User talk:Cirt/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Zeena LaVey

I am wondering what happened to the Zeena LaVey article that was deleted by user Cirt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikesealife (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Was a redirect, that was deleted after discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeena Schreck. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Chandra Levy

I have incorporated the coverage from today's Washington Post into the article. I think it is ready for you to complete your GA review. Many thanks. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know you are very busy, but with the holiday behind us, can please turn to Chandra Levy? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the article a bit recently. :) I note the additions. ;) I will do a more thorough read through it all soon. -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We now have impact and memorial sections. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been very superficial press coverage of the memorial service. There are no memorial funds that I can find. I have made the changes that you requested. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your cooperation in finalizing this GA review would be most welcomed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Still seeing a few unaddressed issues at Talk:Chandra Levy/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have expanded the memorial section. There are no scholarships. I honestly believe the article is comprehesive. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you could please be more clear on what remains of your concerns, I would be happy to address them. The problem is that I believed that I have addressed everything fully, but obviously there has been some miscommunication. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have left a "Responses" heading on the review page. Many thanks for all that you do. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the barnstar. Racepacket (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Grenfell College Student Union

Hi Cirt, I was wondering if you had userifed a copy of the deleted Grenfell College Student Union page for me, as per our earlier discussion. This earlier discussion was moved into the archive without any notice if this had been done. If so or not, just let me know.

All the best, Brad Evoy (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Brad Evoy/Grenfell College Student Union. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt! Much appreciated. Brad Evoy (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

some routine questions...

An interesting situation: When Money as Debt as nominated for the third time, the toolserver AFD stats link kept sending me to a 404 error... until I realized that the AFD template does not automatically take into account that it was not the first AFD. Once I added "(3rd nomination)" to the AFD template,[1] the link finally worked just fine. Is there some way to resolve this other than manually making the correction as I did whenever I find such?

It is understood that the nomination itself acts as a "delete" vote for the toolserver. But in looking at the stats page for this AFD, I see that if a nominator includes another "delete" vote comment within the discussion itself,[2] the AFD toolserver stats show this as two deletes from the same person.[3] Can the unfortunate appearance of an apparent second (and unintended) vote as shown by toolserver be addressed through a tweak to the tool? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but try asking at WT:AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll do so, and thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as it is seen as inappropriate, Fram was kind enough to set ot so it will not appear in any new AFDs, though it will still be visible in older ones. I still do not know why the tool was ever included in the first place, nor how or when it got broken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex Nackman / Article Deletion

DECEMBER 3, 2010

Cirt,

I have make changes and added references to the best of my ability for Alex Nackman's wiki article. Can we please finally re-instate this officially? It's been 4 months and I've done all the edits I know how to do to make this article unbias, informative, relevant, and useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicman5/Alex_Nackman

Thanks, Musicman5 (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Mark

Your efforts are appreciated. However, unfortunately, it is deficient in many ways. It references other sources that fail WP:RS, like Wikipedia itself. The references could be formatted, using WP:CIT cite templates. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DECEMBER 4, 2010 Cirt- I've amended the references and updated the sources with non-wiki pages. Hopefully this will work for you. In terms of the format, I've followed the instructions that Wikipedia states for listing references. All sources I've used work and are reliable.

Musicman5 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Mark

DECEMBER 6, 2010 Cirt...did you see my above note? Thanks. Mark

Can you please try formatting the references using WP:CIT templates? -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Hi. We've been working on Flower Drum Song, and it is at FAC. There aren't many GAs or FAs in the whole musicals project, so I think this FAC is important to that corner of Wikipedia. Would you kindly take a look and either comment or vote? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will try to take a look at it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

your advice please

You closed the {{afd}} on Ali Sher Hamidullah as delete.

As a closing administrator can I ask if you see it as part of your responsibility to go on record as to what changes would be required to turn an article that did not survive an {{afd}} to one that could be restored to article space?

If so, would you please offer that advice now?

FWIW many of the recent {{afd}} nominations have dismissed, or failed to mention the OARDEC "Summary of Evidence" memos, as if they were not WP:RS. IMO they do however fulfill all the criteria for WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. Would rather not re-argue the AFD here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced category changes

From what I can tell, the films listed originate in the US, for the most part. And allmovie lists his affiliations as "USA" and "UK" - the former seems a safe bet given the evidence.

If that's not good enough I don't see why it can't be changed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A cursory search provided nothing beyond what I've already found. I haven't the time to search further - let's just chalk it up to an honest mistake and leave it at that. Sorry for the trouble. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed Link. Simple criteria...

Sir: The article on Landmark Education needs work, and for the most part, it has received a lot of biased editing over the years. There is a link both to the company website ( biased ), and to the skeptics dictionary ( biased ), I added a link to another place ( what's the deal about landmark education ) and since it was written by 3 people with more experience in professional psychology, than landmark has existed in what ever form, I would think it would be unbiased.

There are factual errors in the article, classifying it has rubbish. ( really, just like the aerodynamics of fruit ). I have pointed out multiple errors in the discussion page, with no comments, only to have my comments reverted by ITS A CULT ITS A CULT ITS A CULT, hardly a unbiased way of doing things, or having literally NO support from admins at Wikipedia.

So I request that you remove the link to the skeptics dictionary, ( biased ), based upon an more compelling excuse/policy of

"WP:ELPOV

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

Please elucidate why you think professional psychologists have bias, and the skeptics dictionary does not?

Yours, ~~---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.198.233 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is yet more spam links, the EL sect does not need them. Likely associated with promotional material spammed out by the company itself. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaleidica Light Instrument

Hi Cirt,

On June 2, 2009 you deleted an entry for The KALEIDICA Light Instrument. I would like to petition for reinstatement of the entry. Can I get a copy of the old (historical) version for my edits?

Thanks, CEHenderson (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:CEHenderson/Kaleidica. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Nouri

Are you sure? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. As it stands, I'd have to say that's a clear delete. No reliable significant sources in the article, none of the keeps show any reason for doing so, and they're probably all the same editor anyway (note the two Keeps with "Keep*"). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Undid close. Relisted. Back at AFD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Hi Cirt, i am here to thank you for keeping the page. I would like to say that all the sources are reliable, because they are important Iranian cinema sites (ex: Iranact.com, sourehcinema.com). There is also references about series that he has played in (they have pages on Wikipedia). And he has a profile on us.imdb.com too. As you know this actor is Iranian therefore his references are all in Persian. I appreciate what you did and i thank you.

--Alikhezrayi (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, you decided that it is a keep, but now you say you relisted it again. I don't know if you are Iranian or not, if you are then i think that you probably know him and you know that all the references are good enough. Even if you are not Iranian, by looking at each of the links, you can see that he is a real person and he deserves to be on Wikipedia. But that is your choice and your opinion, although i have to say that some people in discussion are only giving subjective point of views. I only like to say that if they are not Iranian or they have no knowledge of Iranian cinema, how can they judge an article about an Iranian? Anyhow, i appreciate what you did before by keeping the article. Now we all have to wait and see.

-@ Black_kite: Just because two people put keep*, it means that they are the same? -@ Michael: Why can’t he be sure? Because you feel that this article must be erased? Because you have a subjective point of view about this person? Is this how AFD works? If it is like this, then I think half of articles on Wikipedia must be gone if they are decided by personal opinions. --Alikhezrayi (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss at the AFD, not here. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to strike the keeps and comments of the master too at the AFD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the master, no. The one user should be left up there. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Glad that we got this nest rooted out. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from Salut0

Hi Cirt. Salut0 (talk · contribs) has been caught in a hard range block. The account in older than the vandal, TRATTOOO (talk · contribs), which caused the block, so I guess they deserve to be exempt from the block. The only puzzling aspect is that they haven't edited for four years, and now suddenly discover the need. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Cirt, thank you kindly for dealing with those BLP issues so quickly.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for recognizing my efforts to deal with this issue in a responsive manner. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Scientology content and references

Hello. On the Lee Purcell page you removed content that mentioned her affiliation with Scientology. This included six references. The reason given was that it was "poorly sourced info." Could you elaborate a bit more on this decision? What would you consider good sources that detail a person's affiliation with Scientology? Calm Seas101 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good sources would be secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am stumped. I thought the references I cited earlier were crystal clear, reliable and quite explicit regarding the subject's affiliation with Scientology. Calm Seas101 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No. They are poor sources, and some were primary sources. In particular those primary sources are notoriously unreliable and will say whatever they wish to manufacture, in order to promote the parent organization. Get it? -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fram

I had asked him to walk away from his actions with Geo Swan on his user page. He is too vested in that conflict to be impartal. He rebuffed me there, preferring to raise another AN/I thread. The actions he is taking are not defensible, he does not understand what half the WP acronyms he cites mean... <sigh> Personally I asked him by email to disengage from his activities wrt my edits, there are plenty of checks and balances without him getting involved, he has refused to even acknowledge that request. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs

Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. You didn't actually need four of these things! Courcelles 04:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

careless deletion

• Musharaf Bangash (AfD discussion)

You delete things rashly and without care.

A simple search for "Musharaf Bangash" on Google: http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22musharaf+bangash%22&hl=en-US&safe=strict&prmd=ivo&ei=dwwCTabSA4_SrQfI642RDw&start=0&sa=N shows that he is quite prominent.

Someone just happened to create his Wikipedia article for the first time not long after he was kidnapped. So you decided, that despite his dozens of released songs and filmclips, countless references on Pashto music websites, tthat the only significant thing about him is that he was kidapped. This again despite the fact the the BBC News says he is a well known Pashto singer.

So someone decides only a couple of weeks ago that this article should be deleted, because it is small and they personally don't know much about this singer. A discussion about it is underway. Extra information and references have been added. A number of people have agreed that it should not be deleted.

Then you come along and hit the OFF button. Am I mistaken, or were you not at all involved in the conversation about it? Considering that the BBC and Radio Free Europe were not good enough sources for you, I was under the process of checking for more references, but you couldn't wait.

You decided that this fledgling article about a person who is VERY prominent in Google and Youtube searches .. (g on , look at the link again http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22musharaf+bangash%22&hl=en-US&safe=strict&prmd=ivo&ei=dwwCTabSA4_SrQfI642RDw&start=0&sa=N) should nevertheless be deleted without delay, as its lack of depth and lack of references were not good enough for you.

I don't think this article's presence was hurting Wikipedia. I think your rashness and self-appointment as an executioner of articles that have just been started is hurting Wikipedia.

Re-instate the article please, and give us some more time to add references.

Aurora boringalis (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• As the closing administrator, Cirt is supposed not to be involved in the prior discussion. Go and read our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The people who were evaluating the sources, that you had eight days to change the minds of, were Vejvančický, Farhikht, and Peridon. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Inside Landmark Forum 5 of 6.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inside Landmark Forum 5 of 6.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Inside Scientology German edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inside Scientology German edition.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Glover

Good morning! You closed this AfD as a Delete and did for the main article, but this was a multiple nomination, and the associated Red Handed (Gillian Glover album) was not deleted. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention.  RGTraynor  10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to now be  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article: N-Sider

Hi Cert, just wanted call your attention to a recent delete request for N-Sider.

The website originally passed a notability review resoundingly, with roughly the same evidence that could still be provided. This most recent nomination only received a Weak Delete, which was actually factually incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-Sider). The site's content was never re-written. The discussion in the weak delete proves as much, which put the site up for more discussion to reach a consensus, though the consensus did not actually disprove any notability, but just offered a suggestion for a redirect.

Here's one article that clearly shows the articles were not "rewritten" by IGN, the content was distributed: http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=247 http://cube.ign.com/articles/536/536510p1.html

Again, the site already passed this notability check the first time it was up for deletion (this was the second, though that page seems to have been overwritten by a move of TenPoundHammer). The site passed then, it still passes now, it fulfills all notability requirements and the discussion on deletion did not reach a factual consensus regarding any notability requirements or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria this point in specific. The original page was based on slightly different spelling in the case of the letter S, so I can see why this discussion would have been missed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-sider

Would just ask that you take a look at that information (and ideally reverse the decision for being inconclusive and originally ending in a keep based on the same criteria discussed most recently).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.138.180 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you register an account. Then, you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! tipmang (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Tipmang/N-Sider. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the U.S. constitution

I came across this from some unrelated lexicography. (See wikt:User talk:SemperBlotto#bibiographer if you are curious.) I notice that Est: Playing the Game cites Vile2003, but doesn't discuss what Vile in fact discusses at length in the actual source, which is the proposed constitutional amendement in the other book. Neither anything in Special:Whatlinkshere/Est: Playing the Game nor List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution seem to cover it, either. There's scope for expansion here — although I'm not sure where, since The Oakland Statement as a whole doesn't appear to have much other coverage — if you're interested. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to do some additional research. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If I buggered up the "admin's heads-up" I was trying to send, my apologies.

Saw the note on the AN:I discussion, and I've posted some clarifications on my concerns--very long story short, I saw what looked like possible evidence (based on contrib logs and talk pages and some previous AN:I discussions) of ongoing abuse from a user that had somehow not resulted in a block, and was trying to get some administrator eyes on what could be an LTA situation. It wasn't my intent to cause confusion or a mess, and I do apologise if I have (and would like to know as someone who primarily lurks here on WP the best way to report an issue like this in future--I could see means to report ongoing copyvios, I could see a means to report sockpuppetry, I could see a means to report LTA situations with blocks in place, but nothing much besides AN:I to report what looked to me to be a possible abuse situation involving at least copyvios and edit-warring occuring over a longterm basis).

(And yeah, I do feel particularly bad on this--I edit on other wikis (TVTropes primarily), and have worked as an anti-net-abuse volunteer for something like 16 years on non-Wikimedia projects so I'd rather be doing this the right way.)

Thanks, Dogemperor (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A favor perhaps?

If you have the time... and as my own skills with wikitables are lacking... might you perform your magic at Eric Lloyd#Awards and nominations? And then maybe point me to the place where I might teach myself? Thanks in advance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin

As you closed a previous DRV for Bitcoin, this is to let you know that I have started a third at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12, with a recommendation that the Incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has now been improved enough to go back to the main space. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I ordinarily give this 3O service award to any 3O Wikipedian who has more than fifty edits at 3O with at least one edit within the last 6 months, so this comes with my apologies for being so late on this. I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago that you had previously had 72 edits at 3O under a prior username. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - page to work on for quality improvement - book article - Slaves of Sleep by L. Ron Hubbard

• Slaves of Sleep

Notes on research ideas towards quality improvement

1. Posted to User talk:Rtrace about request for in-line citation conversion for refs already used in the article.
2. Check book searches, for reception coverage.
3. Do some database research for a bit more fleshed out publication history, literature databases, etc.
4. Poke Mike Christie (talk · contribs), excellent Featured Article writer, with focus on subject of science fiction - specifically with regard to possible sources for sects in the article like Themes, Genre, Style, etc.
5. Find info on promotional and/or marketing materials for book.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First 3O

Hi, Cirt.

I wanted to ask you:

In terms of disputes, if it's about a where to place comma, or the order in which to list three items, or whether to include a link to another article, is it ok to fight over such things?

I think I'm having my first WP:3O. Have been reading the guideline, and will probably discuss with the editor with whom I'm having the dispute in his userpage first, then move it to the article's talk page, where he'll expect me, and then have a WP:3O since we're only two editors and there's no consensus in sight.

Wanted to ask for your help if you want and pay attention to the procedure, please. It's my first time and I want do it properly. --John KB (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, suggest you post this query to WT:3O. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess you deserve it

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I give you this for apologizing to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, and for realizing that your original thought, may not have been the correct one, and in the end realizing that Chase me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry was acting in good faith. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Cirt, please note that I have raised a concern about what seems like a potential WP:CANVASSING violation by you here. Thank you. --JN466 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bacon WikiProject and Portal

Nice job of the creation of WP:BACON. Also, an great job creating the Bacon portal. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 08:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Move

Can you move Hayley Fischer back to Hayley Smith (American Dad!) per UNDUE and COMMONNAME, I don't recall her ever being called Fisher, if she did, it was maybe once in the wedding episode. CTJF83 chat 13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:REQMOVE? -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Afd - Adaptability (computer science)

Thanks for closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adaptability_(computer_science).

There were two pages that were part of that nomination. I noticed you deleted Adaptability (computer science) but not Adaptivity (computer science). Would you remove that one, too? --Pnm (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Pnm (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors for the Spring!

Hey Cirt. The Public Policy Initiative is looking to recruit Online Ambassadors to help mentor students who will be editing Wikipedia in the Spring. I thought of you because of your relative activeness and the generally good interaction I have had with you in the past as well as your experience with quality content development. I hope you are interested, I think we will soon be able to expand the ambassador program to many fields outside of Public policy including literature, so I hope you will help! Take a look at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors and sign up and apply if you would like to help! Sadads (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will ruminate on this. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! Sadads (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get the chance...

• Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Law of England and Wales
• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portugal
• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Biology - note that MisterDub (talk · contribs) hasn't edited at all since suggesting he could update this portal perhaps monthly.

I won't be able to edit much, if at all, after Friday of this week (what with the holidays) and it would be nice to tidy up these loose ends before shutting up for the holidays. Regards, and sorry to be a pain about WP:FP once again! Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IdeaConnection

Hi,

You recently deleted an article that I created, IdeaConnection. Because it seemed that several people were unhappy with the content, I revised it and wanted to ask that you to review it before I post it. It is currently on my personal user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sigma0_1/IdeaConnection

I am relatively new Wikipedia editor and it takes time to learn what to include and exclude, I apologize for any mistakes.

Sigma0 1 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like too much over-emphasis on primary sources, and not enough significant discussion from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This was recreated, but from what I remember it is significantly similar to the previous version so I've tagged it as WP:CSD#G4. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Frankie Martinez from List of Notable Puerto Ricans

Dear Cirt,

I was informed by Tony the Marine, that you were the one who elected to remove Frankie Martinez's name from the list of notable Puerto Ricans.

I just wanted to inquire why that was the case. I provided a reference to an El Diario article accessible online to the public that highlights Mr. Martinez and his company.

Is there something I'm missing because I can gladly provide what you need.

Please let me know as Frankie Martinez is truly deserving to be on this list.

Best, Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenergizerx (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. I could make such a version available to you, if you like. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD requires closing

Cirt,

Please close the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. This is a very old AfD that was forgotten due to a techical bug and is now a moot point anyway (the content was merged by a user who didn't even know about it).

Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Battle of Karánsebes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Battle of Karánsebes. 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.

I've posted a deletion review request of the article Battle_of_Karánsebes. While the details of the defeat, the date, the story about the gypsies and the liquor are clearly debatable; the battle itself, and the defeat is fairly well documented, if not in the well known A.J.Gross-Hoffinger (Leipzig, Nachdruuck, 1847) Die Geschichte des Joseph II (a scanned version can be seen at Josephs des Zweiten, but it is rather difficult to read because of the gotic alfabet), while this report may not be of confidence, there is a letter of Joseph II himself to his first minister Kaunitz (Austrian Archives, Lettres d'empereur Josph II à prince Kaunitz). In that original form the article needs rewriting, but the battle itself is well documented by primary sources. Please read my translation of the Joseph II letter excerpt in The deletion review page. While the original letter may be difficult to obtain (because Austrian Archives are not digital and the books with the transcriptions you can buy costs 800 euros) there are a few transcriptions of the letter. I've posted a few links with references, including a magazine report of the same year, and a book of 1928. While we hardly can call the event of the panic a battle, and we cannot believe it was because of liquor, some panic happened and result in deaths and call this event "Battle of Karansebes" seem to me logic, as long as the article takes distance from the legend. In fact keeping the article seems to me a very good way the separate fact (the deaths of soldiers by some sort of panic) from the fiction (the story about the gypsies and the liquor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agranero (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Agranero User talk:Agranero

Okay, thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tracie Laymon

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the "James With" page

Could you explain why you have deleted the following page with information about the actor James With?

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

A formal request to reinstate this to what it was before you deleted is made here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withepedia (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted after WP:AFD process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James With. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Snowfall of Late 2010 in the United Kingdom

Hi Cirt - I closed this discussion four minutes after you relisted it. I didn't see this (I obviously had the page open for a lot longer than four minutes as I waded through the arguments!). Was there any particular reason you relisted it? WP:RELIST says that relists are only generally used when there are few participants in the AfD, or the arguments are bereft of policy-based reasoning. It also says that relisting is not a substitute for a "no consensus" close. If you had re-listed it for a particular reason, I'd be happy to revert my close as you got there first. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I default to your judgment on that one. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request filed

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:DGP

Hi Cirt. I noticed you blocked User:Democratic Green Party in Somalia for obvious self-promotion on the List of political parties in Somalia. I was wondering, though, if it would be alright to add the party to the article, as it is after all a political party in the country. In one of his/her edits, the blocked user left a URL for the party's website, which does appear to belong to a real political organization. Somalia is scheduled to shift to a representative system of government starting August 11, so many new political parties are starting to form; I think that this is perhaps one of the latest ones. Please let me know how best to proceed. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My action was only with regards to the account itself. Please feel free to make your own independent edits of your own personal judgment to the article, and discuss them at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violating use of rollback

I am very close to taking you to arbitration and demanding you be restricted, for POV-pushing on BLPs and abusing your administrative privileges, as well as breaches of the Scientology related arbcom restrictions. This edit is beyond unacceptable. You used administrative rollback, and called "vandalism", an edit which served to remove a clear BLP violation. (And the subject was marked as living at that time.) You re-inserted unsourced controversial material (one part was utterly unsourced and marked as such, the other linked to a dead link) in an area where you are evidently have some form of personal interest. This is not acceptable for an administrator, and merits further investigation. I am interested in your response before I decide whether to take the matter further.--Scott Mac 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That was not "rollback", it was Twinkle. But you are correct, I should have taken a much closer look at the edits in question. Some of them were page-blanking, but others did indeed remove questionable info. I am very thankful to FT2 (talk · contribs) for helping to source and cleanup that particular page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)But you need rollback privileges to use Twinkle in that way, you were still rolling back edits. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was unaware one needed "rollback" in order to use Twinkle in that fashion. My apologies. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you don't, but that's not really the point here... T. Canens (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In any event, I reiterate I should have gone over the edits in depth instead of reverting all of them. I am glad the page has been improved thanks to research from FT2 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Scott and FT2 have been making some of the same changes to Meade Emory [4][5][6] that Ajpropst (talk · contribs) made, to fix the coatrack state of the article. While you say you are glad about FT2's actions, you reported Ajpropst as a vandal and had them blocked. I feel sorry for that user. --JN466 10:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Riordan

Saw that you restored my page on Stuart so I could edit it. Thanks. I will be getting to it shortly. Lu Vickers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.182.73 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Golden Horseshoe articles by quality log

Ok, the bot recreated the log file. The categories are up at CfD, so we may need to wait until the CfD is closed to delete the log file, or else the bot may keep recreating it. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes ok?

You left me a message on 07 December leaving me an option to contact you with any questions. So here I am. I'm kinda curious if the change I made to Stokes' theorem is 'ok'. My primary rationale is the letter d used in the derivatives were formatted as if the letter was a variable. My change makes that distinction clear. Your thoughts? MathematicsNerd (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest posting to the talk page of the article, and posting matter-of-fact notices to relevant talk pages of associated WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? No offense but you have me lost. MathematicsNerd (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just mean those people would be more familiar with that particular subject matter than myself. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright I understand that, but where do I have to go to contact these other people? MathematicsNerd (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Try Talk:Stokes' theorem and the WikiProjects linked at the top of the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary topic ban contemplated

You are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban that a discretionary topic ban is contemplated in your case. The behaviours for which this ban is contemplated are outlined in this WP:AE section: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt (history link: [7] ). If you fail to heed this warning, you may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will consider all of the points raised in the AE report. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a brief statement in your support. My best wishes to you and yours over the Holidays! Jusdafax 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I agree with admin Doc James (diff) about his concerns when he questioned whether or not Lar (talk · contribs) should be considered as an "uninvolved admin" in this matter, and should therefore not be acting as one - in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I believe Lar has been involved in another ArbCom case where there were issues brought up of his trying to act as an "uninvolved admin" when this was disputed by others [8]. -- Cirt (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way am I involved? Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed by admin Doc James. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, not satisfactory. No specific allegation of involvement was made, in fact, when pressed previously, DJ specifically demurred from saying I was involved, claiming only to want to raise awareness of my commenting at WR, and agreeing that it did not imply involvement. Please be specific with your allegation or withdraw it. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire thing is clearly being fomented from the attacks at Wikipedia Review, and you have never even acknowledged that. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about various aspects of your behavior for a long time, has nothing to do with WR. That doesn't make me involved. Try again or withdraw your assertion. You do not get to pick and choose who is involved and who is not. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You failed to self disclose your involvement at Wikipedia Review. Someone else had to do it for you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not material. Withdraw your assertion please. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored. [9]. Stop using the command form of grammar with me, please. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have posted to (one) third-party admin about this, at User_talk:Jehochman#Lar_and_Wikipedia_Review. I will defer to that admin's judgment about this. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine the post DJ mentions: [10] ... In it I say "Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?" which is addressed to Pieter Kuiper. It, and other posts in the thread, have nothing whatever to do with you. To claim that somehow makes me involved is very far fetched. Something DJ already acknowledged. You should too, and withdraw your allegation completely. (the refactor helps a little but is far from sufficient) The warning you were given by me is legitimate. You should heed it, and you ruleslawyer at your peril. You do not get to knock out admins on whim. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you read the attack thread about me at Wikipedia Review. You participated in it. You did not criticize anyone for their attacks, including efforts by others to criticize me, and guess at my identity in order to harass me in real life. I am shocked at your behavior. And after all that, you neglected to self disclose your prior involvement in that thread. And yes, I did refactor, above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I believe the WP:AE thread can be closed if you will acknowledge that you have been properly warned of the possibility of a discretionary topic ban. The above back-and-forth leaves that unclear in my mind. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, if you are re-affirming this warning, then I agree with you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to accept the warning from me, as properly given or prove that I am not uninvolved. You don't get to say "well since Ed reaffirms it, then OK" as that's an incorrect precedent. Taking it to JEHochman isn't acceptable either, as he's more involved than I am, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will await comment from admin Jehochman, and defer to his judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Lar wasn't involved before he certainly is now. I'm not sure how folks think they can hang around off-Wiki making disparaging comments about users and then act as if they neutral admins.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Will Beback. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebutting an unfounded charge of involvement does not make one involved. Nice try though. You are not going to be able to disqualify me by repeating yourselves more stridently. You need to actually provide something substantive. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is substantive that you failed to self-disclose. And that someone else had to do it for you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators: 2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. I have not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in this area and I am not mentioned by name in the case. Therefore I'm uninvolved. QED. Further, I see no mention of WR there. Take it to ArbCom if you disagree. That should work out well for you. This matter is terminated. You wikilawyer further at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I will await comment from Jehochman about this matter, and defer to his judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

His opinion, while likely to be interesting, is irrelevant. If he says I am "involved" you will need to take it to ArbCom to get them to concur. You wikilawyer at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Lar is uninvolved then so is Jehochman.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct and I will refactor to that effect. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Thaddeus Vane

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Need your help in an AfD discussion

Dear Cirt, I have recently nominated Maryam Namazie for deletion because the article's references are either not reliable or not independent coverages. I also couldn't find any reasonable coverage elsewhere. However, in the current discussion some editors just say "clearly notable" without any proof. I tried to explain that in my opinion if one can prove notability, then I received some (trivial) comments. Because of your experience, I would like to ask you to review this case and to give me a feedback on this issue. Thanks DrPhosphorus (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest posting matter-of-fact and neutrally-worded notices to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects about the presence of the AFD itself. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New request for arbitration enforcement

As suggested when the previous request was collapsed, I have started a new request. Please see here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.203.75.184

It has been established that the user does not pay attention to talk page messages. I identified the IP as belonging to the long term abuser described here after the first edit, and the slow response by AIV as well as a removal by a user who knows nothing about the policies on this site. If this individual IP is not blocked, he will perform the same disruptive edits tomorrow.

Warning is useless. Just block it now and then he doesn't edit for 10 days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the user talk page had zero warnings at the time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Boerebach

Could you userfy this for me? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Nuujinn/Mark Boerebach. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Enuch at work on Jennifer Lerner is probably the same Humbert1 you banned for editwarring.

Jennifer Lerner is an academic whose bio came under attack by Humbert1, who introduced BLP violations. I just noticed that since Nov. 14 the article has all that stuff in it anyway and more thanks to a one-day editor Enuch. Enuch seems to have retired. I am going to take out the garbage, but could you keep an eye on the bio too? betsythedevine (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you try filing a report at WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Humbert1 if you have any comments to add. betsythedevine (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh -- so Enuch was banned, and now a new sock is at work, editwarring the same changes into the article once again. Added Asakharov into the SPI, waiting for action. Any chance of protection for the article? betsythedevine (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you report that and request it at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note about Scientology related editing

I am the single largest contributor of quality-rated content to Wikipedia on the subject of Scientology, including the highest amount of GA quality material and the highest amount of FA quality material. I am also the highest contributor of quality-rated material which reflects positively on the organization, including multiple GA rated articles about works by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

I accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology. I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly. To begin towards that process, I have gone ahead and removed 66 Scientology-related BLP pages from my watchlist. I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's wise, and fairly gracious. Alternatively, if you want to write a bio on someone who happens to be a Scientologist, why not declare the possible COI and seek a review from someone who's previously expressed concerns?--Scott Mac 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to supervise me in that capacity if I were to seek a review from you, as you are someone that has previously expressed concerns? -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scott and applaud your decision. I would do such a review if you wished. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But with regards to that, see my statement, below. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to look over the odd article at your request. However, I don't see any need for supervision. If you're able to self-reflect and stand back,as you seem to here, that's really what's needed. If I was saying one thing to you, it would be always consider your own attitude to a BLP subject and whether it is colouring your judgement. In enforcing BLP, I defend all sorts of people against unfair content - I've stood up for subjects that positively make my skin crawl. (Yes, even worse that Scientology cultists.) Actually, the biggest problem I've seen with your BLPs is actually a tendency to create over-positive content (and that's much less worry that the opposite, but still). The problem with citing plaudits of critics is that one can always find nice things someone has written, but so what? Name me the worst movie ever, and I'll write you an article quoting all sorts of glowing reviews. That's, as I say, minor. The main thing is never to let the dislike of a BLP subject colour your judgement - and if Scientology is something you strongly dislike, probably best to stick to writing about the 99.999% of people who've never had the misfortune of being involved with that scam it in any way, shape or form. Also, if you are going to write on a Scientology subject, pick one where other editors who don't necessarily share your instincts will be working too, that tends to keep it balanced. --Scott Mac 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have removed an additional 55 pages from my watchlist relating to the topic of Scientology. These were any remaining pages not related to prior quality improvement and WP:GA/WP:FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As stated here diff, I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to read this. It is a great loss to the project. For what it is worth, I believe your detractors are the ones with bias, and that the topic will suffer greatly as a result. Jusdafax 09:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. -- Cirt (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. -- Cirt (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

a request

You recently closed Qalandar Shah. I had requested a relisting, rather than closure. I think this was a reasonable request, given that I was able to find additional references for many of the recent {{xfd}}.

Did you see my request?

I request you consider relisting. Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the WP:BLP issues involved, and the questions raised about concerns over primary source, that would be inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Qalandar Shah is one of just 38 captives officially cleared.

Could you be more specific as to which BLP issues you were referring to? Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The ones noted in the AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User: 24.139.246.159

24.139.246.159's block by you just expired. May I ask that you keep a close eye on him? The first thing he did was delete his entire User Talk page, with the edit summary Goodbye loser! (Punches Cirt into jail) Yes, i will continue editing. (laughs)). As this account appears to only have been used for vandalism since it came on in November, I believe he needs to be watched carefully. Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you report to AIV for further disruption by the user. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but as DiscoSpinster had already blocked them again for the same type of edits, the report was immediately dumped by a 'bot with no action. I'm sure the IP user will be back doing the exact same thing the minute the block expires. Especially since they blanked the block message from Disco and again wrote the exact same message in the edit summary as they did before. I still believe this one warrants very careful watching. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And has just done it again (the edit summary directed at you - even though you didn't block them) a third time. T. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps try report to WP:ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference

Hi Cirt, I am still not feeling well after a horrid bout of norovirus this weekend -- cf. Regan in The Exorcist (film) -- so I'll have to help you later. It certainly looks like a page for WP:DYK. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you feel better! Thank you for the kind words about the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism

Thank you for the careful explanation you gave for the closure of this AfD. Such a detailed exposition is probably needed only for the borderline cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Vox

Hi Cirt. Since you closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Vox as "delete", and then were kind enough to move the article to my userspace so I could work on it, I'm letting you know that I've returned the article to mainspace now, since having added a large number of reliable sources. If you have any concerns, let me know... Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - GA candidacy nominations

1. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet
2. Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum
3. Behind the Exclusive Brethren
4. Junko Sakurada
5. Paul Carrigan
6. Citizen's Briefing Book
7. Bob Adams (American football)
8. Aaron Saxton
9. Tory Christman
10. Jessica Feshbach
11. Kendrick Moxon

-- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - GA candidates to review

Pending reviews

1. Cardcaptor Sakura
2. Carlos Celdran
3. Illegals Program
4. Hermes o Logios
5. Homosexuality
6. The World of Strawberry Shortcake
7. Better Off Ted
8. John F. Tierney
9. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Soviet Union)
10. Peter Hitchens
11. Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court

-- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for FedEx Express Flight 647

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FedEx Express Flight 647. 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. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that MMN has a problem with you closing aircrash AfDs. If he seriously thinks that your closure is biased, then he should really attempt discussion with you over this, and if that fails, raise the issue at ANI.

Of course, the problem could be that although MMN is part of the Wikipedia community, he is not the Wikipedia community, and has a major problem in accepting when he is in a minority of one over an issue. He seems to have a much higher threshold of notability where aviation accidents are concerned compared with the wider community. I wouldn't be surprised if he nominates the latest aircrash article I created for deletion, despite the very unusual circumstances and protracted investigation that followed. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to look at all of the prior DRVs on these subjects of aircrash AFDs, that were brought to DRV by the same user, and analyze the various outcomes of them from community consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I don't need to because I already know the answer! Mjroots (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is? -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

MMN is in a minority of one! Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to see what the other related DRVs are:

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 16

-- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so there were a bunch, interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And MMN has already been sent to the Arbitration Committe one time, but the request was declined. It might be worth trying a RfC regarding MMN, because it's obvious that his disruptive behavior isn't going to stop. HeyMid (contribs) 15:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to that prior request, please? -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here, as recently as last month. HeyMid (contribs) 15:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nod, that does indeed seem to show that RFC would be the next step. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I had started work on a rfc at User:Mjroots/MMNRFC. I fear that we are going to have to grasp this particular nettle, even though it will take up a lot of time that could be better spent elsewhere. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots may also be of use for background reading. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have two or more users made polite and good faith efforts and attempts to engage the user in question at their user talk page to try to resolve the dispute(s), and failed to come to an amicable resolution? -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, if it wasn't due to MMN's incivility and general disruption that waste other users' times, I wouldn't have hesitated to try and talk with him at his talk page, but that makes me too afraid to talk with him, since I believe his reply would be like "but his closure was inappropriate" or "the admin did not look at the reliability of the votes, they just looked at the number of keep and delete votes". I wouldn't like to be attacked back just because I'm trying to talk with him, and, to be honest, he hadn't given any assurances when his indefinite block last month was lifted. HeyMid (contribs) 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah. Also, what do you actually mean with "nod"? Also, I took a quick look at the DRVs MMN has started, and it doesn't seem to be in any way related to your closures; there were several others which were closed by other admins than you. I don't know whether you've read through the entire arbitration request or not, but MMN's unwillingness to accept consensus and his pointy disruption is really irritating. I hadn't noticed that Mjroots has started working on a RfC regarding MickMacNee. However, I don't see that the arbitration request is mentioned there. HeyMid (contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nod" meant that I read your post, considered the substance of it, and generally agreed with it. I agree also with your assessment of the DRVs. There were closures by multiple different admins, and yet, in the latest DRV, MickMacNee (talk · contribs) attempted to make the entire DRV consist of an attack on a single administrator, myself, rather that a matter-of-fact discussion keeping to the issue itself of the AFD consensus. That behavior is inappropriate, as is the waste of community's time with DRVs that all turn out the same way, deletion endorsed of the original AFD close, against protestations of MickMacNee (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, an RFC cannot go forward unless two or more users have made good faith attempts and failed to resolve the dispute. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We shall see what comes of this: User_talk:MickMacNee#Transportation_requests_for_deletion_review. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised nor impressed by his answer, which continues his hate campaign against you, and shows that he has absolutely no intention of improving, and instead suggests that a RfC regarding you should be made. HeyMid (contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a good faith effort to approach him politely, in a post to his user talk page. I tried. I failed to resolve it. Have others had a similar experience in the past? -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a good faith effort, better than what I was going to try, but I'm not surprised by his answer, as that's basically how he's always argued. Oh, BTW, I see you've made 30 featured anything (featured articles, featured portals, etc). That's an impressive number, which requires a good amount of time spent on contributing. HeyMid (contribs) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my quality contributions to Wikipedia. It is most appreciated. Very much. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

[11] and [12]. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cirt!

It appears that my page, Adam Gubman, was deleted for not complying with wp:composers.

I have re-posted under a new category, Categories:Video game composers

I believe this is now in compliance, as the page meets the category requirement and all my peers are listed here as well. I will finish the edits this week. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyzpro (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

You seem to have a sixth sense about socks. What do you think about User:Nighthawk359: User_talk:Nighthawk359 ? He's an SPA, but I feel I have seen such actions before. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I recall someone doing the same kinds of edits to Tom DiNapoli - right down to the "living with his parents" stuff. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:In the Shadow of the Moons FRENCH.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:In the Shadow of the Moons GERMAN.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of UQPWC Page

Hi

I note that the University of Queensland Powerlifting & Weightlifting page which I created has been deleted however I would like to respond to the assumptions made under the reasons for deletion and learn from the comments made by other editors. Also please bear in mind this is my first Wikipedia article and I am learning.

==

1) blatant fail of WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [1]. google mainly reveals directory listings. any competition achievements should relate to individuals of the club. this article looks like it's written by an over keen member. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

- the article listed individual achievements (reproduced below. If this is incorrect could you please advise how this can be corrected to make it suitable for Wikipedia in light of the comment above - "any competition achievements should relate to individuals of the club"

Club National Achievements Club members compete in Powerlifting Australia Ltd events which are held throughout Australia, Commonwealth Championships, Oceania Powerlifting Federation events, and in international events hosted by the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF).

   * 2009 National Open Championships, Sydney
   Theo Lagis category 60kg Total= 570kg 1st place
   Ray Hope category 67.5kg Total= 605kg 1st place
   Andrew Logan category 125kg Total= 872.5kg 1st place
   Helen Allen category 56kg Total= 345kg 1st place

Club World Achievements

   * World Sub-Junior & Junior Powerlifting Championships 7 - 11 Sep, 2005 Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA. Samuel Lane Category Sub-junior, 125+kg Total= 625kg 6th place
   * World Masters Powerlifting Championships 30 Sep - 4 Oct 2008, Palm Springs, USA. Andrew Logan Category Masters I, 125kg Total=857.5kg 2nd place
   * World Masters Powerlifting Championships 30 Sep - 4 Oct 2008, Palm Springs, USA. Helen Allen Category Masters I, 56kg Total=317.5kg 4th place
   * 18th Women's World Masters Championships, Czech Republic, Ostrava, 28 Sep - 03 Oct 2009. Helen Allen Category Masters I, 56kg Total=315kg 2nd place

2) * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  

3) * Delete. A University club for which I see no level of coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

- the "club" is also a standalone incorporated association and a registered business in Australia. The reason why the club is also incorporated and a registered business is so that the organisation and its members can be covered by insurance and also so that the organisation can apply to the government for funding grants. The organisation is associated with the university but as funding by the university was cut when voluntary student unionism was introduced a few years ago bythe Federal Government, the club no longer receives any funding assistance from the university. - the achievements of individual club members are shown in notable and reliable web sites at www.powerlifting-ipf.com, www.powerliftingaustralia.com and http://oceaniapowerlifting.homestead.com/ - www.powerlifting-ipf.com is the powerlifting body which encompasses the sport of powerlifting world-wide and is recognised by the International Olympic Committee. (There are other powerlifting organisations around the world however these follow different sets of rules and some permit the used of banned substances such as steroids).

4) * Delete. Advertising for non-notable business.--Grahame (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) - in consideration of the comments - I agree that some of the wording can be changed to make it sound less like advertising and more factual.

5) * Delete. Agree with Nom and Mkativerata - just another University club. Codf1977 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I note the the University of Queensland Rugby Club is listed on Wikipedia - it too is "just another University Club" and it hasnt been deleted. If the University of Queensland Rugby Club respresents a good example of a Wikipedia listing, I am prepared to edit the University of Queensland Powerlifting & Weightlifting page to make it more appropriate.

Thanks for your assistance and I look forward to your response.

BSPlayer article deletion

84.255.194.237 (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Hi, article about BSPlayer has been deleted, in our opinion unjustly, because many other multimedia players have none citations, and they are not deleted (ie. Totem (media player), Media Go ... the list is almost endless). Also claim about being "not-notable" is not true, please check http://bsplayer.en.softonic.com/ (6.9 mil downloads) or http://download.cnet.com/BS-Player/3000-13632_4-10722361.html (1,4 mil downloads). How could we restore BSPlayer article and keep it active? Thank you in advance, Ico

Suggest you register an account. Then, you could work on it, as a proposed draft version article, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can i petition for reinstatement of the entry or at least can I get a copy of the old (historical) version for my edits, so i can redo them according to Wikipedia rules? Thank you. Ico-Man (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

now at User:Ico-Man/BS.Player. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Draft article is online http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ico-Man#BSPlayer. It is as clean as possible. Ico-Man (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Now what? Ico-Man (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are zero sources cited there. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me, where are the sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomplayer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Multimedia_Player , amongst others? I don't see any multimeda players having any other sources that official pages and review pages. Ico-Man (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is a valid argument. It shows that there are severe inconcistencies between articles, which are not good for the reputation of online encyclopedia. What kind of sources would be appropriate for a media player who's on the market for 10 years now? Reviews by independent sources (cnet download.com and softonic.com... and we can add more) are the only online sources for software program, and there are plenty in proposed draft article. Ico-Man (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"We can add more ..." -- who is "we" ??? -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We are the users who would like to contribute. Could you , please, answer my previous questions. Ico-Man (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the account called Ico-Man (talk · contribs) operated by more than one individual? Does the account Ico-Man (talk · contribs) represent a company or organization? -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. No. No. Anything else? Ico-Man (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Can you tell us, which sources would be appropriate here, except for software reviews, which we have? Ico-Man (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ico-Man/BS.Player = this page has no References cited, just a bunch of external links in two sects. Please read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIT, and WP:Article development. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do.Ico-Man (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC) References were added. Ico-Man (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are basically just bare external links, not in-line citations to references. Please read the links I recommended, above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Radiation-Induced Mass

Can this article be undeleted? I originally created the article and on checking my watchlist I suddenly found it was deleted. The deletion discussion does not convincingly support deletion in my view, so I hope the discussion can be re-opened by undeleting the article. The original text of the article was:

Radiation-Induced Mass is the concept that the rest mass is a linear function of the local radiant flux. [1].

References Shahriar S. Afshar (1999). "Non-machian, Lorentz-invariant inertia: The first step towards the theory of GravitoElectroMagnetism". AIP Conference Proceedings 458: 1033–1039.

I think it can be extended with more information or recent developments. But in order to do this the article needs to be undeleted first.(Bgeelhoed (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

 Done, made available as draft page to be worked on as proposed version, in userspace, at User:Bgeelhoed/Radiation-Induced Mass. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you this is useful (Bgeelhoed (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

Hornet Archive - Please Restore

Hello. We'd like to appeal the deletion of the Hornet Archive Wikipedia page. Starting in 1992, our group maintained a community site called The Hornet Archive; first hosted by the University of Florida's engineering department, then later at the Walnut Creek CDROM ftp.cdrom.com archive, and finally at its own domain, hornet.org. During its heyday, we hosted 16,248 productions from a thriving community of coders, graphicians, and musicians. This community made "demos," which were multimedia exhibitions, usually written in Assembly Language, using proprietary sound, graphics, and memory-management libraries. They were amazing feats of software design and efficiency, combined with evocative visuals and hypnotic music. Demo sceners were pioneers of early PC computing, squeezing high end visual effects out of underpowered CPUs. And the Hornet Archive was proud to serve as a central hub for the exchange of these productions.

Within the "demo scene" community The Hornet Archive was well respected. We are still remembered today as a home for "classic" PC demos. After a long and successful run, our archive closed up shop in 1998 (all though we still continue to host the archive to this day, frozen as it was in 1998).

We were grateful in the mid-2000's when the community rallied to create the Wikipedia page that would record the history of our archive, so that these details would not fade with memory. Because these details are of interest to many people. The Hornet Archive was highly trafficked, widely appreciated, and culturally relevant.

We understand that the page was flagged some months ago, as lacking sufficient verifiable sources and citations. Unfortunately, we did not have a "watch" set up, so none of us saw the alerts, or knew to add these sources. I have a dozen magazines in a box in the closet that could attest to our existence and impact in the 90's. Please consider restoring the page, and we will add citations and sources. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.136.223 (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

R3cgm (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Account registered. We will work on a proposed draft version in a subpage of my userspace. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz 300D & 240D AFD

Hi You deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mercedes-Benz_300D Can You delete this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mercedes-Benz_240D) as well, as I nominated these two articles quoting the same reason? I wanted put them together at AFD, but I'm not proficient with nominating for deletion as I rarely do this.

SHAMAN 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You very much. SHAMAN 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt! I'll work on my article!

Keyzpro (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete the list of last occurences? That was one of the pages in Wikipedia that i refered to the most... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.13.55 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this referring to, link please? -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Right here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_occurrences

Why was it deleted? It was one of the pages on wikipedia that i referred to the most to find when the last type of species died out etc like for zoology reasearch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.52.208 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The consensus of the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last occurrences) was to delete. Mostly it was too broad a category note WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 17:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Who are you?

But whats the point in deleting it? Didnt you consider that some people may find it useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.52.208 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an experienced user who has Cirt's talk page on my watchlist, so I'm helping him out by responding. I was just giving you the reason for its deletion, nothing more. I didn't vote nor delete it, and since I can't see it, can't weigh in on its "usefulness" CTJF83 chat 19:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright but i'd like a reply from Cirt since he was the user who deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.52.208 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder)

The Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder) is listed for deletion on two lists. Please consider adding it to the cycling list, if there is one. I would do it, but I don't know how. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology sock found?

Wanted your opinion on a user i found by accident User:Scientology major it was created shortly after WP:ARBSCI, as our Scientology Sock expert thought you might be interested. It seems a little blatant for Shutterbug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, reported it to WP:SPI for further analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (3rd nomination)

Can you share how this was not a no-consensus default to keep? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there were twice as many editors commenting for deletion as for keep. However, I would be most willing to provide a userfied version within a subpage of your userspace. We could discuss and take a look at analyzing improvements, to that page. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Scientology

Hi Cirt. I posted a note at Template talk:Scientology. TIA for taking a look at it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. As you've previously tried to solve a dispute concerning MickMacNee, I'm notifying you that a Request for Comment regarding MickMacNee has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've added a couple sentences to my outside view, which you endorsed. You may wish to review it to ensure you're still fine with my comments.  RGTraynor  01:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks, done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership

I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, will look into it. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not going to join this WikiProject at this point in time, but thank you for the interest. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I would like to discuss

1. First of all, I think Larry_King should go under the category:[Category:American_people_of_Belarusian-Jewish_descent] because it says in the article that his parents emigrated from Belarus and they were Jewish. Also I think Peter_Douglas and Eric_Douglas should go under that category as since their father Kirk_Douglas is listed under that category as well. 2. I think it should be noted in the Alexandra_Powers article that her mother is Katharyn_Powers and was a writer for variety of TV series. This article says they are related: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Katharyn_Powers Also I think in the Katharyn_Powers article these links should be added: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0584251/ http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Katharyn_Powers http://www.moviefone.com/celebrity/katharyn-powers/2035049/main http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Katharyn_Powers Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea,s all things that are better discussed at their individual article talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not interested in contributing to that article at this time, thank you though, for the interest. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

goof on DYK.

Hey I wanted to contact an administrator on this. I just now noticed a goof on one of my hooks that already appeared on the Main Page and stats. It was about the Untitled Spider-Man reboot and it stated that the release date was 2011 when it was supposed to be 2012. (I even knew this, I don't know how I messed it up) But anyways I have a few questions on what could be done about it. Could it be redone the right way in the main page? If not could it be fixed on the stats and on the article talk page? I am really disappointed on that and what it done the right way somehow. Can you help? − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Best to discuss at WT:DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Cirt! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. :) -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Larry Detwiler

Hello! Your submission of Larry Detwiler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 05:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. :) -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor) (2nd nomination)

This article has been re-created. As you took closed the previous discussion, I'm letting you know that I have nominated it at AfD. (There's probably a template for this, but I can't find it. Sorry. Not often I do this.) Peridon (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Article has now been speedied. Peridon (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up to date about that. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference

Thank you for sharing your work Victuallers (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens Faith

[13] is that a reliable source? thank you --Proud coptic (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Most Hated Family in America

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		Having reviewed old AFDs I have been involved in and bumped into This. I visited the article's page and not only had you saved it from deletion you got it up to a good article thus I award you this Barnstar. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you are taking a break, which after recent events I dont blame you. Happy Holidays The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, nice to see you back The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in that project at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a little question

Why do you need to delete STARS (short film) it took me three whole days to create it, you don't need to be that rude. Argh... Please bring it back my friend :D I have specialized the posters' info now :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.48.59.48 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you create an account, you could work on a proposed draft version of that article, in a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Carousel (musical)

Happy New Year! This article is going to FA and has been sitting around at GA for a few weeks. Do you have time to give it a GA review? It's the most important 20th century musical to come towards FA so far, and I think it is certainly past GA level already. Wehwalt is the principal editor, but I've been assisting. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I think User:Tim riley will do it. Sorry to bother you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Talk:The Most Hated Family in America.
Message added 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Solar storms

How about something completely different? Solar storm of 1859 is a runt of an article that could use some help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, will do some research on the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Soviet Union)

Thanks for reviewing the article, however, I was just wondering if you were to busy to review the article. You've hav n't been active at the review page since you started the review. --TIAYN (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to get to it soon. -- Cirt (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Michael Haywood

On 12/16/2010 you semi-protected the Michael Haywood article. It looks like this is indefinite, which seems like overkill based on the level of editing. He was in the news again over the weekend, but I wonder if you'd consider setting the semi-protection to expire in another week or two? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cirt/Archive 15! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RE

Im still awaiting a reply to my question... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GtheLad (talk • contribs) 13:46, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cirt/Archive 15! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum/GA1

Hey, I've offered a review. I'm sorry, but I think the structure of the article needs to be changed a little; it doesn't feel quite right at the moment. I have explained what I mean on the review page. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Will try to get some time to look at it in more depth again. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Hey. I saw that you have 11 articles tagged as under review by you from 3ish weeks ago. Since few have seen progress, I'm gonna take over a few gradually to ease the burden on you, since my guess is you're busy with other matters. I trust that's not a problem, I'm just making sure people get timely reviews. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. I have been busy with stuff lately in other areas. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:User:Luke Farrelly-Spain listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:User:Luke Farrelly-Spain. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:User:Luke Farrelly-Spain redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:In the Shadow of the Moons FRENCH.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of User:AMD64

I would like to contest your blocking of User:AMD64. I became aware of this during an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#User names that have known companies in them, were even there it's pretty clear that simply having a product name in the username is not an automatic violation of policy. In May of 2007 the username was reviewed at WP:RFCN and allowed. Nothing in the user's edit history (that I can find) suggests that they are working to promote or spam any product in a way that violates any of our guidelines and policies. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why have you unblocked that user? S/he is using the name of a known product AMD64 --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied below in sect on same issue posted by same user as this one. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Swivel

I'd like to have the DJ Swivel page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Swivel reinstated. I have additional references to support the article, including discography's from All Music Guide, as well as several other editorials/credit listings.

http://allmusic.com/artist/jordan-dj-swivel-young-p1562563

http://allmusic.com/artist/jordan-young-dj-swivel-p847739

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/credits

http://www.lexiconpro.com/artist.php?id=52

http://www.lexiconpro.com/news.php?id=154

http://blog.mixonline.com/briefingroom/2010/12/10/dj-swivel-on-the-lexicon®-pcm-native-reverb-plug-in-bundle-“the-lexicon-pcm-suite-is-the-only-plug-in-reverb-i-can-put-up-against-a-20000-hardware-reverb-–-and-it’ll-ho/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djswivel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to userfy a copy to a subpage within your userspace, to work on a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful thank you! Can I work off the last version before it was deleted, and re-draft to fit wiki's standards? Djswivel (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-written the article and should fit more along wiki's guidelines. Please advise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Djswivel#Proposed_DJ_Swivel_draft --Djswivel (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Still needs sourcing improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional references have been provided. There are several interviews, credit listings, and press releases that validate the article, all moved to the references section. There's also noted references with links back to original articles or sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Djswivel#References Djswivel (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources are wikipedia articles, which is circular referencing that fails WP:RS. Others are inappropriate such as links to Amazon.com. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the other wikipedia article and replaced it with a press release that mentions and verify's the same fact. I've also removed the reference to the amazon page. If just verify's the collaboration with another artist, another website with the same information was provided. Djswivel (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is left is really not enough significant coverage in secondary WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New DYK rules

I recently wrote new articles on John Fryatt and Paul Pyant. I would have nominated them for DYK before, but the new DYK rules have discouraged me from doing so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

illegals program

It is not quite a month but there has been no review. I am willing to review it for GA. TeacherA (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kin Endate

About 11 months ago, you were involved with the deletion discussion for Kin Endate. I recently found the page because it's the third most redlinked article on the wiki. I believe that several pertinent items not present in the original article - his pre-discovery images of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and his extremely high number of asteroid discoveries - may push a revised article past the notability boundary. I have created a draft at User:Pi.1415926535/Draft of Kin Endate; I would be much obliged if you could offer comment or edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, does not appear to pass WP:NOTE, at this time. -- Cirt (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe that it does, particularly the general biography guideline #2 ("2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."). Endate's discovery total is exceeded by only a few individuals, and he is well known by astronomers for his discoveries and his pre-discovery images of S-L9. Therr is a precedent of including otherwise unknown astronomers for their discoveries; discoveries of notable objects and of numerous objects are as prestigious in astronomy as important theorems. Every single other person above place #50 on the minor planets discovery list (Endate is #23) has an article, and many are not notable for anything but discovering asteroids. I have updated the article with two more of his significant discoveries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. I suppose you could take it to WP:DRV, but it does markedly fail WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Caroline Garcia

Hi there! You may recall deleting an article of this name a few weeks ago for failing notablity. Well she now passes notablity as she will play in the 1st round of the upcoming Australian Open. So how do I go about restoring this article without having to start from scratch, as you can't see the history either, and I can't remember what was there before. KnowIG (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've userfied the article here. When she actually plays in that round and/or sources become available to pass WP:GNG then the article can be moved back into article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting to mediation

Cirt, with respect to our past conflict, I'll be applying for mediation. Hopefully you'll participate, and I'll see how things progress. JohnAugust (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

The edit I made was not disruptive, and I resent it being labeled as such. Thank you. Yaksar (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It was blatant page blanking out of an entire well sourced subsection, with zero edit summary or talk page explanation. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

quick question on something

Hi, I would like your help on something. I am totally new here and I want to create a page about a technical author, called David Amerland. I saw a page existed in the past. I do not want to go into the effort of creating it and looking up all the sources and references to have it deleted again. Is there something in particular I should be on the look out for? Your help would be invaluable. With many thanks in advance. Paul

PaulSalmon (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Article development for some helpful info. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:AMD64

Why did you unblocked that user even though his name matches the name of a known product AMD64? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please engage with Ned Scott (talk · contribs) at his user talk page about this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But aren't you the one who blocked/unblocked AMD64 (talk · contribs)? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Ned Scott (talk · contribs) was the one who raised the concern and the request to unblock the user in question. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left him a msg to join the discussion here. What's your opinion of the matter? I think User:AMD64's username is illigal as it is the name of an AMD product AMD64. The same applies to User:nvidia, who is also blocked. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I will defer to the judgment of another admin in this matter. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How should I call the attention of another admin? Using the admin help template? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, please see Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already did that and got stale user.Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You could try to ask more about this process, more generally, at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I honestly don't know if usernames like AMD64's should be used or not (personally I don't have a problem with it) but since it's not a clear situation and the user had previously gotten the OK on their name back in 07, I think -at the very least- we should just wait for the user to respond and/or see how the RFC goes. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kendrick Moxon

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kendrick Moxon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 6 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments. I have seen your changes to the article and I will now move to promote it. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your support! Anyway, did I by chance miss a step, the tally isn't counting? CTJF83 chat 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it just takes some time to kick in. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing on the page counter..any ideas? CTJF83 chat 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! CTJF83 chat 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re

[14] -asad (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Clarke

Hi Cirt, could you revisit Rebecca's FAR and give us an update on progress made and/or remaining concerns? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Jonasstalker

I see your reasoning behind the block, but WP:CHUS is currently awaiting a response from the user in regards to his name change, and it might be useful if he could reply to it :p He does seem to be inactive though, since it's been a few days since X! posted on the request and I notified him of it on his talkpage. Anyway, just letting you know about this. demize (t · c) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He can post about this to his talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Celdran, Illegals Program, Homosexuality

Hi Cirt, Wizardman asked me to take over the reviews on these, but I see no note to you on your talk page? Have you abandoned? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also noticed about a half dozen reviews that you started on December 16 stalled without further review. Is everything alright? Please let me know if you need assistance. Racepacket (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been quite busy lately in real life, apologies. :( -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So should I take over the three reviews noted above? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to, sure, that would be most appreciated (also of late, getting over a nasty cold :( ... ) . -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will start on those now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities

Cirt, I think you may have deleted the redirect instead of the (renamed) article Ethnic–LGBT relations in the United States. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

World Cup 2011 Squad

Hello, I was updating this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Cricket_World_Cup_squads article and would like to ask you if replacing ODI's with "role" of the players, because ODI would have to be updated with every match? Could you please give your opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cric master (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana FAR

Many edits were made to Nirvana (band) since your "Delist" comment at the FAR. Can you take a look at the article now, so as revise your opinion (or request more changes)? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will try to take another look soon. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wordles

Wordle constructed from Wikipedia article, Religion, with "religion"esque terms removed. Available at Wordle gallery.

Hi. I recently started playing with "Wordles'" and thought they could be an interesting tool to help review the balance in Wikipedia articles. What do you think? Regards, RichardF (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Religion project topic. -- RichardF (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed an email from you listed in my spam folder a while back, but the message already was gone. Obviously, I'm not very active around here anymore...  ;-)

Thanks, will take a look at this. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wordle: Wikipedia - Top 1,000 vital articles -- RichardF (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wordle: Wikipedia - Top 1,000 vital article hits -- RichardF (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's a usage example at Wikipedia:Vital articles#External links. -- RichardF (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Article usage at Tag cloud#External links. -- RichardF (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Scientology officials for deletion

The article List of Scientology officials is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology officials until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rob (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tory Christman

This passes GA as far as I see it. There are some notes that I hope you will consider. I made a couple minor changes.

Maybe too much beer tonight, but I screwed up the template on top. I am sure you can figure it out. I also did not add it to a sub of Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society since I was not sure which one would be best. Anyways, fantastic stuff as always. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to complain

I don't mean to complain but I'm having problems understanding why, or how, you're reviewing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Soviet Union) article. It's been on wait since 21 December 2010 and you haven't even been able to write a review of the article. If you're busy with something else it's fine, but either review the article soon or abandoned it so someone else can review you it; your choice!. --TIAYN (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a more in depth look at it soon. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I was reviewing the unblock request posted at User talk:Alhanalem (related to this). After checking the range's contributions, I think we can safely lift the rangeblock. I'd like to get your input first, however. Thanks! TNXMan 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented at the user talk page. I do not think the IP block should be changed. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reintroduction of Redwood Technologies entry

Hi, I have just joined this company as Marketing Director and have been trying to figure out why and when the entry for Redwood Technologies (and Content Guru which is a subdivision of the Redwood organisation), was taken down and I wanted to address the issue and get the entry back up.

I could not find the details about why Wikipedia decided to remove the entries - could you please advise as the log does say that you were the administrator.

These are medium-size, global businesses, in partnership with some of the worlds top 100 companies so I need to understand all issues at play here, as I am certain they are large enough to warrant entry.

Many thanks Keith Reed Keithsreed (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take some time to read WP:COI, as well as WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:LWSlade

I'm curious why you felt it was necessary to block the above-noted user. Daniel Case (another administrator) had left a note about the username with suggestions on how to address it. They chose not to block. The user had not edited since the warning was left, and you chose to block. Not to mention that, by all appearances, they appear to be an entirely good faith new user. Am I missing something? –xeno^talk 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to unblock, but I see the account is already unblocked. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My question remains - if another administrator felt a warning was sufficient, was there a reason you chose to block despite the user having not edited since the warning? –xeno^talk 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason to pursue this repeatedly after the user has been unblocked, and after I stated I was going to unblock the user myself, but could not because the account was already unblocked, to my agreement? -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course: to (hopefully) prevent further good-faith users from being summarily blocked when a block is unnecessary. See also Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention#There are alternatives. –xeno^talk 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Users should not create accounts with usernames that are the same as website names, in effect promoting said websites and implying that the account ma be controlled by a group of individuals. -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't address the root concern. Blocking a good-faith contributor should be a last resort. I'm also concerned about the following recent blocks of yours -

• Redcrossbloodau (talk · contribs) - similar to above - another admin warned, they hadn't edited since, you blocked
• CNewmarket (talk · contribs) - what is problematic about this name? Newmarket is the name of numerous towns and suburbs
• Briscoatusadotcom (talk · contribs) - user has a name change request in progress and has not edited since.
• April&Jason (talk · contribs) - really?

I think you are being too quick to block in cases like these. Perhaps you could use a little more tact when engaging new users? –xeno^talk 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are all clear violations of site policy. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As is biting newcomers. I've unblocked the lower three. Please consider modifying your approach to username enforcement, especially when the users are making good edits or haven't edited. –xeno^talk 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I will consider that, but please consider modifying your approach to allowing companies, organizations, and multiple people to control accounts on Wikipedia, in violation of site policy. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you know "April&Jason" is multiple people? He/she/they had not edited. Perhaps they have disassociative identity disorder. CNewmarket is not the name of a company, at least as far as I can tell. And Brisco is not a company, it is a _person_ whose email address happens to be brisco (at) usa (dot) com. Please try to avoid seeing in black and white, and look for the grey. –xeno^talk 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. –xeno^talk 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braids (band)

hey cirt, I believe the band Braids (band) now meets the criteria under WP:NM by verifiably satisfying criterion 1,5 and 7. Thus, I have written a page on the group as my first article for Wikipedia. Please message me if I've made a n00b mistake.

cheers,

Pirkeaboth (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to contest this, but it could use some cleanup and formatting work. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Transformation and deleted Digital Transformation, but probably didn't notice its exact copy (complete with afd tag :-), Digital transformation. Lorem Ip (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Zapped; it looks as though the page was moved during the discussion, so the redirect had been deleted but not the article. Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just PRODd Digital Transformation which should be userfied. Racepacket (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Source for you,

I figure you would know how to use This better than most of us could. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. It is just promo spam pushed out by the organization, in an attempt to push down prior news about jokes by Ricky Gervais. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Why it got deleted?

Dear Cirt

How are you? I was the owner of the page Manisha Gulyani. Which you deleted. That page contained all the information and bio about an experienced Indian Classical Dancer. She is a known talent all over the world. I request you to please put that page back to the site.

Regards Lokesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokesh.gulyani (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest first working on it, within a subpage of your userspace. I could make one available, if you wish. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, kindly make available. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokesh.gulyani (talk • contribs)

 Done, now at User:Lokesh.gulyani /Manisha Gulyani. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fulfilling my protection request! Those IPs drive me crazy sometimes... Luxic (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Solihull Council election, 2010

Hi, you placed the semi protected notice on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the Solihull Council election, 2010 article, but the article has not been semi-protected. Just wondering if you missed protecting it? Davewild (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Non-Deletion of "Mark Stanley (lighting designer)"

I would like to ask for the article Mark Stanley (lighting designer) to be reinstated for the following reasons:

• Mark Stanley, Lighting Designer · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Mark Stanley is one of the most prolific and famous dance lighting designers living and is currently the lighting designer for the New York City Ballet as well as numerous other companies in the US and abroad. His contributions to the world of dance design and color theory for lighting designers are significant. In response to the charge that there is no meaningful claim to notability, Mark Stanley's artistic contributions to the world of theatre design include: resident designer for the New York City Opera (1983-1986). While at City Ballet, Mark has designed over 150 premieres from top modern choreographers, including Susan Stroman and Christopher Wheeldon. http://www.hemsleylightingprograms.com/ob/gvh/board_of_directors/ current resident designer for New York City Ballet (1986 to present) television credits include Live from the Lincoln Center' http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1418488/' Board of Directors for Hemsley Lighting Programs, which offered the first ever national portfolio review for lighting design students only. http://www.hemsleylightingprograms.com/ob/gvh/home/ In such roles, he is a mentor and inspiration for theatrical lighting designers, especially in the dance world. His contributions to the theatre world are akin to the contributions of artists on the art world--within his field he is well-known and respected as a significant figure in the development of the craft, despite the fact that lighting designers may garner little notoriety outside of theatre circles. Photos of his design work can be found in textbooks on lighting design, including Richard Pilbrow's "Stage Lighting Design", where his work is displayed next to Ken Billington and Tharon Musser. (1997, Hollywood: Quite Specific Media Group) I would offer as a support for non-deletion the fact that Ken Billington's page has similar credentials, and the only reason I can see why his page stands undeleted while Mark's is deleted could be the fact that since Ken does Broadway work, his shows are more well-known. However, this does not make Mark's artistic contributions to the development of lighting design any less significant in that he works in the dance world, which is certainly less in the public eye. As for the assertion that he is listed as an academic, he is, as the reader points out, an associate professor at Boston University College of Fine Arts School of Theatre, a theatre conservatory where Mark is the main professor in the lighting department and overseers 6 graduate students. http://www.bu.edu/cfa/theatre/faculty/stanley/ He is also, as the biography points out, the author of a color theory workbook for Rosco. Stanley, Mark "The Color of Light Workbook" Rosco Laboratories, Inc., Port Chester, NY, 1987 In addition to these credentials, see the following Live Design article (Live Design is a theatre publication dedicated to exploring designers and their work and promoting understanding of the craft and new technology) in which Mark is interviewed: http://livedesignonline.com/mag/five_questions_formark_0508/ Mark is also a frequent lecturer and moderator of Master Classes in Lighting Design at the USITT National Conference held every year. (United States Institute of Theatre Technology). He can be found in the list of sessions here: http://www.usitt.org/CompleteSessionList.aspx He is moderating the "Seminar for Young Lighting Designers" on Saturday, as part of a panel of notable dance lighting designers. Here is a link from 2004: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EVovk53jtwMJ:www.usitt.org/sightlines/archive/v46/n03/stories/Lighting.html+mark+stanley+lighting+design+steve+shelleyy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

24.128.199.197 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Mary Ellen Stebbins

I don't mean to butt in, but in regard to Photos of his design work can be found in textbooks on lighting design, including Richard Pilbrow's "Stage Lighting Design", where his work is displayed next to Ken Billington and Tharon Musser. (1997, Hollywood: Quite Specific Media Group), can you find similar some similar sources? That seems promising. For better or worse, it is the degree of public attention that one garners that tends to establish notability in our sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you first register an account on Wikipedia, with a username. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you

Would you be willing to change the edit notice on Golden Raspberry Award per my comments on the talk page? Thank you. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are an "admin bully"

Just a heads up that you are being defamed at User talk:184.58.245.87 following your fully justified two week ban of this abusive editor. Suggest you extend the ban and block him/her from further comments on the talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker, the IP is trolling, best ignore him.--Scott Mac 12:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

work in progress (i'm italian)

i'd like to see the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Viruses_in_the_Resident_Evil_series_(2nd_nomination)

how must i do? grazie, cefalocrate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.107.7 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you register an account. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

today i have created an account Nadsionalchiaroscuro is my username, ok? and now? how can i to see those pages? --Nadsionalchiaroscuro (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Nadsionalchiaroscuro/Viruses in the Resident Evil series. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

4th life

Hi, MotionX has been deleted 3 times now. Just as a matter of interest, can it come back to life again? I am not really interested in the product, but I am observing it as an example of how marketing people are learning to use Wikipedia. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not for a long time. I WP:SALTed it. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, now I understand. But I see this as just the beginning. I do not know what the next product will be, but it seems clear to me that the promotional angle is picking up, and somehow more attention will be needed in the future. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

/* Taekwondo Association of Great Britain */ Deletion

Hi

I have noticed the Taekwondo Association of Great Britain page has been deleted and in my opinion unjustly. I understand your reasons are that the organisation doesn't have credibility. Yet if you look on wikipedia all the other major Taekwondo associations have their own page. Our organisation have won gold in many competitions around the world and are the current world champions. (see the martial arts illustrated article below) and have held seminars by Master Choi who is considered one of the most influential people in Taekwondo. I think you would agree this would not happen unless our organisation was not noteworthy.

You have pages for ITF WTF and UKTA associations so not sure why ours was deleted.

Please see some links to show how well regarded our organisation is in the industry.

http://www.combatmag.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=44 http://www.martialartsunltd.co.uk/martial-arts-illustrated/current-issue.html

I hope this changes your mind. Kind Regards

Barry Flammia --Barryrfd (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to provide a copy within a subpage of your userspace, so you could work on improving a proposed draft version, in order to attempt to demonstrate whether or not you can show the subject satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. That would be great, thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryrfd (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Barryrfd/Taekwondo Association of Great Britain. -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Cirt, I got a good dinner and two cocktails out of that ambassador program. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been quite busy in other areas of life, but I will consider it, thank you for thinking of me. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hey Cirt, can you please have a look at Nina Totenberg and its talk page/GA review/discussion? I started reviewing it and made some detailed comments, but the editor who requested the review only got about a third or so done, maybe a bit more, before the whole thing got bogged down in a discussion on the usual controversies and criticisms, including the question of whether such criticism ought to be mentioned in the lead already. By now there's two or three parties in the discussion--the person who requested the review is not with us, at least not for a while.

If you could have a look, I'd appreciate it, or if you have any suggestions, I'd appreciate that too. I'll tell you what I think, right now: the lead could have a half a sentence of general criticism on a specific issue, but needs to be balanced with an acknowledgment of notable praise on the same issue (I made a proposal in that direction on the talk page). The controversy section is not against the rules, but probably needs a bit of trimming. That's what I think, and I'd love to get a second opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it soon. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Jim Bailey (Stuntman)....content was incorrect....

I would just like to say that although I agree with the content for the Jim Bailey (stuntman) article being deleted I would ask you to re-instate the article as I would like to provide you with evidence based content that is quite interesting, and informative to those whom are interested......I can say the content I will provide is evidence based as I am the man living flesh and blood....his daughter........

pls advise if you wish for me to edit the content or post a new article entirely Bulletsbabygirl 04:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletsbabygirl (talk • contribs)

Unexplained Warning: Copyright violation at page Nils Melzer

Please can you tell me what the copyright violation was, on my talkpage, as you have not provided a description, and I can't find it was looking at the history, and don't like having the unexplained accusation on my talk page as it is bad for my reputation!(yes IP's can have reputation) Cheers.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is in Special:DeletedContributions/93.96.148.42. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kindly post it on my talk page - from that link I get "Unauthorized from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Researchers.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cirt, you placed a warning on my homepage that I face a ban if I repeat an unidentified copy vio. I have asked you twice to identify the copy vio. 1st you sent a useless link. Your 2nd reply is "That is just it - it was deleted because it was copyvio." I understand that you are an administrator. Why do you behave like this? Please tell me what you identified and deleted as a copy vio. You can check the log above, I can't. If there wasn't a copy vio please apologise. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. It was a direct, word-for-word copy of the text here]! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orangemike (talk · contribs), much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orangemike (talk · contribs),Please assume good faith! how am I supposed to remember it? You deleted the page, so it redirected to annother page where you also accused me of a copy vio. Thanks to orange mike I have been able to create the page using material from the article. The author of a book that has a long wikipedia entry surely deserves a biog page. Editors like you put people of wikipedia. You owe me an appology - there was no way for me to find out what the copy vio was, and I had compltely forgotten it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MotionX

Hello, could you please send me the content of the MotionX article that was deleted? Thank you. Arthbkins (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Arthbkins/MotionX. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of templates

You posted this on my wall- "Your addition to Nils Melzer has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing". and wrote this on the page you redirected Nils Melzer to - (remove circular redirect to the author (article added by IP deleted as copyvio). As you are an adminstrator you should understand the difference between deletion and removing an article. When I asked you to explain your confusing message you were extremely unhelpful. I understand that there is a strong prejudice against IP adresses, even those with barnstars, but unless you apologise I will raise a complaint.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See above response by admin Orangemike (talk · contribs). Admins see also deleted contribs of this IP user, Special:DeletedContributions/93.96.148.42, that posted blatant copyvio, which then had to be deleted by admin Bencherlite (talk · contribs). deletion log. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Net.wars

Great article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, most appreciated! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See also my comment about an alt hook at T:TDYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for Good Articles

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For being one of the people that keeps Good Articles ticking over by regularly reviewing listings (even if you also happen to be one of the people that keeps it backlogged by making good articles and then nominating them). Feel free to spread the love by copying this barnstar to one of the other heavy-duty GA reviewers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Third Opinion

Cirt,

I will be seeking a third opinion on our dispute. Is this something you are willing to participate in ? Thanks,

JohnAugust (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Which article? What dispute is outstanding? Where have you tried to first resolve this through talk page discussion, at the article in question? (Hint: You have failed to do so.) -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several articles. They were listed in the attempt at moderation. All all cases, either I put forward a note along the lines of "I'm planning to post this, is it OK" before making the change; once I did it at the same time. Of those cases where I asked beforehand, nobody made comment, and they remained for up to 2 years; those people with an interest in the content of the pages (including Georgism and the American Monetary Institute) were happy with the edits, and I had invited them to dialogue. I had asked, which was what the instructions on the web pages suggested you do. In one case, that to do with the American Monetary Institute, there was a lot of content there before I made my first edit, and there was a "back and forth" between myself and others via the content and comments on the edits. While no explicit discussion ever occurred on the talk page, there was an engagement.

In spite of the fact that I had Asked, the notice you put on my talk suggested I do exactly what I had done, which made it rather difficult to relate to and understand. Regardless of the actual edits, I have a dispute with the way you went about it; I asked for an apology about a year ago. I made some points at that time, which you dismissed or ignored.

It is only in the last month or so that Chriswaterguy answered some of my questions. That's quite separate to the fact that I originally asked and your notices on my talk page made no sense in that light. The issue is how things developed 2 years ago, based on my engagement with the talk pages at the time, something you did not not stop to pay attention to. You claimed that the lack of dialogue showed I did not engage with the issue on the talk page; well, I did. I asked. What are you supposed to do if nobody says anything ? You could have found that out that detail if you had checked.

That is my dispute. It is more than just about one webpage, there are multiple issues with how you went about things over several web pages. Perhaps Third Opinion is not the best approach, in which case I'm willing to listen to alternatives. I'm not sure about your ability to be impartial, and may seek advice which hopefully will be impartial. JohnAugust (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to engage in talk page discussion at the article(s) in question, with editors that contribute there. I have no interest in participating in any disputes at any of those articles, therefore there is no outstanding conflict or issues to resolve. Please move on. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I'll do that. I ask that you take more care that the notices you post to new editors are in fact relevant to what their edits are, and the way that they do them. I think you operate too much in a knee jerk, black and white fashion without making a proper assessment; given your discretionary power, it behooves you to ensure you use it with consideration and without jumping to conclusions.JohnAugust (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Freedom of Expression®

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mysticbumwipe

Hi Cirt. Last October you blocked an editor because he was editing using the unacceptable name "Mysticbumwipe". He appears to be editing again under that name.[15] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:UAA? -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cardcaptor Sakura

Ya know, if you're not gonna do it, you might as well remove your name from the nomination list, since it's been over a month since you said you were gonna review this article.--十八 12:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, will try to take a look at it. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, if you're too swamped with other stuff, that's fine, but I'd rather the article not be on GAN for the next half year. You seem to be involved in other projects, so I don't think that dropping this one will be that bad for you, and someone's bound to review the article if you remove your name from the nomination list since it's now the first article on that list.--十八 06:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmooze and Booze

I was about to push the "relist" button on this because I really wasn't impressed with the sole support delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to restore and relist, with my support. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Also, when restoring it I noticed that the article was never tagged for deletion. I'm tagging it now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Best American Magazine Writing 2007

Hello! Your submission of The Best American Magazine Writing 2007 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arctic Night 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Topical contents pages and navbar

Hi. I just updated the links and layouts of a set of topical contents pages I made a while back. They group the topics by format, using the same current subpages that group the formats by topic. The current contents navbar looks like this.

---

---

The expanded navbar looks like this.

---

---

Given all the angst that typically accompanies changing high level navbars, do you think it's worth (likely to succeed) suggesting adding another line? Regards, RichardF (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'll probably be bold and update the Contents page with an example revision and a basic proposal on its talk page, maybe next weekend or so... RichardF (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just activated these topical contents navigation links on most of the contents pages. Please respond to the proposal, Adding topical links to contents pages navigational headers and footers, as you see fit. Regards, RichardF (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is a great idea, then you'll have to address this reversion. RichardF (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent MfD

Can you do us a favor? Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) was moved from the history of previous redirect County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida). Then the redirect was recreated, severing the article history. Now that the MfD has closed, that history has been lost. I think though that the history needs to be merged back to the redirect for copyright and licensing issues since the text merged to the list comes from that old article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself, I have no objections. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the bit. Imzadi 1979 → 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that was deleted by community consensus after WP:MFD, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida). -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PlanetBravo Question

Hi - I was the one who posted the PlanetBravo article, and I noticed that it has been deleted due to a lack of notability. I just came across another article about the company, and was wondering if this is something that would have saved it from deletion: http://beverlyhills.patch.com/articles/technology-as-a-tool#video-804769

Thanks, Htshafer (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, needs significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, per the page WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet

The article is on hold. REview is complete. Hurry up boy, and get it done with and tell me where I can get teh damn book!! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded at the GA review page, will make notes at that page of addressing changes. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Beyond the First Amendment

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Help?

Since you made WikiProject Bacon. Would you be interested in making a task force about Latin American monarchies for WikiProject Latin America? You don't have to be involved with the project but could you maybe make it. I don't know how to make Wikiprojects so it would be appreciated. It's ok if you don't want to. Spongie555 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great of you to approach somebody else, but that's an interesting association: bacon with Latin American monarchies!! I realise that you did approach Cirt for help, and not me, but perhaps I could offer the following link to provide you with some guidance? This link would be helpful - I assume you've raised the issue with other members of WikiProject Latin America? Arctic Night 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Arctic Night (talk · contribs), most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Net.wars

Hello! Your submission of Net.wars at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arctic Night 23:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed on the Brian Mitchell article

Dear admin, last December editors discussed both the deletion of the Brian Mitchell article and/or the merge of that article into the "Elizabeth Smart Article" one and the result, stated by you, was to Keep ie "The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)" But now an editor has chosen to merge the articles anyway, in complete disregard to what the consensus was, by doing it the other way and merging the 'Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping' article into the "Brian david mitchell" article. I've tried to reverse that merge but can't get it completely done. Can you help out here and reverse the merge? since the consensus was to Keep these two articles separate. 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat24 (talk • contribs)

Have you tried addressing the issue first with the user in question, via their user talk page or article talk pages? -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion of TheWorld Browser arcticle

Hello,

I would like to note that I cannot understand why the article on TheWorld Browser has been deleted. I have not ties to the developers whatsoever, but I have indeed been testdriving an awful lot of browsers, and this Browser is outstandingly well made and obviously very popular in China. The newest version also supports WebKit and IE9 simultanously, which is a hardly found combination. I don't know if the deleted article was advertising-like or whatever, but I firmly believe this Browser is noteworthy. If anything, leave it as a stub, but do leave it. One reason why a Wikipedia page of this Browser would be helpful is that the Browser is China-centered. This means that the English version is available, but not well supported because everything is going on in Chinese. A Wikipedia page would help keeping track of its development of it as a mainly "foreign" browser. Anyway, I personally find Wikipedia increasingly unusable because of unnecessary deletions - a topic on which view probably differ. It's just such a waste of time if one can NOT look up some unknown topic/thing/whatever in Wikipedia but has to search the web. Matthias ME 7295249134743 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTE for some helpful info on notability on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Contents pages navigation proposal

A proposal to add topical links to all of the contents pages has been made. As part of that proposal, the navigation bar at the top of these contents pages would look like this.

Please respond to the proposal, Adding topical links to contents pages navigational headers and footers, as you see fit. In addition, any suggestions about community talk pages where this invitation also could be posted would be greatly appreciated. Regards, RichardF (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Commented at the discussion. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on your comment. I believe a third party needs to step in to avoid an edit sparring match. -- RichardF (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to try WP:RFC, as the next route. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean you're not interested in implementing your third opinion as I suggested? RichardF (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As a Featured portals Co-director, I should probably only comment in so far as providing a comment as an opinion from an interested Wikipedian - and respectfully defer to community consensus. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Without discussion, there is no consensus. Without opportunity, there is no choice. RichardF (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessica Feshbach

The article Jessica Feshbach you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessica Feshbach for eventual comments about the article. Well done! AGK [•] 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. Most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion of Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

Hello, I did go through the deletion discussion of the article. IMO, this Nikon lens does assert notability since it is sold as a Kit lens by Nikon with the Nikon D90 and Nikon D7000 DSLR cameras. A Google search of this lens does produce reliable sources. Therefore, I am of the view that this article should be restored. --JovianEye (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose a draft version, within a subpage of your userspace, to argue it does not fail WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

takemusu article

G'day, apparently you deleted a previous article on the topic Takemusu Aiki Intercontinental. Could you send me the content and say why it was deleted? Thanks! Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)See this for why it was deleted. Basically, it was unsourced and didn't pass an AfD. demize (t · c) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Demize (talk · contribs), most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal bots

Hi, is there a list of bots that update portal sections, particularly "DYK" & "On this day"? Thanks. -- RichardF (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps User:Misza would be the best one to ask about that? -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. RichardF (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Logoesomar.jpg

How do I request deletion for the older image, specifically the big one that violates NFCC CTJF83 13:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stepping away from Scientology articles

Hi Cirt:

In this post at WR, it's alleged that The Best American Magazine Writing 2007 neglects to mention (at least at the time of the posting) that the Janet Reitman article is actually about Scientology. This is used (in part, among many other comments as well) to make the case that you have not really stepped away from Scientology related articles, but rather are still involved, but much more obliquely... do you think that's a fair comment? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is a fair comment. Nor do I think there are many "fair comments" about me at that website. Most of them are fomented by one or two individuals. -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Having been rather roughly dealt by some there, I certainly can sympathize. But maybe I asked the question the wrong way ... do you think that article is in any way Scientology related? What of the other articles mentioned in that thread? Are any of them? ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lar, I thank you for attempting to reach out and sympathize with me and with the way certain individuals have treated me over at an external website offsite from Wikipedia. I truly appreciate your attempting to do that. It is most kind for you to try to see things from my perspective and how it might feel to be treated in such a manner.

• Regarding complaints raised on Wikipedia itself, and the proper way to deal with them: If a Wikipedia editor has a specific complaint about an article in particular, they can feel free to raise that at the talk page of the article. If users engaged in discussion cannot resolve a dispute at that article talk page, the matter can proceed to Third Opinion process. If that does not resolve the matter, there is content-based RFC at the article talk page as an option. And so on.
• To date, the only editor that has commented on-Wikipedia at the article talk page, about the quality of my contributions regarding the article you mention above, was Wikipedia Ambassador Program Steering Committee member editor Sadads (talk · contribs). Sadads read the thread. Sadads read the article.
• Sadads stated of the quality of my contributions to that article: "I think it's in pretty good shape, I don't see any major content issues, I would definitely recommend a GA nomination".
• Sadads stated of the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia in general and of late: "I actually feel sort of humbled in your presence on Wikipedia, really I do not have quite the patience or research skills to regularly turn out articles that could easily find their way to GA and FA review. If you look at our contribution histories, I think you will find that we have both been around about the same amount of time and if anything you have outpaced me in quality and breadth of content, while my contributions have been far more gnomish and organizational and recently related to outreach. Keep it up".

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are evading the quesiton. In response to concerns about your editing raised on Wikipedia, you voluntarily undertook to step away from Scientology related articles. (Indeed, I believe it was in response to a post of mine on this page.) Since then you have commented on a number of Scientology-related articles, and extensively worked on an article (Janet Reitman) which (coincidentally or not) does have some Scientology connections. So, the question, and I ask it openly here and on no other forum: have you withdrawn your voluntary pledge to step away from Scientology-related articles? You are, of course, entitled to do so. I am also entitled to ask.--Scott Mac 21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have stepped back. I have removed hundreds of related articles from my watchlist. I have stopped editing many articles where I was previously active. I did not say I would stop editing related to the topic altogether, I never said that. I have also successfully improved the quality of multiple articles to WP:GA since that time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You said "I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular." and "I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects.". Well, I suppose there's stepping back and stepping back. It still looks to me like you are choosing your editing topics due to their relationship to Scientology - however oblique. That really does leave me asking questions about motivation, and (frankly) makes this look like an obsession. People obsessed with Scientology are always going to struggle with neutrality. Is your commitment to Scientology field so strong that it is simply impossible for you to find totally unrelated projects, even for a few months?--Scott Mac 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If those who wish to attack me and focus on me feel the need to stretch so far as to what you and Lar call "oblique" connections, then that is indeed disturbing. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is calling your considerable talent as a writer into question. Nevertheless, I think Scott asks legitimate questions about your area of focus. I think you should answer them rather than taking umbrage. I've also taken your input to heart and asked a specific question at the talk page of the article I was referring to, and I'd invite a specific answer there. But right now, it does look to me like you've reduced your Scientology involvement, but not eliminated it. As Scott says, your prerogative. But being honest about it would be good. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that it does look to you that I have reduced my involvement in the topic. I have indeed. I have not eliminated it. That is correct. But I have significantly reduced it. Especially so that critics offsite are reduced themselves to "oblique" diatribes. -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your reduction. I just think you should go all the way. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts are noted. I will not be restricting myself from anything "tangential" or "oblique", or more generally related to Freedom of speech, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding that. Are you saying the connection is entirely coincidental? That you had no idea of the Scientology connection? I'm attacking no-one, I'm simply trying to understand.--Scott Mac 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I am agreeing that it is tangential, and "oblique". And far off the main focus of any of those articles. The main focus of the topic of those articles, the main unifying theme of them, is Freedom of speech. Indeed, many of them have the phrase Free speech or Freedom of speech or First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or something like that, directly in the title of the books. -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he is not choosing to edit purposefully in the Scientology topic area, and his scholarship is always very precise on articles that I have seen him work on. I think it is very much his own choice to work on topic areas that are obliquely related to Scientology, as long as he doesn't put too much weight on content related to Scientology. In fact the forum criticizes him for omitting mention not deliberate malice. I don't know why you guys are jumping on him, if the choice to not work with Scientology is his own, not a community enforced sanction. Have you found anything in the scholarship that suggests that the Scientology is something that is critical to covering said books? If so, why aren't we cleaning up the articles instead of going straight at his intentions here, WP:Good faith still pervades even when the user has a troublesome history. Sadads (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads, those are very good points. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you are missing the point. I've no doubt that the article's connection is tangential and oblique - but my question isn't about the article it is about your choice and motivation. Did you just happen to choose an article that coincidentally had an oblique connection to Scientology? Or rather was it, as I might wrongly or rightly surmise, that oblique connection directly related to your choice and motivation. Therein, I think, lies the concern - that your interest in Scientology is driving your participation in Wikipedia. That looks obsessive.--Scott Mac 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well ya, (devil's advocate) but you could say my interest in bridges was what first drove my participation in Wikipedia... nothing wrong with that... the problem isn't the area of interest alone. ++Lar:t/c 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If your interest had been to ensure that Wikipedia didn't let the evil bridge-builders have it all their own way, that might be a bit different.--Scott Mac 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My general interest in Freedom of speech is driving my participation in Wikipedia. You may wish to criticize all the top contributors to WP:WBFAN for being "obsessive" about their topics of focus. See what reaction you get from them. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nice sidestep. So, you are editing in "freedom of speech" and purely coincidentally the articles tend to relate to Scientology? Scientology is not your motivation? OK< I'm going to drop it, I've made my point and I discern I'm not going to get a straight answer.--Scott Mac 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is the main focus, yes. It is not a coincidence, no. It is "tangential" and "oblique", yes. It is not the main motivation, no. I have significantly reduced my direct focus in the main topic area, yes. I have removed hundreds of articles from my watchlist, yes. I am not going to remove myself altogether from things "tangential" and "oblique" or related to Freedom of speech, nope. -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think motivations are irrelevant in this case, as long as we are considering the content itself first. Do we see serious problems in the quality of the content changing because of his past involvement in topics outside Freedom of Speech: no. Are his sources thorough so that whoever chooses to read or review the article can look for omissions and improve it: yes. Should we keep tabs on his articles and be directly critical of the content in such a way that we help improve the article through good faith collaboration: yes. I would strongly suggest that we do not really to heavily on his past record, and reconsider this in a new light. The first thing I see when I look at each of the articles which the forum commented on is that he has done a lot of research. All we can do as fellow contributers is look for ways to make that research more fruitful for other readers, no matter the motivation behind the research itself. I get the impression Cirt isn't here to fight about good faith collaboration on tangential subjects, lets not argue about why he came to the subjects, Sadads (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Though my recent new article creations is at best "tangential" or "oblique" related to the topic of Scientology, I will take the above discussion under advisement - and take perhaps a short break even from the "oblique" and "tangential" new article creation activity related to the topic. The next few new articles I will write and create will not be related to the topic. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. And please realize, if I didn't think you were a good contributor and good writer I wouldn't be sharing my concerns at length. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I think User:Bearian might be confusing me with another user, unless he thinks my jumped-up three-year-old lower-second two-year Law BA is worth anything. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, regardless, I think your opinion is worthwhile. Especially if you are at all active with the project WP:LAW and are interested in issues involving Freedom of speech. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Thanks, Sadads, will respond there. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another one, same place, Sadads (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick response, Sadads (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Halo Group -- a new page of a deleted article

Hello Cirt,

I've added a new page for The Halo Group, which was deleted. I was hoping you could review it to see if the references and structure are acceptable as this is my first article.

I also put up a request for feedback today [16], prior to seeing the note on the discussion tab that the page was deleted.

Manaboutkc (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Manaboutkc, January 31, 2011

Thanks. Brought to WP:AFD for re-evaluation. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Should I remove the request for feedback? Is that redundant? Thanks for your time. Manaboutkc(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

No, that is fine. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed you wrote some of the sources are questionable. Is that something I can fix or is the bigger question one of notability? I'd obviously like to avoid deletion. Manaboutkc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

You can try reading up on pages including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Article development, WP:NOTE, and WP:CITE. -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to self - ideas for new article creation project - novel

Initial ideas

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

---

• Wikipedia:WikiProject London
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian literature
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Books
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Crime task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject England
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature

---

• Mystery fiction
• Sherlock Holmes
• Detective fiction
• Crime fiction
• Whodunit
• Mystery film
• List of crime writers

Note to self - ideas for new article creation project - novel. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Further related topics and articles

• The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time
• Murder mystery game
• Hardboiled
• Art theft
• Crime Writers' Association
• Crime comics
• Giallo
• Category:Mystery novels
• List of mystery writers
• List of thriller authors
• List of Ace Mystery Double Titles
• List of Ace Mystery Letter-Series Single Titles
• List of Ace Mystery Numeric-Series Single Titles
• Japanese detective fiction
• Inverted detective story

Related to literature - perhaps film or television new article creation

• Mystery film
• Category:Mystery television

More ideas. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Expression Book GAN's

Hey, via Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights I noticed you had nominated several FOE books for GAN recently. Freedom of expression is a personal interest of mine, but i already have a horrendously overdue GA review and no expertise / knowledge of american 1st amendment issues - which these books seem to primarily cover - so I am staying away from reviewing these. Nevertheless I thought I would drop a quick thank you note here for your work on freedom of expression coverage on wikipedia! Ajbpearce (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a focus of mine on Wikipedia and a key interest in general. :) Thank you for taking the time to state your appreciation of my efforts on Wikipedia. It is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT topics and Confucianism (2nd nomination)

Hey Cirt, you closed this as delete. However, to preserve article history, I think we need at least a redirect. During the course of the AfD, Regent of the Seatopians copied text from the now deleted article into another one. With it being completely deleted, we've lost the authorial history of that text. LadyofShalott 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections, if you wish to do that. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done - thanks, Cirt! :) LadyofShalott 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Htaahir11

Why did you block this user for only one day? His only contributions were to replace actors in movies with Taahir Henry, who he also created a page for. It seems like he should have been indefinitely blocked. JDDJS (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again, next violation will indeed be indef. -- Cirt (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yiannis Melanitis

I worked quite hard to turn this AfD'd article around over the last couple of days. I thought I had done enough to get it kept. Did you delete it because of all the Delete votes before I turned the article around or did you also agree that the article wasn't good enough to Keep?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yiannis_Melanitis

I think that the references and content are good enough to keep (despite the final decision to delete). Is it possible to get an extension on the AfD?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Relisted. Back at AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I appreciate your thanks. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispatch

Cirt, Awadewit suggested that you might be interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch article on Featured portals (the only area of featured content we haven't covered). Sample previous articles are at {{FCDW}}. We've covered:

• Featured content overview
• Peer review
• Did you know
• Featured lists
• Good articles
• Featured sounds
• Featured topics
• Images
• TFA
• And Featured articles many times: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches

None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Will mull this over and most likely draft something up. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, prolonged procrastination. :( Will ruminate about this more. :P -- Cirt (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Razzies progress

• 15th Golden Raspberry Awards through 29th Golden Raspberry Awards = reformatting process done.
  • Note: Going to have to go back and model these after the modifications made subsequently to 29th Golden Raspberry Awards.
• 29th Golden Raspberry Awards - so far only one expanded with sourcing research. (WP:FL)
• Razzie Award for Worst New Star = reformatting process done, next to use Talk:Razzie Award for Worst Picture as model to reformat other pages in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards by category (with subsection breaks by decade)

Cirt (talk)

Longer term project, -- Cirt (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hansom Cab; Off-Broadway

Happy to help. If you have a moment, would you give your opinion at Talk:Off Broadway and review this edit? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Let me know if there is anything I ought to be doing about the G&S Portal. It seems to be working great. Several of the articles being used in it have been improved, but I think it's still got the right articles cycling. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ney v. Landmark Education

Per the WP:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages, Ney v. Landmark Education doesn't really belong there, as it doesn't appear to be a particularly important case or decision (please correct me if I'm wrong, but it just looks like "district court confirms Landmark and Erhard owe money to Ney"). However, I scoured February 2 and Google and wasn't able to come up with anything else that was really worthy of inclusion that didn't require maintenance, so I don't have a choice but to leave it in. As for Terra Mariana, I can agree with the {{lead too long}}, but not really sure where you see cleanup or additional referencing required (and believe me, I've been pretty harsh when tagging for refimprove and missing citations myself). Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we discuss at the talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord of the Universe is a 1974 American documentary film about Prem Rawat at an event in November 1973 at the Houston Astrodome called "Millennium '73". Lord of the Universe was first broadcast on PBS on February 2, 1974, and released in a VHS format on November 1, 1991. The documentary chronicles Maharaj Ji, his followers and anti-Vietnam War activist Rennie Davis who was a spokesperson of the Divine Light Mission at the time. A counterpoint is presented by Abbie Hoffman who appears as a commentator. It includes interviews with several protagonists, including followers, ex-followers, a mahatma, a born-again Christian, and a Hare Krishna. The production team of Top Value Television produced the documentary, using Portapak video cameras. The TVTV team followed Maharaj Ji across the United States over a period of six weeks, and edited a large amount of tape down to the fifty-eight minute piece. The documentary was generally well-received, and garnered its TVTV production team the 1974 Alfred I. du Pont/Columbia University Award in Broadcast Journalism. The documentary received a negative review in the New York Post, and positive reviews in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times. The San Francisco Bay Guardian wrote that the TVTV team had improved since their previous work, but wanted them to move on to more challenging subjects. (more...)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your participation in Olive's appeal at AE

(Posted verbatim to the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise, to whom this message also applies)

It has been stated in the Olive appeal thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that you are not an uninvolved administrator, despite having opined on the appeal as though you are one. I would ask that you confirm now whether you consider yourself to be a neutral administrator vis-à-vis both Olive and Transcendental Meditation. If you are not, why did you not recuse from administrator activity at the thread? AGK [•] 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Citizen's Briefing Book/GA1

Despite my best efforts, I can't see any reason why this page cannot be passed immediately as a Good Article. I have accordingly passed it. Please take the time to read my review at Talk:Citizen's Briefing Book/GA1 as it contains some suggestions for further improvement. Congratulations on another Good Article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two versions of the same thing

Portal:Contents/Overviews and Portal:Contents/Overview -- RichardF (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. :P -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. -- RichardF (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Chae Hawk

Just wanted to contest your recent deletion of Chae Hawk. From his work with The White Tie Affair to being invited to Lady Gaga's tour, he's done enough to be considered "notable". On top of that, he has a record deal as well. My question now is what exactly do you need to keep the page up? From what I've seen with other artists who had troubles with their wiki's staying up (such as Cyhi Da Prynce who is signed to GOOD Music/Def Jam and was featured on Kanye's recent album which sold over a million copies), it just seems like people on here sometimes don't know how to judge what page is ok to stay up/go down. So please let me know what you need from my end and I will make it happen! Thank you (98.223.177.254 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

If you register an account you can work on it as a proposed draft in workspace. -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do have an account, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I will go ahead and get another cover from the WP:Band requirements and then throw it back up then. Thank you. (Rhymestyle (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

Seeking advice on a GAN (Talk page stalkers also welcome)

Hi. I recently started this review: Talk:Dream_Chronicles/GA1. It was not obviously a quick fail, however I've reached the end of criterion 1 and the article has failed in every way it's possible to fail those criteria, and it looks set to continue the trend. It has become apparent that some of the basic work expected prior to a GA nomination has not occurred. What's your feeling on the etiquette of aborting the GA at this stage and moving to an immediate fail without proceeding to consider the remaining criteria? Am I shortchanging editors who've waited a long time in the queue for this input, or is it a valid response to a sub-par nomination? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article, but I'd say it depends on whether or not the nominators are working to fix things as fast as you're finding problems. In any event I think they deserve a full review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fast reviewer. I doubt that any of the editors have seen the start of my review yet; if they're in the northern hemisphere they may not even be awake yet. But I'll take a short break to get some distance from it, and then return and start dealing with their citation/referencing problems. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You piqued my interest, so I took a quick look at the article. I think that you'd be well within your rights to fail this right now as being very far from reaching even GA's prose requirements. My impression is that it's been written by non-native English speakers, and needs a good seeing to. "The players are required to do is collect a lot of items ..." is just one of very many examples of where the prose in unintelligible. The article is a way from GA, and in your position I'd either fail it or work with the nominators to improve it. Of course there's no obligation on you as the reviewer to do anything other than to decide whether or not the article meets the GA criteria, which it clearly doesn't right now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll finish assessing against the remaining criteria, but in summary form rather than picking out individual examples. That'll give them an idea of where they stand against criteria while still saving me the headache of picking it apart line by line when it's going to need a substantial rewrite in any case. The advice and second opinion is much appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Net.wars

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)