now. :( Cirt (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wild Pockets

Hey, I noticed that the Wild Pockets was flagged for deletion and that it was becoming out of date, so I had begun to update the article. Unfortunately, when I checked today, it had already been deleted. To my understanding, the issue was that there were no references from a reliable 3rd party source. Wild Pockets is still in its beta and is a start up, so I found it very difficult to find sources that would meet your requirement; they're still in the stage where they're building their initial community and are trying to build a name for themselves. And then I realized I don't even know what your requirements are. Where does the standard for notability start/end? Would a site like Gamasutra (which many developers use for information) be enough? And if I wanted to get the page up and running again, what steps would I need to take? Thanks for your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjpark (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's not that I'm not taking your advice, but I just had a quick question. I have a couple articles that I could possibly use as references and might give the article the notability that's required and was hoping there was a quicker way to get the article back up.

Crispygamer and kotaku are both highly followed websites in respect to the industry that Wild Pockets is in. Computer Graphics World also mentions Wild Pockets in an article. This is a press release by gamesindustry.biz, so I doubt it'll help my cause, but it does make a point about Crispy Gamer's credibility. This next link isn't an article, but I think a partnership with Microsoft deserves something.

Just as a reminder, all the links in this post are links to articles about Wild Pockets, so please take a look at them. If these aren't enough, I'll go ahead and do exactly as you said. But since it was deleted before I could finish editing the page, I would just like this last chance to get the page back up and running. Once again, thanks for all of your time and help. Mrjpark (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so I just want to confirm the steps. So I should essentially make my User:Mrjpark page into a draft of the Wild Pockets Wikipedia? What would be the steps after that? Also, I'd just like to ask for some honest criticism as to what I could improve. I saw that Wild Pockets was flagged for deletion, so I based my article on one that wasn't and is in the same industry, Unity3D. All of their references lead to their own website, with one to Gamasutra and one about an award they won. I don't see how theirs is acceptable and mine isn't - not to mention the fact that they've been around longer than Wild Pockets and have had more time for their article to be inspected by a moderator. I've read through the Wikipedia's acceptable arguments page and understand that you guys don't accept that as an argument, but I honestly just want to see if I'm missing something and what it would take for my article to go back up. You say to write up a draft in my subpage, but I have nothing to go on here; I would probably just end up with the same article and it honestly feels like you're just shoving me into a corner.

I understand you're probably busy, but I'm not asking for much here. I was just hoping for something more than "I would start a draft in your subpage." "<-- that." It may not be word for word, but that's exactly how it feels. I'm taking my time to read through all these pages and am trying my hardest to work through this by the guidelines, it would be greatly appreciated if that effort was reciprocated even if just a little. Mrjpark (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He asked at WP:REFUND for it to be userfied - I have put it in WP:Article Incubator/Wild Pockets, told him he will need to get agreement from you or WP:DRV to re-introduce it, and given him some general advice on his usepage. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:People deported from the United States

Hi. Obviously you are deeply involved in maintaining this category and the List. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I would suggest that either the category be expanded to include entry denials (in important cases, of course) or else Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and others in that situation be removed. Having worked at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service for almost a decade (now retired) I can assure you that a denial of a non-permanent resident alien at a port of entry into the United States is not the same as deportation (or "removal", as deportations are now called). By including such entry denials you might include Charlie Chaplin, for example. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, thank you, Cirt (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So I'll wait on you to handle it. Which route do you favor - expansion or contraction? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I defer to what is stated in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Peter Gatien - I selected that reference link for Gatien because it was the most reputable (i.e. The New York Times). Do you approve of this link? I think it's the second best that comes up on Google search for "Peter Gatien deported". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not simply a "link" but a verifiable source, but yes. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

HIP AfD close

Can you explain this? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Human+Instrumentality+Project --Gwern (contribs) 23:02 5 January 2010 (GMT)

What about it? Cirt (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete it? --Gwern (contribs) 13:32 6 January 2010 (GMT)

Ping. I note you have made more than 500 edits since my last comment. --Gwern (contribs) 14:15 12 January 2010 (GMT)

Sorry, missed this, please AGF, was not ignoring you. It was deleted due to consensus that it is not notable. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't close it as a delete; you closed it as a redirect. Why did you delete it at all? The content was not libelous or copyvio or anything negative or objectionable like that. Why not just blank and add a redirect? In general, deleting and redirecting seems like simple destruction, serving no purpose.

And there are reasons to leave the content in the page history. In the future, HIP may be notable. I was burned out and taking a break while the AfD was going on and didn't have the heart to fight for it, but I don't think it would be very hard to show notability. (Google Books has a solid 9 hits for it, with another 3 in Google Scholar; and I know my collection of academic articles etc. on NGE, such as multiple articles in the Mechademia anthologies, often cover it.)

(A minor point is that, although I obviously cannot look and see, the glossary article may have incorporated material from the HIP. In that case, deleting the history is a massive copyvio on your part, since the GFDL/CC demands the history be available.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:51 12 January 2010 (GMT)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Instrumentality Project = consensus is clear. If you feel otherwise, the next step is WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would I need to go to DRV? I'm not asking for the article to be restored and the redirect removed, or for your assessment of consensus to be overturned; I'm just asking for the history to be undeleted. --Gwern (contribs) 13:03 13 January 2010 (GMT)

No. That was part of the AFD decision. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain it, then? The close was just 'redirect to X', and looking through the AFD guidelines for closing admins and other pages, I have the impression that a close of redirect is mutually exclusive with a close of deletion. --Gwern (contribs) 16:21 14 January 2010 (GMT)

It is often done with closes that are redirects. There was nothing in the article that was sourced. The entire article was unsourced. Therefore, nothing to save/preserve. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How can it not have sources when it specifically says it is about the series and the movie? The source for a plot description of Moby Dick is obviously Moby Dick; one can complain that it does not use inline citations or quotes, but one cannot call it utterly unsourced.

But that's a side-issue and irrelevant. Since you have ordered me to stop talking to you and take it to DRV, I have one final question before I do so, which I hope you can answer with a simple yes or no:

were you acting on anything in the deletion guidelines (which as an admin you are presumably familiar with) allowing both redirection & deletion when you closed the HIP AfD? --Gwern (contribs) 21:30 16 January 2010 (GMT)

Removal of the maintenance templates

Hi Cirt

I was surprised by your removal of maintenance template from Volney Mathison. The sourcing for the article was obviously I obviously viewed the sourcing of the article to be inadequate, and the templates do not make reference to talk page discussions. The insertion of the templates itself is an assertion by the editor that the sourcing is inadequate, and what should be done in response is either (a) improve the sourcing; or (b) argue that the sourcing is adequate. Arguing that there was no specific reasoning given is not a useful approach.

What other editors often do when an article they believe is well-sourced has been given such templates is to write a few sentences either (a) explaining the adequacy of sourcing, or (b) soliciting others' opinions on the current sourcing.

Anyway, you can see my detailed rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison, which not only discusses current sourcing, but also sourcing available online.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I had explained my rationale for removing the tags, at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See my refactoring above. If you meant by your comment on the talk page that you believed that the sourcing was actually adequate, rather than not obviously inadequate, then we disagree. If you mean that the sources need to be obviously inadequate for un-talk-page-comment templates to survive summary removal, I don't know any basis for this in policy or guideline. Could you point me to it? ^Bongo_matic 09:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a basis for removing tags after being queried on the talk page, especially when zero explanation is given. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What is that basis? And what do you mean by "after"? According to the logs, you removed the templates prior to "querying" (I didn't see a query, actually, but a statement). ^Bongo_matic 09:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All this time could be spent actually giving an explanation at the article's talk page, or helping to research and improve it. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Pomodorotechnique

• I'm considering unblocking this user, unblock is on hold pending comment from you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking. No objections from me! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SALT of RJN

Hi there, I noticed you removed the article for Radio Jackie North according to the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radio_Jackie_North_(3rd_nomination). However I noticed that you protected the page RJN, however it is Radio Jackie North that always gets recreated, RJN was only created the last time the article appeared. I would suggest that Radio Jackie North is SALTed in addition. Many thanks in advance Rapido (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for the notice! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharma Mittra

• There was a mistake. Before you came and deleted the article, anonymous user vandalized the page, deleting all the keep arguments. The guy appears to be notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Restored page, relisted debate, and warned IP. Thanks very much for the notice! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno

Cirt,

Firstly, let me say that I'm grateful for your contributions. I'm not about to start an edit war or similar with you.

You've been aggressively removing content from this article. Admittedly, the content you've removed is not sourced. However, the content was not in any way controversial or negative. Do you have to do this? - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Barad (Band)

Checking the interwikis in de:Barad (Band) I've seen, that the article in english wikipedia has been deleted on 12 January 2010. I'm not familiar with the formalities in en-WP if any article has been deleted IMO wrongly. Please see the references in the german article (they're all in english ;) for significance. If you like, just import the german article to en-WP, I could help translating it. Thank you, Siechfred (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest first working on a draft in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I think you should import the german article with its history cause of the license. Hope you could help me by proofreading the translated version. --Siech•Fred ^Home 08:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Barad (band) created. --Siech•Fred ^Home 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ... and translated. Could you proofread it please? --Siech•Fred ^Home 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I see you have re-listed this AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Barack_Obama_visit_to_China_(2nd_nomination) There are many more comments in that AFD that most AFDs. The AFD should be closed.

I commented on the AFD that the WP:EVENT guideline had a major contradiction which prevents using it as a deciding factor. I've been discussing ways to fix the contradiction. Basically, the contradiction says that if an article meets one of the criteria, such as diversity of coverage (multiple countries), then it is likely to be a notabile event. However, another section says that all 5 stringent criteria must be met, not just one. This part, however, would disqualify thousands of articles, some which have passed AFD as a keep. So my main interest now is to clarify the guidelines, not make a decision on the AFD.

One problem with re-listing is eventually a flood of Rudd or Obama groupies or deletionists will descend on the AFD. Could you decide on the AFD and close it? My general feeling is that these two articles are very borderline as far as notability and it would not be unreasonable to delete but to ask someone (I'll volunteer) to save some of the references. I am also a proponent of good references as I showed during a discussion about an Indian city. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It was closed by SilkTork (talk · contribs), no objections. ;) Cirt (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

manhattan institute

manhattan institute is a redlink, should redirect to manhattan institute for public policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Death (South Park)

Hey Cirt. I'm going to make a concentrated effort in the next week or so to get Tom's Rhinoplasty and Mecha-Streisand to GA, so we can get the season one FL finished. I see you have claimed Death (South Park). Once the other two are GAs, getting Death to GA will be the only thing left for the FL. Do you still plan to improve that one, or can I take a crack at it if it's still not GA when my two are done? Let me know... — Hunter Kahn 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do that one, and I could do Mecha-Streisand ? Cirt (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've already started to kinda work on Mecha-Streisand in my Notepad, I just haven't brought it over into Wikipedia yet. lol. So I'd sort of rather work on that one, if you wouldn't mind working on Death. Or if you really had your heart set on Mecha-Striesand, let me know either way. — Hunter Kahn 05:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jive Aces

I've added a photo and I hope I did everything right in terms of copyright, but how can I check to prevent it being taken down, so then I have to go through the procedure again to put it back? Johnalexwood (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for that Johnalexwood (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Coco and Commons

Sure I already e-mailed him once to encourage him to release it under a particular license (rather than his own personal statement which is essentially similar to a license); I'll e-mail him again. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kot Najeebullah

Hello,

Could you have a look at User talk:TheWeakWilled#Kot Najeebullah. Pahari Sahib 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hollywood Undercover

The article Hollywood Undercover you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hollywood Undercover for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Van Morrison: No Surrender

The article Van Morrison: No Surrender you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Van Morrison: No Surrender for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd: Only Enemies Tell The Truth... Friends And Lovers Lie Endlessly

Hi there. I initiated this particular Afd, and bundled two other related articles with it. I was curious as to the outcome of the deletion discussion regarding those two additional articles. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this was done by another admin. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Volney Mathison sources

I've been looking through the AfD arguments and the sources in the article, and it seems that few or no sources address Mathison himself as a person. This article is about Mathison, after all; his role as inventor of the precursor to the E-Meter could be covered adequately in that article. So we need sources about Mathison himself. I think the best arguments so far are that he is in Bleiler, and that he published a book and dozens of stories. However, I can't see that there are any non-trivial sources about the man himself (as opposed to his invention). Can you tell me what sources you feel establish notability, other than those which only mention his role in the development of the E-Meter? Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in the midst of doing some more work and research. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall/GA1

It's been more than five weeks since I started the GAN review for Beck v. Eiland-Hall, and about 10 days since I last poked you about it. It's really time to get to work on it, or to fail it for now and bring it back to GAN eventually, when the archived items from the first GAN review can be addressed. Let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it on hold another week. Sorry to be a pest! — Hunter Kahn 05:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try to work on it soon. No worries, Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed

Congratulations! The Bacon Cookbook passed as a Good Article. --Hadger 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Death (South Park)

Yeah, that would be perfect actually, since I have Production and Cultural References stuff on Mecha-Streisand but not much in the way of Reception. When we list it for GAN, we can be co-nominators. If you like, we could do a similar approach for "Death"? Or I could just do it myself, let me know either way. — Hunter Kahn 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for granting the Semi-PP on the article page of Singapore, seemed that I have always troubled you to do this but for all the convenience if you could allow, would you make it a permanent gesture instead? --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how this works for now. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've requested SPP for the article at least 3 times now over last year with each lasting 3 months, that's why I was wondering if it was too much for you to make it last longer... like 6 months instead. --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be better in 3 months. I am going to leave it at 3 months for the time being. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentary Organization of Canada

There were certainly COI and advert issues but the organization is notable. Can you please restore the article, as a page in my userspace if you prefer, and I'll pare it down to something that meets our guidelines. It'll be a stub, but it'll be spam-free. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will rewrite from scratch I assure you. But I liked the way the infobox looked and it would save me having to search through the categories again. Please, create it as a userpage for me. If you refuse, let me know and I will take my request to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I don't think it'll pass ORG, if recreated, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Sample

Hi

forgive me - I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles etc - I was wondering why you deleted the article on Paul Sample the illustrator. I've just added some references to the page of his creation Ogri and it seems odd that a fictional character has a page, but his creator doesn't! The reason is presumably lack of notability, but he has been active for many years (granted mostly in the uK) producing book covers, ads and cartoon strips.

Fredpipes (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sample (cartoonist). Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I read that but found it unfathomable as I could not find the text of the original entry that was deleted - am working on a new version —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredpipes (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yakudza19 still requesting unblock

The above editor seems to have finished the assignment you gave him. Perhaps you could look at his work and see if you think it might justify unblock. Though I know little about the case, I'm not sure that the assignment fully addresses the problem, since the last complaint was that he was violating copyright by close paraphrasing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll respectfully defer to the process for review by another admin new to this particular issue. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda page: Nomination for deletion 2

Hi Cirt,

Please forgive me that I do not know how to code in Wikipedia. I am writing in regards to the Paramahamsa Nithyananda page.

[1]

and in reference to the nomination for deletion discussion: Talk:Paramahamsa Nithyananda

[2]

I feel that this article about Paramahamsa Nithyananda should be deleted. These followers of Paramahamsa Nithyananda keep on trying to post their information on Wikipedia and other administrators keep on deleting it as being self-promoting. Ex:

[3]

[4]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda

etc.

More alarming, I know first hand that his is a cult and that the so-called Paramahamsa Nithyananda has lied in order to boost his claim of 'holiness'. These articles and graphics support this claim:

This is a graphic of Nithyananda's 'time line' that shows his claims vs. reality:

[5]

This is a written version of the graphic above, but clearly states all the necessary references that Nithyananda tried to hide or 'restate', but we were able to pull out and piece together:

[6]

Here is another example of Nithyananda fabricating his story, and Nithyananda 'backpedals' his story to try to match his fabricated timeline:

[7]

Here is the first exposure that Nithyananda lied about his timeline:

[8]

Here is a great little goof done by the Polytechnic school that posted that Nithyananda was attending his school from 1990 to 1993. Nithyananda claims to be born on January 1, 1978, so that would make him only 12. Impossible!

[9]

The Polytechnic school removed some of the incriminating evidence, but these words appear as they slowly scroll up:

[10]

"As an Alumini,Swamiji Nithyanantha has donated magnanimously Rs.200000 (Rupees One Lakh) for Noon Meal Scheme Each year he used todonate huge sum whole heartedly. We proudly register here that he is our Old student ,did his Mechanical Engineering(1990-1993."

Here is a screen shot:

[11]

Nithyananda's birth date is under controversy too. Here is some information on that:

[12]

I will certainly be glad to provide more information, but basically, Paramahamsa Nithyananda has lied about his biography and tricking people to think that he is not only 'enlightened' but that others get become 'enlightened' from him by either giving him large amounts of money or become indentured laborers to build his empire. He is very dangerous and divisive. This is a cult of the worst type.

Please reconsider this page for deletion. By having his page in Wikipedia, it gives him legitimacy to ruin more lives.

I will be glad to provide additional information upon request.

Many thanks for your consideration.

--Justice1977 (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Nithyananda. Feel free to propose a rewrite at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Children's DYK portal

Thanks for updating the DYK hook for me. I wasn't sure what to do with it. It seemed that 20 was such a nice round number and I didn't want to break anything. Sabiona (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Robin Moore

Are you jesting with me?
This would be the famous Robin Moore. Famous for writing The Green Berets. Click on the Robin Moore link I created and there it is. Voilà.

P.S. Smith Hempstone also wrote a great Vietnam War novel called Tract of Time. Varlaam (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Gospel (book) proposed for deletion

Hi. FYI, I've nominated Another Gospel (book) for deletion. I question its notability, and I feel it has serious (possibly irredeemable) POV problems. I'm making a point of notifying you because you appear to have been the creator of, and main contributor to, this page. My understanding of the deletion policy is that discussion of this deletion proposal should take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book). Richwales (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Double check?

Can you double check the note you left on User_talk:64.228.131.12? The user doesn't appear to have been blocked. I suspect you were trying to put the note on User_talk:64.228.131.129. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Miller Deletion?

Why did you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.122.28 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Miller (IGN editor). Cirt (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain that in plainer English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.122.28 (talk • contribs)

Read more at WP:AFD. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Krama (band)

Hi! The article Krama (band) was deleted on the base that that it is not notable. The Krama band is a well known band in Belarus (the exact google search in Belarusian gives more than 23 thousand references [13]). The band gained the big krown on the Rock-coronation in 1994 (considered to be the major Belarusian rock event), as well they were the winners of the russian festival Generation in Moscow, Russia. And annually they perform on the notable rock-events in Belarus or Poland, like Basovišča for instance. On this basis could you please restore the article? —zedlik (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but I would strongly suggest working on a version in your userspace subpage. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel like doing this right now, just fixing interwikis found that the article was deleted to my surprise. Maybe somebody else will write a comprehensive article later. —zedlik (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Cirt - you popped up on my radar so I thought I'd wish you all the best for 2010 and bacon generally. Being here as I am and seeing Van Morrison (for whatever reason) above, thought I'd inform you that, in addition, his "Common One" album, with "his red-robed one" in Kendal, refers to his then violinist/girlfriend, whose name is not popping up this second - and, despite the comment above, the song/album "No Guru...." I think perhaps refers to the same. The latter is speculation, the former is known to me from a very authoritative but unverifiable source, hence no mention at the moment but - thought you might be interested. Keep up the good work, fight with ya soon! Redheylin (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I like the tone of the last four words, but um, thanks for the bit about my "good work"... Cirt (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry C - just pulling your leg..... Redheylin (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, well, please try not to do so in the future, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I shan't - I'd not like to upset you, but rather I simply remembered you, as I said, and thought to send my best wishes. Now, with the way the conversation has gone, though, you can see how easy it is to bring about a hostile situation inadvertently, which rather validates the original remark. Perhaps you might think I have begun it and am now escalating it, whereas I might think that good wishes and jokes are intended to defuse such situations. I feel rather sorry about it whenever good intentions founder, particularly when I reflect upon the ways such things come about, but that's not my business: I'll simply hope all is well with you, once more offer my respect for your contributions and my best wishes, apologise if I have appeared offensive and look forward to whatever collaborations the future may bring. Redheylin (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic Krill Image by Professor Kils

Hallo Cirt!

On the occasion of a retirement I give my photograph of Antarctic Krill Euphausia superba to the public domain in 591 pixel resolution. Can you please set on commons krill.jpg und krill666.jpg to that resolution. It was on thousands of pages and documentations, often on the frontpage, like in WIKIPEDIA in Germany and Danmark - you can bring your results to no higher distribution and mention in so many countries like wikis frontpage. Just look on the image description page into how many countries it went. It would be nice if you find for me a copyright tag royalty free with mention of author.

I can not do that because user:martin h. blocked me pages over pages, claiming uploading nude, you asked us to use only one voice. He can have all copyrights, we never uploaded these images (which we do own, they were stolen first). Thank you very much to authors like you and to Jimbo - thank you very much Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the best person to ask about this, perhaps try Jehochman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

wiki Adoption issues

Is there any way as an adoptee i can sever my relationship with my adopter? Tech43 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is an at-will relationship. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. WEll, thnaks for the help. You see everyone hates me on here and IM quiting being a productive user. No one likes me. Tech43 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Deadstar Assembly

This band was proved valid for wikipedia over a year ago as you can see from the previous history of the group. Why was it deleted again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.201.64 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadstar Assembly (2nd nomination). Cirt (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barad (band) again

With the help of User:Backtable I've rewritten the article. I think it fulfills the criterias of notability (#7 of WP:BAND), can I move it to WP:NS0? Siech•Fred ^Home 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the draft subpage now? Cirt (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See User:Siechfred/Barad (band). Siech•Fred ^Home 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

hi.

I read you deleted the article I wrote for the Multicube project. If the problem is the copyright I'm working for them and they asked me to put the same description (present over the website) on wikipedia. It is a European research project and we're working on it.

I wrote as well on the Helpdesk just a minute before the article deletion in order to have it moved on the incubator. Can I have it moved there and can I have a suggestion for the reason of the deletion?

Best Stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnonis (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give a link to the specific page? Cirt (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Hey, can you look at my 4 non-admin AFD closes and make sure they are all ok? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 08:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? Cirt (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. CTJF83 chat 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay will take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They seem alright so far. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, CTJF83 chat 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sharks

I take it featured portal candidates is a little dead? It's a shame, portals could be so much more... What's the procedure if there are no comments? (For what it's worth, I've watchlisted the candidates page, so will do my best to offer reviews of any future candidates.) J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We can wait a while longer still. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion of dlib c++ library article

I didn't notice the message I got regarding this article until yesterday (It was on my watch list but I guess that doesn't mean you get emails about this sort of thing?) Anyway, the article was deleted because the editors didn't find any significant coverage when looking on the Internet but there are a number of things on Google, a few are:

• Some codeproject article used it: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/ess.aspx
• The understand your code guys index it: http://understandyourcode.com/uts/index.php
• It's listed here: http://www.kdnuggets.com/software/libraries.html
• It's also published in a peer reviewed journal: http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/papers/v10/king09a.html
• People (other than me) consider it notable enough to add links to it in other wikipedia articles (like the Boost article)

Is this the sort of significant coverage that warrants an undelete? Or is this not the sort of thing meant by "significant secondary sources"? Thanks, Davis685 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem like significant coverage. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mecha-Streisand

Thanks Cirt. I've expanded it to the point that I think it's almost ready for GAN. Should I wait until you can add to Reception? Or should I nominate it now, and you could add your stuff later? Let me know, I'm cool either way. (By the way, I passed Beck v. Eiland-Hall. Nice job! :) ) — Hunter Kahn 04:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok. I think you're right it will sit there for a while before it gets reviewed, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for now. You can work at it at your leisure. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: South Park awards

I don't believe so, but I'd say it would be a good idea. (It should be added to the Template:South Park once it's made too...) If I can help, let me know... — Hunter Kahn 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Locus web comic

I was just wondering why the Locus (webcomic) was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Track13d (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you give a more specific link? Cirt (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Hi Cirt, I see that Gibnews was finally successful in his repeated attempts to delete such an article :-) Would it be possible to restore it under my name space? It contained some valuable information I'd like to recover. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Ecemaml/Spanish Gibraltarians. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

about Fluther

I checked the people involved in the deletion log and your name showed up, as well as User talk:NawlinWiki, User talk:JohnCD, and User talk:Skier Dude.

I'm not going to argue the case specifically for Fluther, however I wonder if there should be a list of answer sites as Category:Knowledge markets likely doesn't cover all, such as Fluther, Blurtit, Dizzay, or for that matter, Wikipedia:Reference Desk.

Thanks.
Civic Cat (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You could bring up that idea at the talk page for Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Human Instrumentality Project

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Human Instrumentality Project. 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.

You dared me to take it up to DRV; I didn't want to, but there it is. --Gwern (contribs) 22:31 28 January 2010 (GMT)

Subpage under the day for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 28. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress - Van Morrison

• Van Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Much of the music Morrison released throughout the 1980s continued to focus on the themes of spirituality and faith. His 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart was "a move towards creating music for meditation" with synthesisers, uilleann pipes and flute sounds and four of the tracks were instrumentals. Van Morrison is a former Scientologist; during the 1980s he dedicated an album to the organization's founder L. Ron Hubbard. Van Morrison was recruited into Scientology by Scientologist and musician Nicky Hopkins. Friends of Van Morrison's within his musical circle that were also into Scientology included Mark Isham and Robin Williamson. Van Morrison's album Beautiful Vision was influenced by Scientology, and his next album Inarticulate Speech of the Heart (1983) included a "special thanks" credit given to L. Ron Hubbard. After Scientology, Van Morrison moved on to "a broadly Christian faith". He titled his 1986 album No Guru No Method as an attempt to distance himself from Scientology. In a review of Van Morrison's musical work in The Times, journalist Pete Paphides described his album No Guru, No Method, No Teacher as "the 1986 album that found Morrison adrift from God, wounded by his dalliance with Scientology, wrestling the mother of spiritual hangovers and deciding that only the compass of memory could help a lost soul to redemption". Van Morrison's exploration of spirituality, including Jehovah's Witness, Christianity, mysticism, and Scientology, served as an influence for his works including Astral Weeks, "Kingdom Hall", Enlightenment and "Whenever God Shines His Light". In 1991, Van Morrison explained his period of spirituality and self-reflection, commenting: "I'm into all of it, orthodox or otherwise. I don't accept or reject any of it. I'm not searching for anything in particular, I'm just groping in the dark for a bit more light." In 1995, when asked by the University of Ulster to list his favorite philosophers, Van Morrison included Aristotle, Socrates, Sartre, Steiner – as well as L. Ron Hubbard. In 2009, the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper St. Petersburg Times listed Van Morrison among "Former Scientologists".

Cirt (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Benardo

Please Restore the IAN BENARDO page. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.128.218 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the IAN BENARDO page? He is a well known commentator on radio, television and was an infamous American Idol contestant and So You Think you can Dance. He has 2 records out and has a new TV show debuting called "THE IAN BENARDO SHOW". He has hosted numerous events and charities as well as a personality. Please restore the Ian Benardo page. Thank You. 66.108.128.218 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC) A Fan

Hey Cirt. Restore IAN BENARDO's page. He is a notable Television icon and has 2 CDs out and regularly appears on television. He is an internet meme as well with numerous imitations. Koosachtak (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) koosachtak

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Benardo. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Google IAN BENARDO and see that he has 2 Albums out, a popular television show and articles in many publications. Restore the Ian Benardo page. He is constantly on the radio and always quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.128.218 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFD. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of 01 Raffles Scout Group

No problems with deletion, but you did not comment on the proposal to revert the article to the redirect that it was before this version of the article was started. I would be happy to leave it dead, but some people will want the redirect. What do you think? When I have time, I will look to see if any material can be added to other articles like the school article. As an admin I can access the material. I doubt there is very much if any. Please reply here. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We could wait to see if it even comes up as an issue. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll let you know if it does. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICA (4-Icaroldichloridesulphate aka Icarus)

Hi, you deleted the subject article which I nominated at AfD. This was a bundle nomination along with Icaroldichloridesulphate. It appears you may have overlooked this bundling. Please revisit. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's @#%&ing distracting!!!

Was nice to see Bale Out on the main page. :D Congrats — Hunter Kahn 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome article! I enjoyed reading it (and the complaints on the talk page). :) Theleftorium 19:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I really don't want to bother you, but can you give me your ultimate opinion for User:Siechfred/Barad (band) (see archive). Siech•Fred ^Home 10:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good try, but seems to fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't really conform with your opinion, so I've started a deletion review (see notice below). But keep in mind, that I'm not familiar with the rules in en-WP :) Siech•Fred ^Home 09:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!  :-)

Hello Cirt. Hope this note finds you well. Wanted to say thank you for deleting the article about me. I did not start it, never wanted it up, and folks only ever vandalized it to the point I had to check it daily to correct or delete comments of slander and libel. You have saved me lots of time and frustration. So, I wanted to say thanks! Take care and all the best! MH sends

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.209.12 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

HELP

The entry for David Lewis Anderson has been recreated and the tin-foil hat crowd are working overtime to stop it from being speedily deleted. Nothughthomas (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Robertson(television)

Why was the article deleted,it shouldn't of been deleted.She's a well known and very popular shopping channel host for QVC and a former Miss Tennessee(Miss America pageant).I see biographies of less known people and less information about them on Wikipedia.And if you're going to deleted her article you need to delete the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laker44 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Robertson (television). Cirt (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nagaruban Arumugam

Hi, Cirt. You forgot to delete Nagaruban Arumugam when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam 2 as delete. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please review?

Regrettably, as a result of my tagging the UFO conspiracy theorist entry (above) for speedy deletion, one of the pro-UFO conspiracy proponents of that entry - since it's been re-deleted - has filed an ANI against me and started lobbying the one user I've had a past run-in with to support it who, regrettably, seems to have achieved admin status during my wikibreak and seems intent on hammering home a vendetta against me. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incident_with_User:Nothughthomas Nothughthomas (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

my article deleted

Hallo Cirt, I see thet you deleted my page "European Federation of Materials Handling - FEM". So eventually my motivations against the insufficient evidence of notability did not convince you (just to remind my motivations: according to wikipedia's notability requirement, organizations are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and if information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. We meet the first criterion. As regards the second, the fact that FEM does not appear in the mainstream press has little to do with notability but rather with the specific scope of the association. In addition, references to FEM appear on the European Commission’s website and I dare qualify the European Commission as a ‘reliable source’). So this will be the last word from wikipedia or do I have still the possibility to publish my article (without changes)? Thank you Cipresso (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that we need independent sourcing for our policies on undue weight and verifiability. So the fact that FEM does not appear in mainstream press has everything to do with WP:Notability, because that is how we define notability. The European Commission is a reliable source, but we need more than a reference to FEM on one of it's sites. We need nontrivial coverage. We also needs multiple independent sources. Nothing on Wikipedia is final, but untill something changes, ie. you can point to third party sources it's not likely that it's going to. So it's likely best to wait until such sources appear, and then use those sources to base an article on. Taemyr (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, sorry for the delay, I kept forgetting about it. The article's in good shape and it would be great to see it go to FA at some point after a good copyedit. Good job addressing the points so quickly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Barad (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barad (band). 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. Siech•Fred ^Home 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 3. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hi Cirt yesterday you closed the following discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MouseHunt as delete. I only post because two editors (Prodigy96 and TrustMeTHROW) in this discussion were confirmed to be sock puppets. Both of whom supported deletion. I was wondering if we could re-open this deletion discussion and perhaps have more input from other editors? I will respect your decision either way I just felt it prudent to bring this to your attention. Thank you for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious Problem

I'm really having a very serious issue with Userid:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of his UFO article. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary revert

Dear Cirt - it is clearly evident you did not read my edit or examine my changes. I am a Wikipedian who has been here for NINE years and I certainly know the WP:LEAD section. If you reexamine my edit you will find that my changes significant enhanced the lead paragraph, and the details that were removed from the lead were of lesser importance and were fully covered in the subsequent paragraph.

It is careless and hamfisted actions like yours which are causing people to leave this project. Signed Manning, one of the first ever Wikipedia admins, and creator of the Wikiproject concept. 59.101.23.102 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. This cannot be more clear. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and it NOW does. The previous version was embarassingly bad. It contained minor details that were duplicated in the immediately following paragraph. WP:LEAD does not mean cram the entire article into the lead, it means provide a "concise overview". A detailed description of how the ceremony first began is NOT a "concise overview". Manning (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't be bothered and nor will I go to AN/I and fight about it. It is people like you who are destroying this project, and I don't have the strength to fight you. Keep the article your way, with it's redundancies, lack of balance and poor grammar. Also keep ignoring the improvements I made to the first paragraph. Bye. Manning (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I added back the changes you made to the first paragraph, thank you. As for the removal of an entire paragraph from the lede, the best way to solve conflicts is to discuss them, politely, on the article's talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: [14] = user refused to come to the article's talk page in order to politely discuss the matter, preferring instead to blank out the request. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Had you wished to "discuss things politely" I would have been all for it. But no, you posted a "warning", accused me of "disruption" and then cried foul over my being "uncivil". It appears you only resort to the rules of proper engagement when things aren't going you way. Truly, truly pathetic. Now stay off my talk page and I'll stay off yours. Manning (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I blanked to kill the conversation. Feel free to do the same here. Goodbye. Manning (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to come to the article's talk page anytime to discuss the matter, politely. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[15] Cirt (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NotHughThomas

I don't think I'm very happy about being accused of wikistalking or abuse of power. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? Cirt (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)On their user page Here, here, here, here and here.
• On user talk pages, here, here, here, here, here (your talk page), here (accusation I will impose a block a block while noone is looking!), here (referring to me) and here.
• On WP:AN/I here, here ("Regrettably it appears he ducked into adminship during my wiki-break, I can assure that any review of our previous interactions would have quickly kiboshed the community's decision to grant him admin privileges given his rather off-kilter way of interacting with other contributors, specifically me"), here and here.

Rather looks bad? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh forget about it. I'm adding this to AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that you asked, but:

• I don't think admins should be thin-skinned about this sort of thing. It's par for the course even in situations where the best intentions have been accompanied by only the most courteous actions in keeping with best admin practices.
• In this instance, you could have avoided much of the conflict. The editor in question asked you to stay off her talk page, and without any real further admin business, you persisted (yes, you were responding to questions etc.—valid points, but to what end?). You could have just dropped the matter. ^Bongo_matic 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment by AntiUser. You ask to what end... well, to the end that the editor is being disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked indefinitely, of course this is up for review later on. I am extremely concerned that Bongomatic has readded the attack on AntiUser at editor review - this does not seem wise! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, the latest edits are to the user's own userpage. The user told me in good faith they will abide by my request to take a break. Let's all wait and see please. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FarPoint Media Network

I wish to re-address the deletion of FarPoint Media Network. Article was undeniably dated and incomplete. But the main reasons for the deletion have since changed. The company's notability has increased as FarPoint Media grew to include over 100 diverse podcasts and has upgraded their online presence and activity. And, as a representative from the FarPoint Media Network, I offer to personally update and "substantially improve" the article content. (Pagemaster137 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Suggest you work on a draft in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If an acceptable draft is created in my userspace, can FarPoint Media Network be undeleted and modified with the new content? (Pagemaster137 (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

We'd have to reevaluate at that point in time. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. That is do-able. I will work on it in my userspace and let you know when it is complete. Thank you for your help. (Pagemaster137 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Hello Cirt. I have completely rewritten the content of the FarPoint Media Network and would very much appreciate it if you could look it over to make sure it is up to the expectations. You can find it on my userspace. Thanks! (Pagemaster137 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. It still seems to fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep working on it then. Thank you. (Pagemaster137 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Okay. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MECWA

21:33, 1 February 2010 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "MECWA" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MECWA (2nd nomination))

The information came from the website, jubilee history 50 years and annual report 2008-2009.

Yes, I work for mecwacare and was asked to update the information as it was out dated. How can we get this undeleted? Is there any changes that you would reccomend in making? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecwacare 02 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, I want to know how to get undeleted.

The history information from the 'A Jubilee History' is in the National Library of Australia Cataloging and was first published in 1998 with the 50 year anniversary edition being published in October 2009.

I was simply updating out of date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecwacare 02 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Gallaecia

I have put a redirect from the defunct Celtic Gallaecia page, to Britonia. This has fixed the broken link from 'Celtic Gallaecia' on the 'History of Galicia' infobox. I think that this now works OK from both a link and historical perspective. Best regards 11:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfridselsey (talk • contribs)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sections

FloNight is not an arbitrator, and I am recused on this case. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that NYB and perhaps some others have also posted in other sections. It appears that they only do this in response to comments. Sometimes the separate threading is hard to interpret. Cool Hand Luke 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Could you possible semiprotect Human Factors Lab? Some IPs keep removing the AfD template, despite me stating numerous times not to, and to comment at the AfD. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Human Factors Lab page has been under attack and vandalized by previous members of the band. The AFD request is part of these attacks. Comments have been made on the AFD page, people are simply deleting the request from the Human Factors Lab article to return it to how it was before the vandalism. If there is a way to prevent or reverse this vandalism maybe some of the people that know Wiki a little more, and have been re-adding the deletion request.. could instead try to help the situaion, instead of adding to the vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3O

I will be responding on my talk page okay so I think you should have it on your watchlist. Thanks House1090 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis Anderson

Cirt, could restore the article to a subpage so we many continue to work on it to try to appease the wiki requirements.

I've added some responses below and will only say that many of the comments from NotHughThomas have been bitey. The wiki page does not say Dr. Anderson built a time machine, only discusses his theories proposed and presented on spacetime physics. There is no need on wikey to insult people by calling them crackpots and other terms. Again some responses below. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Cirt, I know you are busy but I wanted to ask if you would you be willing to take a look at the article in its present form. I worked with AirplaneMan's advice and I think the 3rd party citations and notability requirements were met. I added 3rd party recognition at a high level by the Romanian Government, United Nations, and added multiple 3rd party reputable citations to appearances and work.

I really just want to get this right and hope you will consider my request to look at the article in its present form just before it was deleted and provide any advice. Thanks for the consideration, Jennifer Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cirt, I am new to wikipedia, just a couple months. I started working on an article about Dr. Anderson. There were suggestions and concerns raised. As each was raised I addressed each one.

For example, somebody challenge his appointment as an Ambassador for the United Nations, so I added a citation to the actual appointment letter. I did the same with a letter from the Romanian Governments.

(1) We can not prove the letter is legitimate. The letter is hosted on Anderson's own website. (2) Being a "UNESCO Youth Ambassador" is an honorary position similar to receiving a presidential youth physical fitness award. It does not involve any appointment by the UN or even a UN sub-body. It's an award for volunteers given out by private, national-level UNESCO enthusiast/affinity groups. There are tens of thousands of such "Youth Ambassadors." Even if legitimate it is not notable. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, Dr. Anderson and his foundation operate many programs for UNESCO. They are published all over the internet with photographic, video and newspaper evidence. Our colleagues have ever said that the UN Secretary General or the Romanian government will contact you in any manner you wish to authenticate his achievements and appointment as an Ambassador for UNESCO and Romania. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added links to his appearances recognizing his work from nationally sindicated shows, magazines, and others.

Only one "nationally syndicated" show was cited: Coast to Coast AM on which he appeared twice in 8 years. The other citations were from podcasts and internet radio, plus one conspiracy theorist magazine. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Anderson did a lot for me, his achievements are real and recognized around the world by many verifiable third parties. Please tell us how we can find a solution to make this work.

Provide citations from verifiable third parties that meet WP:CITE, such as links to newspapers (e.g. of acceptable newspaper - New York Times or Le Monde ... not Online Metaphysical Journal of Spooky Science), reputable magazines, books published by persons other than the author, third party news sites (not blogs) that meet WP:CITE (note: examiner.com is blocked from wikipedia from being used as a citation). Nothughthomas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I do not understand what NotHughThomas is saying. I've made no reeferences, ever, to the publications above. We can collect citations to other publications if needed. When we put more earlier, we were flagged for advertistement. Can you advise us? Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There was also a lot of slander about Dr. Anderson in some of the comments. I don't know if its a personal attack. I just know I am trying to work within the rules of wikipedia and don't know what to do. Can you advise?

There were serious notability concerns about a man who (1) claims a Ph.D. but is unable to verify when or where he received it, (2) says he invented a time machine and the technology is being suppressed by a secret cabal inside the US government, (3) has only managed media coverage on 1 conventional radio show, twice, in 8 years - plus a smattering of podcasts and website, (4) claims he is running a major mulitnational corporation involved in the most groundbreaking scientific research in the world (time travel), but the address of which happens to correlate to a work-loft building in Rochester that hosts a combination of apartments, real estate agents and dentist's offices, (5) is a known associate of Andrew Basagio, a regular lecturer on the UFO convention circuit who claims he is from the year 1968 and was chased by U.S. secret agents through a time machine to the present day to stop the secret of "teleportation" from leaking to the world. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, this doesn't make sense. It is simply not true. In response to above 1) We added the universities, they were deleted. Then we added the specific degrees that can be verified, but NotHughThomas deleted them too. 2) the wiki article discusses Dr. Anderson theories on potential energy stored by inertial frame dragging. I've seen him personally present these in universities here and in Europe. These theories are something he theorized in the 80's and then has been proved by NASAs experiments in recent years. Because somebody is not up on physics does not make it vodoo and this claim is false. 3) this is a false statement as well, see the recent article that verifies my comment. 4) Anderson MNC is a real company. It includes all the elements listed on his website. Products are manufactured and Amazon is used as a distribution and customer service mechanism, in addition to other products from Amazon. 5) This is a false claim, while Dr. Andrew Basagio has Dr. Anderson Name, there is no connection between the two. People have reference an interview making this claim, but the interview does not support the complaint.Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

David Lee Anderson is a very nice man and a low-level con artist of marginal talent. His many websites mostly contain a combination of cut-and-paste pages he's lifted from wikipedia and Amazon Associates storefronts (see: biometricvisions.com). In the UFO conspiracy counter-culture there are dozens of people like him - many who attach to themselves various titles like "Dr." or "Sir" etc. without being able to provide proof of holding them - and we cannot include any of them on wikipedia until they do something notable, such as run onto the White House lawn naked with a gun claiming they're being chased by time traveling E.T.'s from Zeta Reticuli or something like that. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant prior AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lewis Anderson. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, please look at Dr. Anderson's biography and article list on his site. These bitey comments are again, simply not true. Much of Dr. Anderson's orginal work is duplicated there and he does not make claims that are being suggested. It may be on the edge of possibility, but all grounded in physics. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I a college student in South Africa, working with two students, one in Bucharest and another in Chicago on this article. Our friend in America working with us was in tears today because of the attacks of somebody named Nothughthomas. Many of his comments may have been correct, but many were false and many were hateful with no constructive purpose. We simply want to understand what needs to be done to improve the article to make it acceptable. We're not experts, but trying hard and are asking you to help us or help us understand. What do we need to do to avoid the hateful comments and get advice on how to make this work? WorldPeaceEU (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest working on a draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See discussion on my talk page for more. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, please see User:Sciencefrontiers42/David Lewis Anderson. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). I'll keep a close eye on the situation at hand (I saw your talk page post). Airplaneman ^talk 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Avon Plate F.C Deletion

Hi, just logged on to discover a page I created has been deleted. Article was Avon Plate F.C. I was not aware of the deletion debate at the time or I would have made comment at the time. It appears that the main complaints were around the jokey comment that Avon Plate was the 3rd biggest team in Bristol. I can only apologise for this - no offence or attempt to mislead was meant. I would argue against the claim that the subject is non notable as Sunday Football forms a huge part of English sporting culture and the teams that form the Sunday Leagues are vital.

I am relatively new to Wiki in terms of article editing/creation so it is clear I have alot to learn. However I would like to know if there are any steps I can take to retrieve the article so that it can be modified so that it is acceptable to the wider Wiki community.

Kind regards, Darren. Daz555 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to work on a proposed draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Can you advise how I retrieve the original article so that I can work on it?

Kind regards, Darren. Daz555 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Daz555 /Avon Plate F.C.. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Morons in a Hurry

Hey, Cirt, I may have overstepped in revising that sentence -- which was meant as copy editing, not content generation. I was trying to fix a sentence that makes no sense as written by revising to link it to the article's subject. Any guidance or advice you have on it would be appreciated. If you look at the sentence I was trying to fix, you will agree, I think, that it does not convey the intended meaning. Roregan (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have instead had the effect of adding information that was not previously there, without sourcing. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(TPW) A moron in a hurry is my favorite legal phrase. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll take another shot at it. Your keen eye will be appreciated then. Roregan (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do! I would most appreciate that! You may find some good sources at the article about the term itself, A moron in a hurry. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the deletion of jasmere.com

Wondering why you chose to delete the article for jasmere.com. Yes, I have an interest in the cite, but it was also deemed newsworthy by Denver's NBC affiliate, Washington DC's CBS affiliate, Self magazine, Washington Business Journal and other reputable sources. Several veteran Wikipedians came to the articles defense, which cited legitimate sources and demonstrated relevance. Just trying to better understand what the criteria are, as this deletion seems to defy those that have been published. Thank you for your consideration. You can also reach me at kugelonline@yahoo.com ---- kugelonline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.64.185 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More info, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmere.com. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One Lone Car

I'm really confused as to why the One Lone Car article was deleted on here. They have toured with so many big groups and they are signed to Uranus Recordings, which is owned by Robin Wilson of the Gin Blossoms. I've seen a lot of bands on here who don't even come close to fitting the notability clause, such as the band Pomeroy. How can a band be on big tours, have music all over MTV's Tv shows, a record deal, and even chart in the Billboard college charts not be notable? I think you need to do a little more research before you just assume what isn't "notable" in your uneducated opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.214.25 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Lone Car. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill stealing

Hi Cirt; this AfD was closed whilst I was entering my !vote. Missed it by a few minutes. I was wondering if my comment might have altered your final decision. If not, you can go ahead and revert my edit. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it as is. Cirt (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete The 'X' Zone Radio Show?

I was told that it is becausde that we are not significant enough to be in Wikipedia?

What does one have to do to be entered?

We are the only radio show that is produced in Canada to be syndicated outside of Canada to the global market place.

Under th ecorporate umbrella - REL-MAR McConnell Media Company, we are a full blown radio broadcast / production facility, a television show with a reality TV show in production, a newspaper that has been publishing since 1993.

We bropadcast 5 nights a week, Monday - Friday, from 10 pm - 2 am and then our show is re fed through several networks (radio/television/internet) again from 2 am - 6 am.

We have a global audience and are no a so called radio show on blogtalk radio.

I am the inventor of The 'X' Game, an author, paranormal research, publisher, broadcaster.

I have been featured in other news media since 1993 - nationally and internationally including the BBC, CTV, CBC, YTV just to name a few.

I was part of the Canadian television production "Creepy Canada"

What does someone have to do to get their listing back in wikipedia?

Check out our websites:

www.xzoneradiotv.com www.xzonetv.com www.xzbn.net www.xchronicles-newspaper.com www.rel-mar.com

Rob McConnell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzoneradiotv (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 'X' Zone. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for blocking that vandal. --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...and for blocking those two sockpuppets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you pull the trigger on RevolveR?

I'm confused. You closed the WP:Articles for deletion/Revolver (T-Pain album) as Delete, but one of the pages that linked to the deleted article is RevolveR, which looks at first blush like the deleted article, including the AfD message at the top. That AfD message though is linked to the closed AfD for Revolver (T-Pain album) (which is why I'm confused). Clearly something is wrong somewhere, but what? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ItHysteria

Thanks for this block. Any chance you could process the related RFPP request? ItHysteria tends to IP hop, and he's damnably persistent.—Kww(talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-consideration of Deletion, Request for Re-instatement of Article: article for Bob Frissell, author and teacher

Hi Cirt,

I'm contacting you regarding the deletion of the article for Bob Frissell on Feb 5 , 2010. Last week the article underwent a re-write to meet and/or exceed wiki's guidelines for a biography. Therefore, Bob Frissell's article should be re-considered and restored.

History. Bob Frissell's article had been proposed for deletion in February 2009. Specifically, Mr. Frissell's article was very thin on content in general, had no references, no internal links to other articles, and no external links. I found a comment by 1 user that Mr. Frissell only wrote 1 book; therefore he lacked merit for an article on wikipedia. Further, the 1 book listed in his article even failed to mention a major publisher (Random House).

Review of Mr. Frissell's latest article re-written in the past week will indicate that all guidelines for a biography have been met, references and links are verifiable, and that Mr. Frissell is in fact an author of merit.

Here is a summary of changes made in the past week to Mr. Frissell's article to address the original reasons for proposed deletion:

• Thorough internal links to existing wiki articles in good standing including influences, influencers, and collaborators in Mr. Frissell's area of expertise.
• Internal links of note were documented in the latest article including internal links to the articles of musicians who credited the ideas presented in Bob's books as a source of inspiration for their own creative work including Tool (band), Danny Carey, and Gojira (band). I discovered credit to Mr. Frissell in the articles for these musicians in the past week during the re-write of his article. I merely added a link to Mr. Frissell's article to the existing content in the articles of musicians.
• References and external links to external publisher sites of merit verifying the author's credit for referenced work in the article i.e. Random House.
• External links to the availability of Mr. Frissell's literary work at major eCommerce sites i.e. Amazon.

Please advise your thoughts on the re-instatement of Mr. Frissell's article. --Seodio (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Shinji Hosoe

Hi, I noticed that you closed the AfD for Shinji Hosoe as delete, though no one actually participated in the discussion. Why wasn't it relisted instead? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider it similar to a WP:PROD, where it was listed and no one raised any objections after a longer period of time. :) Cirt (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Billboard gags

Hi Cirt. Do you think you could add a deletion rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags so that future controversies could be avoided? Theleftorium 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Cirt (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User Seelicolnshire (talk · contribs) and sockpuppet

I think User:86.149.39.124 is the sockpuppet/ip of block user Seelincolnshire. They are both promoting same site. Can you extend the ban on the IP address to permanent. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but let's see what happens when the block expires. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sock User:81.158.81.221. Replies seem that s/he is the same person as the above IP. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Extended blocks. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA thoughts

Hey, do you think I'm ready for a RfA retry? Just hypothetically, I don't want to be one right now. Be honest too! CTJF83 chat 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I have not gone over it lately, will try to take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we need to get back to the days where we work on GAs together and such. CTJF83 chat 18:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, Cirt (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancel the RfA thing, I don't want to seem like I'm canvassing. User_talk:Smithers7#RfA_Question CTJF83 chat 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17

Yeah, all credit to you as well, for not giving up on this. But he's not that bad, he does a lot of good copyediting in amongst the E-Prime, and hunting out a presumptious "is" sometimes turns up a fair points about attribution or clarity. Don't get to hung up on reverting him wholesale - it should be enough to just edit out the clumsiest E-Prime and force him to explain why "Outrageous Betrayal is a biography" should become "Outrageous Betrayal presents a biography", at which point I'd think WP:TONE and any RFC would be our side. --McGeddon (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I suppose this is just going in circles. Perhaps we should just push him to raise an RFC if he feels that we're being unreasonable; if he instead goes down the usual road of "wait three weeks, revert to preferred version per wilful misinterpretation of WP:SILENCE" then we can take it to WP:ANI again to see if that makes any difference this time (looking at the last ANI, he didn't seem to take it very seriously). --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye on things to see what happens. You may want to ask User:Thumperward for his thoughts, as he's also had problems with this user in the past. --McGeddon (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, glancing through his recent edits, I only count one clumsy piece of E-Prime in this one. When he's not struggling to reword straightforward English sentences into E-Prime, he's perfectly good at copyediting. I wouldn't write him off. --McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Although, eh, checking the edit history, he's already done a lot of previous "copyediting" on that article to remove the words he doesn't like, and the current version actually doesn't use the word "is" or "was" anywhere. (I haven't read it in detail to see how poorly written it is, but all the bullet lists look like a bad sign.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin

How far away is my progress to becoming admin? I've begin to work in "admin" related areas like vandalism and sockpuppets. Is there anything else I should do to guarantee my RFA passing? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this further. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Just to let you know that your response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seelicolnshire is needed. Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody ask you a question at that page. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A question about redirects

Hello, Cirt, I'm Airplaneman. I had a question concerning the assessment of redirects. I was sifting through some redirects for the Percy Jackson Task Force and found that some are assessed, like this one. I've also seen some which have their talk pages redirected to the article's talk page. I'm leaning towards categorizing the redirects so the project can keep tabs on them, but I have no idea if there is a right or wrong way to go about this. What do you recommend? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 04:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Post: Obselidia

Hi Cirt,

I am new to Wikipedia (well, not to reading it, but to contributing).

I wanted to post a small article about a movie I made which premiered at the Sundance Film Fest 2010, Obselidia, which won two awards (the Alfred P. Sloan Award and for Excellence in Cinematography). I see that someone previously tried to post an article about the film, but that it was deleted by you. I'm not sure why.

Can I post again? Will it be deleted?? It was actually Doron Weber of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation who told me we should have a page!

Thanks for your help, Diane Deebstar (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)deebstar

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obselidia. I would suggest working on a subpage in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Inner Catalan border

Cirt, I was working on a keep for that AfD when you closed it, would you please reconsider. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reopened, and relisted. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, just see you replied now, thought you might be in another time zone, änd I was working on another AfD, I'm slow when digging into AfD discussions, it takes darn long time. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power.corrupts (talk • contribs)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

and now ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berte-Evelyne Agbo

I don't know if you were tired, under stress, or whatever, but this closure can hardly represent "consensus" when there is a complete absence of participation. I will not go into detail with Mr. Chill's ability to "find sources" - but all alarm bells should be ringing when it is an female author from Bénin or Sénégal, writing in French.

• The name is improperly spelled, seem to be Berthe-Evelyne Agbo.
• There was a recent in-depth interview in Léontine Bilombo Tsibinda. "Berthe-Evelyne Agbo, écrivain : La musique a une très grande influence sur ma vie." Amina 471, (juillet 2009), p. Europe p.36. Interview. [16],
• she has some mention on the web page of The University of Western Australia, [17] (in English),
• she has a page on "Culturessud.com, portail des littératures du Sud est réalisé par Culturesfrance opérateur du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes et du ministère de la Culture en partenariat avec le Réseau culturel français à l'étrange", [18], I would say RS,
• she's on a list in the French Wikipédia fr:Liste d'écrivains sénégalais, current a redlink, but could be expanded by somebody someday
• she sure is in WorldCat "Emois de femme : poèmes, 1980-1982" [19], the book is at 14 libraries
• some texts of her has recently been published in an antology "Irène d'Almeida et Janis Mayes des USA, "A Rain of Words/Une pluie de mots"."

Is she important enough to an article on Wikipedia, saying: "Berte-Evelyne Agbo is a writer from Benin."? - Let the community decide, please relist that AfD and copy my comments there. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right about the tone, but developments around here the last couple of weeks have unfortunately reduced my patience thresholds, etc. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet article

Thank you for your intervention concerning the edits by user 85.210.180.155 which constitute 'edit warring' and are in breach of Wikipedia's rules for biographical articles of living persons. The edit is not supported by any published source and appears based on the user's original research.

Unfortunately, you have protected the page with the unsourced claim present in the article. Wikipedia's advice to users clearly states that all non-sourced or poorly-sourced claims should be immediately removed from biographical articles of living persons.

My edit attempted a compromise on this matter (please refer to the talk page - surname section - and appeared to obtain a measure of consensus - see for example the comment by Freshacconci on the article history page.

Please undo user 85.210.180.155's edit in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I recommend that you revert to my edit as the simplest alternative for the moment (refer to article history page).

86.193.84.62 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted to WP:BLPN and WP:ANI. As the admin that protected the page, I'd rather another admin(s) take a look regarding possible cleanup. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare

Added some more thoughts and watchlisted the nomination page. Feel free to ignore anything you don't like, they're only ideas- you know more about the subject and about portals than me :) J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed it was like FAC, in that the done thing was to bring up lots of potential issues. I wasn't meaning to oppose, just to help improve. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did notice you'd dealt with a lot of them, yes. I see the featured candidacy as another step in the life- as in, articles, lists, topics, portals and the like come out looking better thant they did when they went in. The support/oppose dichotomy only really applies to the likes of FP/FS, for me. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hardcorebutch

This seems to be User:Stickyblueeyes, back with a new name to do the same trolling. Thanks for your attention to this. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:53, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Cirt (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 19:58, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tammet

Daniel Tammet Hi, it appears that the version that is protected is the uncited version, would you please revert it to the other version, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Would prefer another admin does the editing part, and I just hang back as having protected it. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Duckmandu

Forgive me for rehasing this--I didn't get a chance to comment during the deletion discussion. I am the original creator of the page.

I notice that the page was deleted on "unnotable performer" grounds. No editor seems to have noticed that the subject (Aaron Seeman, a.k.a. Duckmanu) is also a

• composer*. He composed the musicfor a grand opera, which was produced at a

major univerity. The libretto for the opera was written by a well-known scholar. This may not make him rich or famous, but it certainly makes him notable.

He was also for many years the primary composer of the band Fishtank Ensemble, a successful gigging band which is very active in the LA area and at music festivals in the USA and in Europe.

Mr. Seeman may not be as "notable" (i.e, famous) as, say, Britney Spears, but he will be listed in classical music reference books 100 years from now, when Britney and her ilk are long forgotten. Encyclopedias are supposed to be for the long run--not just who is famous for 15 minutes.

Perhaps the relevant question is: "had wiki existed in Mozart's lifetime, would I have deleted his page because he was less "notable" than Salieri?"

And as you probably know, J.S. Bach was Felix obscure until Felix Mendolsson rescued him. IMHO, when it comes to living classical composers, it is better to err on the side of being inclusive.

Also, Mr. Seeman is a well-known teacher of the accordion with several very successful students. OK, accordion is not my thing either, but each intrument has its following and its community. Aaron Seeman is very notable in the accordion community.

Just trying to raise a few issues that didn't get discussed. Wiki needs to improve its reputation in academic circles--being less "pop" oriented certainly would help. Just because editors haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't important. Discussion and consensus is not a substitute for research: before making this deletion, Wiki should at least have sought the opinion of a musicologist or classical composer.

I hope that, after investigating the facts, you will reverse your decision.

Thanks. --Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgryan (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duckmandu. I would suggest working on a draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

Hello Cirt. Per WP:AN3#User talk:85.210.180.155 reported by User talk:86.193.84.62 (Result: 31h), the IP who was warring to insert the subject's birth name has been blocked 31h. If you wish, this might create an opportunity to lift the protection on this article. I felt it was necessary to get the IP's attention, since he'd been ignoring all warnings, and we can't keep it protected forever. (Though semiprotection is an option). EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Cirt (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA

No I don't but would like one. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How to get one? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

MyAlbum/MijnAlbum

Hi there. I noticed that you just closed the Afd for MyAlbum.com as "Delete", but you left MijnAlbum, which was co-nominated, alive and kicking. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD closure?

I am looking for someone to close this AFD Dean Chamberlain and I know you do them, if you get chance that would be good. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, relisted debate for additional discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I can't see it happening though, the article has improved to a level where no one is bothered to reply anymore, you can't drag them in kicking and screaming. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Magic City Morning Star

Hi,

I saw that the page for Magic City Morning Star has been protected because of my attempts at edits. I don't understand why my edits are worse than the current page. The page, as currently written is blatantly inaccurate and years out of date. It makes claims that are totally unsourced. Are unsourced claims okay if they have been on the page for years? For instance, the politicians listed as "contributors" never did any such thing, and those claims are unsourced anyways. I attempt to note the "contributors" did not actually contribute, and my edit is destroyed. Would it be better to simply delete the "contribution" section altogether? Help me out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amglolz (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan

Hi, checking your brief closure summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan‎, I'm wondering if you considered that most of the comments in favour of deletion were solely applying PORNBIO when Carrigan is not just a pornography actor but also a film director. As PORNBIO is specifically for actors, the closure should be based on the GNG. As Carrigan's work as a director of erotic wrestling films is notable as establishing the genre, I would have thought that GNG was easily satisfied (even if we are forced to ignore the fact that Carrigan is the second most credited actor in gay pornography). Would you re-consider your closure as I would have thought inconclusive might be more appropriate as a summary. Ash (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus indeed favored deletion. However, I would be willing to userfy the page to a subpage within your userspace, if you wanted to work on it further there. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do, though I am disheartened by the experience of having an article which by any normal common-sense definition is about a notable person deleted on the basis of notability. Being a cover star, the second most credited actor in the field and having so many films win well-known awards should have been sufficient. I guess I should take a nice long break from pornography articles while this bias for literal interpretation rather than common-sense has the upper hand. Ash (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RE : Query

In a sense I forgot to complete the sentence, "but I won't go out to oppose it outright and I can live with it if others think it is justified" would be a more precise way of describing my stand. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I see what is happening now. I was still reading a cached version of the PD ._. I'll change my vote accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for semi-protecting the Ignazio Abate article! ^_^ Those IP users can get really annoying. Bye! — Luxic (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For semi-protecting my talk page. All that over me reverting some vandalism of one of their little friends! I hadn't even heard of the page they vandalised tonight until I accidentally stumbled across it with Huggle. Thanks again! --5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, Cirt (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right

I'm sorry about that. I've adjusted.[20] Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cirt

Could you see about putting a soft block on 209.174.229.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), your the only admin i could think of off the top of my head Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie Bailey

Hey there, I really have no idea what I'm supposed to do here in regard to disputing or requesting a page to be undeleted, I've only been a reader and not a contributor so please forgive me my ignorance. My friend Bonnie asked for help since she thinks I know "About Computers", more than her at least I suppose, but as this seems to be an issue with providing verification of the facts on the page I figured I could assist her.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Bonnie+Bailey

http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_L.HTM

http://top40-charts.com/videos/play.php?vid=owruZtqHw2Y

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bonnie bailey&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=safari&rls=en&tab=nv#

http://www.google.com/products?q=bonnie bailey&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf

http://www.wikimusicguide.com/Bonnie_Bailey#About

How do I need to proceed to get her page reinstated?

Thanks you Travis Meck TMeck@YanniWake.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.104.66 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 98.64.104.66 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would first suggest working on a draft version in a subpage of your userspace. To do that, you must first create and register an account on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Step one is done.. I'll start on that now.. Thanks for your help TravisMeck (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus vs. keep result

I'm curious when a vote should be marked with a definite result vs. "no consensus" - on John D. Hawks by my count it was 5 keep, 3 delete. --JWB (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, one of them was a "weak" keep. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the difference have any consequences such as making it easier or more difficult to request deletion etc. in the future? --JWB (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, depends on the judgment of the next closing admin. I would not nom it again though for a while. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lindsay rosenwald

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lindsay rosenwald. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D. (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the notice. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 9. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FayssalF

Do you mind if we consolidate our comments into the same section? I want it to get attention, and I didn't immediately realize what had happened. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PQ Systems

I was hoping to improve this article but am having some trouble revising the old one. Could you shed some more light onto the reasons for deletion, this may help me in making a revision. It looked like there where a few comments but none of them seem too specific. one said something about underlying notability is lacking but i sourced several publications for the article. Can you help me lead me in the right direction?
Thanks
Bmxoffspring99 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Bmxoffspring99/PQ Systems, Inc. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Engaged in an 'Edit War' over the words 'trope' and 'theme'?

I really do not understand this. The word 'trope' is clearly being used misleadingly in the 'Battlefield Earth' article when the word 'theme' should be in place. At first I was accused of vandalism without any clear explanation as to why (given the warning was a typical copy-and-paste scolding, the lack of context is not surprising). Then I edited the article back while giving an explain why I replaced the word 'trope' with 'theme' and suddenly I am in an 'edit war' which says I could be banned from editing on the site if I change it back. Huh?

I am really starting to not like this site at all. The site tells you to 'be bold' but whenever I try to improve an article someone (or something since these messages seem to be coming from bots on the site if that makes any sense) sends me a message accusing me of breaking one rule or another and always without an adequate explanation. I thought Wikipedia was an open process for the sake of improving articles and make it a more reliable source. Telling people they are wrong for making changes without any regards to the context of the situation only discourages edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.2.35 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion about it at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav PM

Daer Cirt, I saw you blocked the page about Yugoslav PM. Let me explain why this was an error. How you can see in page history, i started to improve the page. All problems Direktor exposed were referenced. And I think that, under wiki rules, he can't deny my requests of sources about his edits. Hi.--79.54.164.85 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion about it at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Apologies for contacting you on your talkpage about this nonsense Cirt, but I'd like to ask you to review my request for temporary semi-protection of List of heads of state of Yugoslavia [21] (it seems like the request is being ignored or something because the IP posted something there :). Upon your protection of Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, the disruptive IP simply moved his "activities" to the other article, and he does not seem like he's about to to stop. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Goes without saying: thanks for your help with the recent IP problems. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasty deletion of Chris Allen (author)

I believe your closing decision on this one was in error, or at very least premature. I was the only person who made an actual argument (of "Keep") based on policy and evidence. There were two editors who always !vote "Delete" on every biography, and two more editors who genuinely seem to weight the decisions who split on this. So at most it was 2k/3d... but if you count opinions that actually have to do with the article, it's really 2k/1d. At most that makes "No consensus", although it probably makes "Keep"... or better than any of those, I admit, is probably "Relist" for more comments. LotLE×talk 08:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, restored and relisted at AFD. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LotLE×talk 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

Would you be able to email me a copy of the Wiki code for the deleted page List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia?

I'm not looking to put up the page again on Wikipedia but it's a list that would be impossible to re-compile and has a lot of archival value for the organisation.

My email is matthewincerti at gmail.com

thanks Australian Matt (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS question

Hi Cirt, I had a question from Leahtwosaints about OTRS here. She has done a lot of good work adding images of musicians to a lot of articles. Would you be able to answer her OTRS questions? If not, could you suggest someone that could? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thnaks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision

In the wiki list of said "cults", Amish is listed as well. You might want to check up on this one. I'm not Amish or anything but I can see crock from a mile a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which list in particular? Cirt (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll fix it myself when I come across it again. No one should be misled to think the Amish are a cult in the relevant sense. LaRouxEMP (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scientology (James R. Lewis book)

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scientology (James R. Lewis book), 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Terry Lydell Bowser, Sr.

Hi, I see you closed this as a delete. I pointed out a similiar article in the debate, User:ValerieBock/Dr. Terry L. Bowser, Sr., but you didn't take any action towards it. Did you look over it or should I use MfD to argue for its deletion? ThemFromSpace 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

MFD would be best for that. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alicia Keys protection

Hi there Cirt, I see you've chosen to semi-protect Alicia Keys for six months. Just wanted to point out that you sort of forgot the protecting part. — ξ^xplicit 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I thought it had responded, must be slow wiki or something. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What led you to leave it semi-protected? LaRouxEMP (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan with the statement "The result was delete" when there was seemed to be no consensus. I thought that a closer should keep the debate open if consensus wasn't reached, or at least explain how they made their decision. The nominator, User:Epbr123 had been nominating at least one gay porn star a day and the resources of those who might care to participate in Afd have been taxed. I personally had never heard of the guy, but he does seem notable. I'm requesting reconsideration. -Stillwaterising (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to userfy the page into a subpage within your userspace, if you wish to work on it further. :) Cirt (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was asking for. What I would like is for you to explain how you came to your Afd decision. An example of a detailed explanation can be found here -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is now up again, at Paul Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I have refined the userfied version at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan and there are now multiple sourced nominations for well known awards in multiple years for his acting and directing. Could you please take a look and advise on whether you would support me re-creating at this point (or possibly going to DRV) on the basis of the new sources? I believe that WP:ARTIST is the most appropriate guidance for notability and not PORNBIO as the awards are both for acting and directing. Cheers Ash (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay looks good. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now de-userfied. I note that I never had the original talk page. Perhaps you could check if there was one that got deleted and perhaps restore that talk page version to the new article? Cheers Ash (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Cirt (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some additions the talk page which are now lost. Can they be userfied too? Stillwaterising (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may mean the header which Cirt correctly suppressed. I have partially revealed it to show deletion discussion notices. The project links are best left hidden as these may add article categories not intended for userspace. Ash (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why is Slipknot (band) move-protected? Debresser (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That was originally done by admin NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know when or why, but perhaps it could be unprotected. This article seems like an unlikely candidate for move protection. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps consult with NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

request

I replied to your request on my talk page. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paul Carrigan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Carrigan. 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. Ash (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Fir-Tex

Dear Cirt, could you explain to me why you deleted the article Fir-Tex? Kind regards (Dicky747 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

It was after a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fir-Tex. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, off course I understand that, but why? The discussion doesnt justify the deletion?. What were your reasons? It had been approved by another moderator, however because of some user trying to sabotage this article, he nominated the article twice, because the first time he did not get what he wanted!(Dicky747 (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

It was deleted because consensus from the deletion discussion supported deletion. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it is not about consensus, you must read the reasons and explications, it is not just a voting page. And if allegations are being made they need to be supported and they were not. Indeed "Magic Vest" is talking about the Fir-Tex, for that you need to listen to the transmission of these (biggest) Dutch News Cahnnels and read the International Papers that wrote about it. But thank you for answering my question, regards. (Dicky747 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

The comments at the AFD towards delete were asking about sources and referencing. The subject seems to fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are sources such as Dutch Olympic Commitee and Dutch Handbal Association no good sources or references?What about all the independent international newspapers, not considered a source as well? I still don't understand this. (Dicky747 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps you could work up a draft to demonstrate this, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? All the references were in the article. (Dicky747 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

I was going to userfy, but I see it exists already at User:Dicky747/Fir-Tex. You should work on improving it there for now. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks (Dicky747 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Phantom Ruler Z

Reliable sources have finally appeared to show the proper title of the film to be "Phantom Ruler: Zoroark". Could you perhaps unprotect the page and then move the page to this proper title?

A move request was started, but it was by the very kind of user the protection was intended to stop.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to move until reliable sources come out, which they have.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of oppose comments and no responses yet since your recent post. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are opposes (including my own) because there were no physical reliable sources available. Since that began about 24 hours ago, the reliable sources have come out. I've contacted everyone who posted an oppose due to the fact that the magazine that this information was purportedly in was released today, instead of last week when all of the rumors began to mill out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Would be best to see some talk page consensus first. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This got fulfilled by Anthony Appleyard.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, Cirt (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Amaxus

Hi,

You recently deleted the article titled "Amaxus", about a widely-used Content Management System.

The article was previously deleted because a user said that they could only find '1 press release' and that the product is not notable.

Amaxus is mentioned in thousands of web pages (search Google), including the following: CrunchBase: http://www.crunchbase.com/product/amaxus E-Consultancy: http://econsultancy.com/press-releases/4791-amaxus-driven-english-in-action-site-launched-in-bangladesh New Media Age: http://www.nma.co.uk/features/box-uk-releases-content-management-system-amaxus/7485.article CMS Wire: http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/amaxus-web-cms-get-social-faster-and-easier-to-use-005668.php

The product is certainly notable, running websites like Tombraider (http://www.tombraider.com), The National Gallery (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/), The Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/), The BBC (http://www.bbcjanala.com/) and The Chartered Institute for IT (http://www.bcs.org/).

I intend on re-creating this article; could you let me know if you need any additional information? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spxdcz (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the prior deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaxus. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Ghost

Not a huge issue, but you might have been a bit hasty with protecting this page. I've managed to get some kind of discussion going on the talk page, and there have only been a couple of reverts to the article since that time. I'm just worried that locking the page will kill the talk page discussion, which means the whole issue is going to resurrect itself when the page gets unlocked. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will encourage talk page discussion! :) Cirt (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

one would hope - I just have a sneaking suspicion that it won't. at any rate, fait accompli; we'll see how it pans out... --Ludwigs2 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Series of Tubes

Hey Cirt. I recently talked to you about Series of Tubes GA nomination. While doing some research in regards to your recommendation, I had a thought. Would it make more sense to withdraw the nomination since it probably won't pass, and renominate it once the commentary section has been written (then fix any remaining problems while the nom's on hold), or would it be better to get a failed GA review so I can just work to fix everything? I got the impression that you felt the nomination was too absurd to even consider seriously, but at the same time I don't even know what to do to fix it. Swarm^(Talk) 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the best idea at this time. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, THE INTERNET IS NOT A BIG TRUCK. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks Cirt, gotta love that video...

I don't know why I didn't take that point when I originally talked to you. I'll do that then. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of inclined to place {{humor}} at the top of the article now. Swarm^(Talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, don't do that. It should eventually at an WP:FA level be a serious coverage of a humorous topic. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And here I was thinking pessimistically about the article's GA outlook. I hope you turn out to be right eventually. Regards, Swarm^(Talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous Betrayal, "is" and "was"

You're welcome. Glad if I can help.

I once inadvertently got in a big kertuffle over a comma. I lost the battle, but my side eventually won the war. Good luck. Maurreen (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I have much to add here, given that you've already quoted me, but I'd suggest reframing the RFC to specifically mention E-Prime - Pedant17 has already filibustered in the previous thread by choosing to defend his "is" and "was" edits as relatively minor, while deliberately sidestepping the equally heavy "were" and "been" edits (which are also forbidden words in E-Prime). I imagine his defence in the RFC would be along the same lines, so you might as well pre-empt that. Good luck. --McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a comment. I just thought it might be better if you rephrased the subject of the RfC, on the basis that Pedant17 may choose to slow the discussion down by pedantically ignoring the wider E-Prime issue and instead concentrating on the "is" and "was" (and probably giving us a percentage breakdown of how few of his edits actually involve those words), but we'll see how it goes. --McGeddon (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party protests, 2009

Welcome to my world.

I just noticed that you've fully protected Tea Party protests, 2009. My guess is that you protected it for other reasons (like edit wars) but you're invited to join the Merge Discussion happening here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle

Do you think the vandalism history on René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle warrants a page protection? This article seems to have a vandalism problem as of late, but the problem is spread out between days. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could go either way. Couldn't hurt to put in a request at WP:RFPP for further evaluation. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors

Per my comments at AfD, would you kindly userfy this article to my space?--otherlleft 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, User:Otherlleft/List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of NRMs (Aesthetic Realism)

Would you consider any of these sources sufficient?

[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

They are links or links to links of articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines which describe aesthetic realism as a cult/devotional philosophy. While the group itself fervently denies the cult label, they don't hesitate to describe it as a new way of looking at the world, mankind's greatest philosophy ever, taught by the kindest, most honest man to have ever lived, capable of curing all humans problem including racism, economic oppression, war, and marital strife (their words, I promise). 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do any WP:RS scholarly sources refer to the group as a "new religious movement" ? Cirt (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find. But I'm wondering, since NRM is pretty much an academic neologism, whether this is kind of moving the goalposts when it comes to reliability. Granted, Aesthetic Realism isn't referred to as a "cult" in scholarly sources either, but why is the bar set higher here than for general article sourcing? Tangentially, if the issue is partly one of semantics, would you approve of a separate lists of groups commonly called 'cults', and if so, would non-scholarly sources then qualify?71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, do any WP:RS sources at all refer to the group as a "new religious movement"? Scholarly or other reliable sources? As for a group list of the one you describe, it was on Wikipedia for a while, but was deleted. It was called List of groups referred to as cults. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No. NRM is a term really only used in university religion and sociology departments. And by the current page description, Aesthetic Realism probably doesn't belong. But if you follow the discussion on the Talk:Cult page, it's clear that for many people the term, NRM was designed to replace the pejorative name of cult. By that reasoning, being called a cult in reliable sources should go some way towards inclusion in a list of NRMs. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with most of what you are saying, except being called a "cult" is not the exact same thing as being called a "new religious movement", and vice versa. You may wish to read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination). Cirt (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's not a policy for WP:MESS, there should be. Per the terminology, i thought all cults were nrms, but nrms were only cults if sufficiently exclusive, isolated, fanatical, or destructive. Or maybe some cults aren't religious if their dogma doesn't concern a diety. To me, "nrm" replaced the potential for offense with the certainty of ambiguity. "Cult" had a 'you know it when you see it quality' that made it stick even in conventional religious quarters, because it was about group dynamics rather than ideology. "NRM" just makes all groups co-equal--and given my general distrust of religion that may be a good thing--but it ignores the harmful individual effects that Religions don't usually have (at least not the ones that last). I'll pursue this elsewhere while sociology professors and exit counselors attempt to reach consensus. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, again I agree with you on all that you said, for the most part. I have even heard that "sociologists" of religion have remarked that they feel that "new religious movement" has begun to take on the negative connotations of the word "cult", and then they want to invent a new term to refer to these controversial groups and movements to avoid the stigma of "new religious movement"... Cirt (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, see euphemism treadmill, Blackwater on the losing battle. A p.o.s. by any other name... Not to say that i don't think new religions aren't interesting; i just don't see why there can't be two categories about it, or a few degrees within. Thanks... 71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for BugUp Tracker

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BugUp Tracker. This page was deleted before anyone of Wikipedia's editors had answered my arguments and request for more information. i made the following request from Haakon:"Hi Haakon. I can understand why you must think BugUp Tracker is not notable, but since this is my first article regarding bug-tracking shareware/freeware software, that produce great results (from my own experience as a QA manager), i would like you to reconsider your nomination to delete my contribution. I have worked with numerous bug-tracking software systems and would like to contribute from my experience to start up companies (such as was my own company), and assist them to locate the best products to support their work. if you have doubts regarding the notability of the product, please review the latest page they added (http://www.informup.com/startupfree.aspx) which is testament to their success with start-ups. since this is my first page in a series of articles that are meant to benefit others, I'd appreciate your support. Let me know which evidence (if added) would convince you, or other Wikipedia editors, to show their support as well. thanks". My comment was placed at 09:25, 11 February 2010, to provoke a discussion regarding the subject of my article and its regarded notability. No one responded to my request and the page that was carefully created with a lot of effort was deleted. Please reinstate the article and allow me to continue with my review of specific bug tracking software and the companies which generate them. thanks Benblum1 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to delete, from the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BugUp Tracker. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for me to prove other wise? i wish to start a series of articles and if they will be deleted one by one, there is no point to it. have you been searching this bug tracking software in google? or do only wiki articles that mention BugUp Tracker apply? I have reviewed the comparison page for bug tracking system. the only real difference i seem to find is that they have references within Wikipedia whereas BugUp Tracker is a new comer. would Wikipedia editors prevent a review of a new software from reaching the general public? why?"Benblum1 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You could file a WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for BugUp Tracker==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BugUp Tracker. 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. Benblum1 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not yet see this listed at WP:DRV? Cirt (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

it has been listed as of 19:11. I didn't want to forget posting the reminder in your talk :) so i did both postings in parallel. I am also requesting that as the administrator who closed the AfD debate and deleted the BugUp Tracker article, I am requesting that you either send the article to my user space, or for the source to be e-mailed to me (per the kind of actions available at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review). thanks Benblum1 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Benblum1/BugUp Tracker. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

receiving the  Done from you is a good omen. i hope. thanks :) Benblum1 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

I saw that you protected the Johnny Weir page. I don't have a problem with it but since no admins are involved in the current talk-page discussion and since the Winter Olympics are in progress, I'd like to ask you to edit the article yourself when updates of the competition results are available. In particular, men's free skate takes place later on today in the Olympics and the final standings will be known; it will be necessary to quickly add the results to the article after that. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That can be done using {{editprotected}} Cirt (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but my previous experience with {{editprotected}} is that it often takes 1-2 days to have a requested edit added to the article. In this case it will be necessary to act faster since, for the moment, this is a high visibility article with a lot of incoming traffic. At least please keep a close eye on the talk page to see if any non-controversial edits are requested there, so that they can be added quickly. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If the conflict itself were resolved quickly, then the protection could be lifted. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put an {{editprotected}} request at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Eirtakon

As the administrator who closed the AfD debate and deleted the Eirtakon article, I am coming to you to request either userification of the article under my userspace, or for the source to be e-mailed to me (per the kind of actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review).

I don't agree with the main arguments for deletion based on sources, when the article did have several sources from anime-cons.com (or something along those lines) to at least back up the attendance figures and guests. I am requesting this so that myself, other attendees and possibly even con committee members can help to find other sources so that other editors won't so quickly pass it off as failing notability. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:TheChrisD/Eirtakon. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll get to work, hopefully soon. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:PcsRcsLogo.jpg

File:PcsRcsLogo.jpg needs to be deleted now that PCS Revenue Control Systems has been deleted, as was pointed out at the WP:AfD. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

MECWA (mecwacare)

I've set up a sub page and I've had not comments on it expect for the image being on it, which was something I didn't even know was a 'no no'. As you were the one that deleted the original page could you please run your eye over the proposed copy I've my subpage and advise of any changes you would reccomend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mecwacare_02/Subpage_user_space

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecwacare 02 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to violate WP:NPOV = promo/spam, like a WP:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Holding back on Hiram

There are two items I have held back on re Hiram Monserrate:

• He left the NYPD with a psychological disability
• Sources have gone to the media stating he has been non-compliant with court orders regarding his sentence of community service and probation.

The first, I think is a BLP problem since while it has been widely reported it has not been entered into the public record or otherwise acknowledged by HM. The second is transient. The relevant fact will be if he found to have violated his probation or if he is re-sentenced. patsw (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Inchon

Hi there. I've just had a read of the article about Inchon, the flop war film, and I couldn't help but notice the talk page, in which you argued with an absolute nobody about a trivial issue for two whole days, extending down to a dozen levels of indents. I'm not sure what your goal was; from an outsider's perspective, it didn't give me a positive impression of either of the participants. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have a valid point and I accept that. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii

While I agree with your close, I'm not sure that you are the best person to close this contested AfD. I am certain that you are unbiased; however, other users might view this in a different way since you closed both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework (in October 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework (2nd nomination) (in September 2009) as "delete". Cunard (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Reopened and relisted. Put back at AFD. :) Cirt (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! =) Cunard (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nice article. Well done! I've left a note on the talk page about No wuckers. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for incorporating my suggestions into No worries. Cunard (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But of course, as you backed it up with good sources. ;) Cirt (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Ref #3 (No worries#CITEREFAngeloButler1998) doesn't seem to work. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, fixed it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Cirt is as unbiased as one can be when closing software AfDs. The previous AfD for Yii was 3-0 delete, the one before that was also hardly controversial... Pcap ping 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lietuvos Radijo Mėgėjų Draugija

Cirt, there is an issue with this deletion that is larger than the notability of the individual national organization. From WP:CLUB, individual national affiliates of a notable international organization may inherit notability from that organization, and the question then is whether or not national affiliates (we are not talking about local chapters) should be covered in:

• A list in the article on the international organization
• A "List of" article
• Stubs, in addition to one of the above.

The nominator of the above has now filed something like a dozen individual AfDs, all covering the same basic issue and claim, and the AfD above, which you closed as Delete (apparently based on lack of asserted individual sources, you did not say), did not attract participation from those with knowledge of the history of this, nor of the issue of project organization. Would you mind re-opening that AfD, as was done with another of these, to allow more comment, as well as to encourage an overall decision to be made that treats these national affiliates evenly? It would avoid Deletion Review, I believe. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, reopened and relisted, back at AFD. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Battlefield Earth (film). I hope you like the place and decide to stay ... Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome notice and information. Much appreciated! Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

This is funny

I hope this edit summary wasn't intentional :) –MuZemike 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Montevideo Motor Show

Hi. I´m new in Wiki. I use wiki in spanish. I´m not sure but I think it was you the one taht delete "Montevideo Motor Show" because is not a remarkable event. I understend than others consider Uruguay as not existent. We are a small country, with a small market. That´s the reason why MMS is not every year, and have not the relevance of others MS in the world. But for Uruguayan people like me it is a very important event, no questions about. I asume that to be small is a lack of merit to be relevant. I don´t want to discuss anything or ask you to undelete the file. I have no intentions to be rude or anything like that at all. I´m just trying to explain the lack of relevance. Thanks.--Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Andrea, we recognised that you're new and might not understand how Wikipedia actually works. FWIW, different language version of Wikipedia operates differently from one another, but the basics are still the same. Per Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies, whenever you want to showcase the importance of the article even though it might be a very well-known event in the Spanish speaking world (please remember that this here is the English language Wikipedia, not everyone understands Spanish), you will have to provide one or preferably more reliable sources (the reference can be a news article(s) from any country) for verification purposes. Amongst many of Cirt's duty, as one of WP:Administrators, is to remove article without any significant substance or content. It has nothing to do with the country being small or in another language, hope this clear things up for you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I undertand. Bu t you mention that it was describe in an "El Pais article", wich is the most important in our country. Is not that a reliable source or newspapers are not good? Please tell me to clear my point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreateletrabajo (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruna Ferraz

There were no comments of any kind on this when it was relisted. I don't think this should have been closed with only 2 days of actual discussion.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a clear consensus to delete, after being open for 10 days of discussion. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

Feel free, something I'm not great at myself... J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne reference

The source used[31] refers to Massimo as one of the "leading new religious movements scholars in the world". Massimo Introvigne appears regularly as a lecturer at NRM-related conferences in the United States and Europe, as well as in print. He is the head of CESNUR. His entry on the list had been deleted along with quite a few others, so I was just restoring it with a citation. • Astynax ^talk 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) Cirt (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park Season 1 FT

I think the first season of South Park is ready for FT! As you were a participant, and will be listed as a co-nominator, I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention before I officially nominated it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I saw you took yourself off the list of contributors to the Season 1 FT. I know you didn't get to work on the individual articles very much, but you basically started the whole topic drive, so I had been planning on listing you as a co-nominator. Are you sure you don't want to be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter Kahn (talk • contribs)

Added self back, thanks! :) Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Glad to see it. We wouldn't be ready to nominate season one right now if not for your efforts! — Hunter Kahn 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Glass House Bistro

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The glass house bistro, you apparently deleted the page The glass house bistro, but failed to notice that the page had been moved during the discussion to a new page titled The Glass House, Scarborough. The new page has not been deleted, even though the result of the AFD discussion was delete. Can you please address this oversight? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

J-Ethinomics

Hi, you deleted the subject article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. EthicsforMedia was bundled with the AfD after my initial nomination and was not deleted after you closed the AfD. Please revisit. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

JAMIE BAMBER'S NATIONALITY CHANGED

Wikipedia has seen fit to re-write history. Jamie Bamber, a British actor born and raised in the UK, is now listed as having an American father and "retaining his British citizenship". This is deeply offensive to those of us in Britain. Bamber is BRITISH. He was born here and lived here until he was 32. He has never denied being British. Americans on Wikipedia have for some bizarre reason decided to try to make him American. This is factually incorrect. He lists himself as British and is a member of BAFTA. Why the racism?

As for the News of the World quote, Bamber gave the interview to that newspaper. Why are you deleting it and how is it libelous? Bamber himself made the quote referenced and it is purely factual. Why remove it unless you want this to be a FANMAIL page?86.172.30.1 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Pixar References article

Hello - confused about your deletion of List of Pixar film references per the continuing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pixar_film_references. It did not appear that there was clear consensus to delete, and even the original poster had expressed options that would lead to it remaining. Can you restore the article and the AFD discussion as it had not been clearly identified as "delete" please? SpikeJones (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask that you review the commentary from the original poster and the other users that was included in addition to the formal keep or delete bullets. At the very least, the AFD was still being discussed -- it had just been relisted for more input from others, and items that the original poster was critical of had been addressed by editors in the subsequent discussion. Even reviewing the notes as a casual observer rather than an active participant in the discussion, I can't see that consensus was formally reached and am interested in how you came to that conclusion yourself. SpikeJones (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You clearly acted prematurely. The consensus prior to the "extension" was that more 3rd party sources needed to be added. Even the original poster regarding the AfD discussion HIMSELF agreed with this, negating his Delete comment. The vote was 4-4. Additionally, the discussion regarding your deletion clearly has a consensus of overturn. Please restore the page.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I made some edits to the “New Religions List” for Rissho Kosei-kai and I see that you deleted them because you said that they where not properly cited. Am I to assume that you cannot use the religious groups own website? I doubt they would lie about who their founder was! Plus I am a member! --Greenwood1012 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I did add refs, from a book on Buddhismthat talks about RKK. So, I hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwood1012 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, Cirt. Because I merged content from Electric Retard into Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide#Electric Retard, would you undelete it for GFDL attribution purposes, and redirect it using the following code: #REDIRECT [[Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide#Electric Retard]] {{R to section}} {{R from merge}}? Though I did not say at the AfD, my consent to the merge proposal meant that I had withdrawn the AfD. Thank you for taking another look at this! Best, Cunard (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit made to PQ Systems

I edited the page PQ page with some rewrites and general edits. I am hoping you could take a look and let me know if you find anything that doesn't seem quite right. Thanks Bmxoffspring99 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I still see lots of unsourced bits. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie Bailey

Hi Cirt, I was able to find this link that support's her claim at this site: [[32]] searching LNM Prokjekt featuring Bonnie Bailey

Search Results -- Singles

Position Artist Title Date Details 38 LNM Prokjekt featuring Bonnie Bailey Everywhere Mar 2005 Notes

Copyright © 2000-2010 everyHit.com

I believe that meets the criteria for notability set forth in article 2 (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart) and 11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.) Is there anyway you could Undelete please?

--TravisMeck (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Bailey. I would suggest first working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

In this discussion it was suggested that you were the appropriate administrator from whom to request the userification of an earlier version of Abdul Majid Khan. If that is correct, would you please userify the article's full revision, and talk page, if any, to User:Geo Swan/review/Abdul Majid Khan?

I'll put a {{noindex}} on it while I work with it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the history but I do not appear to have been involved before in an admin capacity. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Highway (C.O.P.S.)

Please undelete so that we can merge and redirect as even the nominator suggested. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no reliably sourced content cited to independent reliable secondary sources, so nothing to merge. As for redirect, feel free to do so as an editorial decision, post AFD! :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the initial sentence would be useful for merging purposes to the main article. There is no need for the edit history to be hidden. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should not be too hard to come up with alternate wording - cited to independent reliable secondary sources - as opposed to cited, to, um, no sources whatsoever. :P Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be much easier, convenient to go with what was in the article. Because the article was not a hoax or libelous and because we have a redirect location, there is no need for the edit history to remain unavailable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot prove whether or not as to the factual accuracy of the article, as it was not sourced properly. Therefore we cannot say one way or the other. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening line simply explaining the character can be accurately sourced from the show, which we can watch videos of and which counts as a reliable primary source. We can verify it was a toy as well, by looking at a picture of it (our eyes don't lie on this one). Generally speaking, when a redirect location exists, we just redirect with the edit history intact. We only delete the edit history when it is libelous, a copy vio, or a hoax. Please note that I am only requesting this on such ones as the above that are significant to the show and worthy of mention in the main article, i.e. only in the AfDs in which I personally commented. I avoided commenting in the ones that do not have multiple appearances or that do not appear in the show, comic, and toy line. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all time you could spend actually researching the subject matter and the character itself, in order to avoid violating WP:OR and using primary sources, and instead relying upon independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For citation of basic facts like the toy and show appearances, the primary source is most reliable. And again, there is no real need for the edit history to be deleted. Like I said, I am only requesting it on the notable ones, such as this. Per WP:PRESERVE we do delete that which could potentially be better sourced later or that which is worded well enough for a move elsewhere even if the reference template can be added after merging the description. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. If it were sourced material to independent reliable secondary sources, it would be another matter entirely and I would be more than happy to do so. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet, there is no actual reason or purpose for it to be deleted. The show is reliable for its opening and closing credits for revealing who played as who and for brief plot summaries. The official list of Oscar winners (the primary source) is the most reliable source for a list of Oscar winners. For the purpose of a brief merge, the most reliable source is the show and toy themselves. Where the whole concept of original research and secondary sources comes into play is in balancing the article as a whole, i.e. in sourcing the development and reception sections, but for the plot summary, obviously the work of fiction is the most reliable source. And in the larger sense, admins only need to delete that which we must protect the public from or ourselves for legal reasons. If a redirect is valid and there is nothing legally damaging in the edit history, then a closing admin just needs to redirect without worrying about deleting anything. It saves time and if anything is beneficial to readers and editors alike who do not then subsequently have to requst undeletion as new sources become available. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to redirect it, I have no objections to that being done as an editorial decision post AFD. However, there is no pressing overwhelming need to restore content that is unsourced, and most certainly not sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, it would be prudent to restore the edit history as we can use the wording for the merge and if a redirect is okay, then there is no reason not to keep the edit history available for future use. For example, we can take the line about "Highway's original codename was Speed Trap, but was changed to Highway at the last minute. In Brazilian version, he was named "Andarilho" (Walker)." and merge that information. Indeed, for many of these characters, they meet a common sense standard of notability: appearances in a show, as toys, and in a comic. We even have summaries of them provided in a published textual source that can be used to reference the brief sentence or two we would like to merge from the articles. Thanks for helping with this! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a published textual source, then you should use that. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly use it to verify what is already a well worded sentence from this article that we can use in fleshing in C.O.P.S.#Characters_in_the_series. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then feel free to write it yourself, research it, and reference it to that published textual source you just cited to me, above. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be far more convenient to just copy over the text from the the Highway article and then add the citation from the published source. Thank you for doing so. I appreciate it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This all is so much effort expended that could be put into working to properly sourced the material yourself, and write it yourself. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is effort towards ensuring that we don't have to go through the same discussion with any similar articles here or in DRVs. When an editor requests in good faith that an article that is not libelous and for which even the deleting admin does not oppose a redirect and even the afd nominator was okay with a merge and when it was far from a unanimous delete be undeleted, it should just be a given that the request is granted. There is no reason not to here. Indeed, it would have been so much easier to just simply in such cases redirect without deleting the edit history in the first place, but then even if you did delete, when someone requests the article be undeleted, we can take what is there, copy it over, and add the citation found elsewhere. There is no need to force anyone to have to start over with the source that can be used to cite an already existent sentence. There is no need to have to debate it. Please in the interest of convenience, collegiality, and in improving an article concerning a franchise that included a show, toys, and a comic, undelete this article and for any similar ones, just redirect leaving the edit history available so we can work a merge as the nominator of these mass AfDs himself did not actually oppose. Doing so follows WP:PRESERVE and goes a long way in helping us make the most of improving the main article. Thank you for reconsidering. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy for you to take one minute of time and write the sentence you desire from the published textual source you presented above. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As a show of good faith to a fellow editor, please undelete the edit history. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I can think of no reason not to undelete the edit history and make a redirect. We wouldn't do it for a BLP violation, or for copyvio, or spam, or for various sorts of abuse and bad faith. but I can see no reason to refuse to do it here. You know very well that plot is permitted to be sourced from the work itself, so not even lack of WP:V applies here. Even if it did, that is still not reason to let it stand behind are direct. I don't want to try to evaluate A.N.'s claims that he could find sources for it--that's another issue. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody (talk · contribs) has admitted he has a published textual source he could use for this information, instead of copying material from an unsourced page. I see no other reason not to source the material to a published textual source, other than laziness. I would rather not undelete a page that is unsourced, and contravene site policy. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This request seems a bit disingenuous as AN had already exported the article (with history) to the annex wikia several days earlier. And since the source he provided doesn't actually verify any of the wording he quoted, or anything else in the article, it would have to be rewritten anyway. Sarilox (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Pixar film references

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Pixar film references. 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. SpikeJones (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking another look at the article and undeleting it. I am sorry for any attacks that were made on you as a result of your good faith closure of the AfD and hope that my comments were not interpreted in that fashion as that is certainly not what I intended. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, thank you for restoring the AFD discussion and apologies for other editors' unfounded comments towards you. I tried to be fair with my Deletion Review nomination; I hope you agree that it presented the facts accurately (if not, let me know what I left out for future reference). SpikeJones (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrigan DRV

Hi Cirt, I'm not sure how you thought I wanted to go with Ash's version. I said restore Ash's version then apply you're updates so the revision history is retained. The end result would be your version. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to this matter and the wikinews editor nom opposition. Also, the Carrigan revision history didn't get transferred.-Stillwaterising (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You advocated multiple times for restoration of the User:Ash/Paul Carrigan poorly sourced version of a WP:BLP, before I began work on a version of the page in my userspace. That is contrary to site policy, and just bad sourcing practice in general. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I never denied it didn't need work. I had no interest in the subject and was supporting the project based on trust that sources were sufficient.

The pages Ive worked on most, Heather Harmon, Stephanie Swift, and Joseph Stack are all sourced extensively. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Firstenberg

Please see the relevant WP:AN3 discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat

Thanks for the notice, Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have another look at the edits of Bearguardian (talk · contribs). They're an SPA, not interested in building consensus, but instead on forcing their version of the article against multiple editors. They are making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and incorrectly claim BLP exemption to 3RR. We have tried talking to this editor but they are not interested, claiming a British trade magazine is not a RS because it is foreign. When your page block expires Bearguardian will doubtless continue with his editwarring unless an educational and preventative block is enacted when the consensus version of the article is restored. Verbal chat 09:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the AN3 discussion was mentioned at the request for page protection, and resolving the issue there would have been less disruptive to the project. Verbal chat 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, at least try to engage in some form of dispute resolution, at the article's talk page. I would suggest WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor is an SPA who has ignored consensus and continued editwarring after a block, claiming a BLP exemption. It has been taken to BLPN following my suggestion and found no support, yet the editor continues. Further DR is just drama inducing and a waste of effort in such a clear case. I suppose we will see what happens when the material is restored (note this is not a threat to edit war, if the editor reverts I will not revert - simply renew the AN3 request). Protecting a page (at the wrong version, naturally  :)) is not a service to the project when only one editor has clearly broken our very clear rules and generally behaved in such a poor manner; it is better to give an educational and preventative block which does not prevent good faith editing by others. Verbal chat 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. Please, do not simply wait for disruption to start all over again, but use this time to engage in talk page dispute resolution and WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been to BLPN, I see no point in an RFC. Why do you want me to waste my time when 3RR is quite clear? You waste your time if you don't value it. Verbal chat 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see only positive things that could come out of a WP:RFC - it enlists commentary from outside editors, who might also have other ideas to help to improve the article. If not that, then perhaps a peer review. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny the uncivil behaviour and clear 3RR violations of what is so far a WP:SPA? Verbal chat 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after some dispute resolution and WP:RFC, or peer review. And - if the user is disruptive after this protection has expired - especially if some form of dispute resolution has been attempted in the interim before protection expires - then contact me and it is likely I will block the user. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN Review

Hi Cirt, I am focussing all my efforst on the GA Sweeps atb the moment - we have only a few left to do. I will be back to GAN revieweing in a week or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

As a FPo Director, you may want to look at this long-standing redlink mess. Bencherlite^Talk 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will look into it soon. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Speculative fiction help

Do you have a few moments to spare to look at the coding of a portal to see why it's not behaving as it should? The "Speculative fiction topics" section isn't displaying the white background like all the others sections. I've looked over the code and compared it to other portals using the same code, but I can't figure out why it isn't displaying properly. Any help is appreciated (and if you can let me know what I did incorrectly, that will be helpful, too). I'm watching this page, so please reply here. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RichardF (talk · contribs) is better at that stuff, perhaps ask him? Cirt (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi,

I noticed that you were interested enough in the Nuclear optimism article to keep the deletion discussion alive for a bit longer. My feeling is that the article is in limbo. My interest in the topic when I created was a passing interest though I'd like to enhance it a bit more. But the WP:synthesis concern still stands and it is clear that the editors who brought this up still have that same concern. I am not sure what I can do to address their issues and I don't want to leave that banner sitting there (and I don't want to get into a big fight over this which is the reason I proposed deletion in the first place).

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, I would suggest a WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did an RfC a few months back. The feedback was uniformly that the premis of the article was junk. I doubt a new RfC would suddenly result in more helpful feedback. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a peer review, posting notices to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Bix7.jpg

Can you make sure I did everything ok on this? CTJF83 GoUSA 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest submitting through commons:commons:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to look that over after work. Is it not enough that the image isn't copyrighted? CTJF83 GoUSA 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Best to confirm this. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles resurrected

Legislative district of Bacoor and Legislative district of Imus were already deleted after discussion of the community but they had just been resurrected by Reyrefran, in defiance of what the community had discussed.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted three times, the last two by speedy deletion, but it's back again under Lone district of Bacoor and Lone district of Imus, it's basically the same old banana.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you sign your posts?

I suggest that you sign when you write something on other talk/discussion pages (see Talk page guidelines). If you sign your post, it is much easier to know who the author of that post is. Below are three unsigned posts of yours:

• Articles_for_deletion/Getik_Baghdasarian
• Articles_for_deletion/Baghdasar_Arzoumanian
• Articles_for_deletion/Sebouh_Chouldjian

Also it perhaps would be better to add your notes separately from other people's notes, so that it is clear what part of the is written by you. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Those particular "posts" do not require a signature as they are merely notifications letting others know you have made few (if any) posts outside of those discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing else to do except for trusting your expertise. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi, as someone who has been a bit critical of my behaviour in the past, you may be interested in contributing to Wikipedia:Editor review/Ash. I promise to try and stay thick-skinned. Cheers, Ash (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Benardo

WHY DID YOU DELETE IAN BENARDO?! HE HAS HOSTED NUMEROUS TV SHOWS AND IS AN INFAMOUS AMERICAN IDOL/SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE CONTESTANT! JUST GOOGLE HIM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.128.218 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Already replied at talk page of this IP. More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Benardo. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WINTER OLYMPICS - MEDAL(S) TABLE

I tried to write the right word in the medal(s)-table published in the page of Vancouver Winter Olympics 2010, but the access is restricted to only certain members of Wikipedia, and you are one of them. In the table it SHOULD BE WRITTEN "COUNTRY" and not "nation". Country and nation are to absolutely different concepts. Everybody can learn about them in Wikipedia. Nobody writes how many medals have obtained the athletes coming from the aboriginal NATIONS included in the Olympic team of Canada, if any, but how many medals the athletes representatives of Canada (as country or political state, which could be integrated by seveal nations) have obtained. As well there one nation could form different political states (countries), Korea and Kosovo/Albania, for instance. I suggest to do the same correction in the template "RankedMedalTable". --GabEuro (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the process outlined at Template:Editprotected. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Of The Ciara bravo page

I really wanted to know why you delted my article on the actress Ciara Bravo. I provided a legitimate reason on why she deserved a page and placed facts about her and her acting career on the page so I demand to know why it was deleted and it you cant come up with a legitimate reason is there any way you could put the page back up because I spend 2hrs making this page from scratch and this is my first page so cut me some slack, and notice I have been very polite with my words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara Bravo. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can find numerous references about ciara bravo from numerous places here are just a few

[33] [34] [35] Due to the fact that she is also a well known member of the big time rush cast I think that I have presented a reasonable case as to why she deserves her own article, do you know how many kids want info on her, one word plenty, and they usually look to wikipedia for that info, I mean if you cant find info on wiki you cant find it anywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No No NO I demand that the article be reposted due to the fact in the wikipedia guildlines of notary is says that a page may be made for a celebrity who "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", which Ciara Bravo has had, and they were listed on my article with some left out. Therefore I come to the conclusion that my article for Ciara Bravo clearly meet the wikipedia standards, and even though she may not be known by your standards, by the standards of wikipedia she is allowed to have an article made for her. Though she is not a Michael Jackson or Carrie Underwood, she still is significant enough for her page, therefore I believe you have made a mistake and by the rules of wikipedia my article should be reposted, or I will contact a higher authority. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFD. The article was deleted by consensus of the community, after a deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok first I would like to apologies fir my disruptive behavior. Secondly I would like to address the fact that the community was allowed less than an hour to comment on this topic which is not enough time for a factual and accurate statement. And I would also like to address the fact that the community doesnt make the rules Wikipedia does and by their standards im nowhere in the wrong. Plus I would like to add the fact that most of the people who addressed this topic were probably adults who dont even look at the teen perspective and so you cant base deletion off of their judgements but by the criteria that you have set up. Have the teens that will search this topic will never make a wikipedia account and will never understand why the page was deleted, and so its not fair. It gives adults who know nothing about her the oppurtunity to knock her popularity when they dont even watch the programs that she is on. Therefore I state once more that you can either re post the article because it falls under the criteria or we can talk to a higher official. ( and by the way you are the one who suggested deleting it, what do you have against her) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You can appeal through the WP:DRV process. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why could you just do it, and will you please send me my article at shaquan_mcdowell123@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed

I reviewed The BLT Cookbook, and it passed as a good article. --Hadger 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! ;) Cirt (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Herbert Hudson Taylor IV

Hi Cirt. I am new to Wiki. I created a deletion review for an article I made (Herbert Hudson Taylor IV). The article was not speedily deleted and was then under review for a long time. Ultimately, an admin deleted it (User:Spartaz); but new coverage of Taylor has hit major media outlets. I think this media coverage would significantly affect his notability for Wikipedia. I submitted questions to User:Spartaz, and it seems that he is not fit to judge the issue. He signs his posts 'humbug' and told me to contact an admin. Are you an admin? Perhaps, you can help me. I provided a list of 3rd party news coverage of Taylor on Spartaz's talkpage. Thanks Liawilde415 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for unblock page moving very slowly

Hello. The requests for unblock page has been moving very slowly today, and some users have been waiting quite a few hours. Just wondering if you could help. If you can't, please delete this message. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckcreator (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits made to PQ Systems, Inc

I made added more sources to most sections on this article and also reworded a few things for accuracy. Do you see anything else that might be changed before creating the page? Thanks Bmxoffspring99 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the current draft page? Cirt (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of Salvation Missionary Church Deletion

I'm looking to restore my article on Well of Salvation Missionary Church. Refer to Deletion Log:

--- This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

00:28, 19 February 2010 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Well of Salvation Missionary Church" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Well of Salvation Missionary Church) ---

Please, indicate next step to restore it. It is the translation of the spanish information. Plase, if possible, e-mail me at gjlsan@gmail.com regarding this request.

Regards,

Gjlsan (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The BLT Cookbook

On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The BLT Cookbook, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and a most felicitous National Pig Day to you Cirt! Great work. :) 2,000 some odd views is not too shabby. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, what an excellent article. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, wish I coulda done a bit more. :P Cirt (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)