User talk:Cirt/Archive 4

Contributions

WikiLove

This user is a featured portal director.

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cirt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Which bit? I've kinda drifted onto another cause: teh Pinoy Islamic revolutionaries MILF. --Piepie (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess what I found I found some info for the next Season of family Guy:.

I do not know how acurate the descriptions are, but I'm waiting in the press releases come out.Bigelarkin12 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to put the link it http://stewiesplayground.com/family-guy-season-7-episode-guide-for-family-guy-season-7/

Bigelarkin12 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a website that does not satisfy WP:RS, not appropriate to use as a source. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And incase you didn't know, Bigelarkin12, Family Guy doesn't have individual season pages. Although it probably should have, they've never been created, but as Cirt said, that is not a reliable source, unfortunately. Qst (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA, and in particular for drawing attention to my list of rescued articles. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know where I'd be able to get a copy, but I haven't had a chance to make the trip yet. I don't think the book has an in-depth discussion of The Principal and the Pauper. I'm just loooking for another source that says the episode was a turning point in the series' quality. Zagalejo^^^ 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, by playing around with my search terms, I was able to see enough of the text to come up with a quote for the article. I've done a lot of fiddling with that section, so let me know what you think. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Zagalejo^^^ 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that arrangement is ideal for simple circles.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeet! Thank you! Cirt (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As we know, here are two types of audited articles - inherently unstable ones, which are unavoidable, and those of limited subject matter. I think we both recognise that the bigger problem is that the latter type shouldn't exist in the first place. If an article is truly as well written as it can be, no matter how short it is, why shouldn't it be featured? After all, it represents the best coverage Wikipedia could possibly give to the contents of this article.

The difference between you and I that we have seen so far however is that I think that while some articles can't pass GA/FL, we need to cater for them in FT/GT. One thing I was planning to do at some point was to start a campaign to overturn the stigma that short articles experience at GA/FA/FL. So while inherently unstable articles will always (temporarily) be audited, if we do this, we could then get rid of the limited subject matter clause. However, this would have to come now after the implementation of GT. How's that sound? rst20xx (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a great idea, and good luck with it - but I'd still feel a bit better about the whole thing if the WP:FT/WP:GTOP nominator could show evidence that they had nominated the article unsuccessfully to WP:GAN and the GA nom failed for those specific above reasons, not for something the GA reviewer said was related to the quality-content of the article itself, and of course also that there was a Peer review. That would back up your notion that certain articles can't make it past WP:GAN - because you never know if the Featured/Good topic nominator(s) never even tried. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See my latest reply at Wikipedia talk:Good topics, this should answer your questions as to what has and hasn't happened before, and my exact position on audited articles - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking over WP:FT, I still see multiple "audited quality"-level Lists that could most certainly have been improved for at least an attempt at WP:FLC before nominating for WP:FTC. The whole idea and attitude of "audited quality" seems to be defeatist to me and IMO all articles should go through at least WP:PR and WP:GAC, and all Lists through WP:PR and WP:FLC, before appearing at WP:FTC. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is the case with the Gillingham list, and have been considering nominating that topic for removal for some time now (it also fails for a couple of other reasons IMO, it doesn't have a players of the year article when the other football club articles do, and since the date it passed a list has been created which should be part of the topic but isn't, and it's not a FL). As for the Hockey Awards, I think I agree here, but as I said, I would personally have made those articles go through FLC before allowing them to be included as audited.

If you think the rule should be changed so that all articles of limited scope must go through this step before being allowed in as such, then that is a different conversation from the one we are having, and it is a move I would probably support. However, we need to cater for such lists in WP:FT? and WP:GT? as it has been demonstrated with the Canadian elections topic that lists CAN fail WP:FLC for being too short, and we also need to cater for if this same thing happens in the future to an article at WP:GAC - rst20xx (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think in some respects it is silly to "feature" articles/lists that have not been given a WP:GA/WP:FLC rating at the very least. I agree with you that those particular topics you mention could be ripe for removal, as it is quite obvious that the "audited quality" lists in those topics could most certainly be improved upon. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Shall I bring this rule change proposal to WP:FT?? "That instead of having a peer review, all short but stable articles/lists should go through GAC/FLC, and only if they fail solely due to inherent shortness, they can be included in FTs." (And then the GAC/FLC will also effectively act as a peer review) - rst20xx (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say in addition to a peer review. No reason not to have had a peer review prior to GAC/FLC, or most certainly after GAC/FLC. More specifically, after all points have been addressed that were brought up in the FLC or GA Review, a Peer review could be used to get an additional review and more points to work on after that (or the other way round). Cirt (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but it still seems pointless and timewasting to me to make articles go through both. Howsabout this: the guidelines say that, "if the nominator thinks the article/list will fail GAC/FLC, then they request of the reviewers to give the articles a general review while they're voting, even if they're planning to oppose/fail the article/list for length" - rst20xx (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree that it is pointless to make articles go through both the peer review and GAC/FLC process. Both are quite helpful on the road to featured quality. See for example Awadewit's FAC prep list. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I agree that it's not pointless for an FAC or FLC that's likely to pass, but an FAC/FLC/GAC usually brings up all the issues that would be raised at peer review. The point of peer review is simply so that articles about to pass FAC/FLC have as many issues fixed before they get there, so they don't have to be fixed at FAC/FLC.

...However, I would be willing to back down on this and accept your point of view, but as you know, any rule change is up to consensus, not just you and I, so can we both agree to bring this proposal to WP:FT?, and leave it up to the wider voting public there to decide whether articles/lists also need a peer review? rst20xx (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can bring it as one unified proposal for GAC/FLC, and, peer review, then I agree with that. There is no reason why that is not the best way to go and constructive. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I would rather bring it as "We both want the change to GAC/FLC, we disagree on the peer review, please vote for whether you support the change to GAC/FLC, and also if you support, vote for whether you want the peer review". Come on, I don't think you can reasonably argue with leaving something up to consensus - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I bring this? rst20xx (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, something of that nature and the wording you use above sounds fine. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to expand on your POV - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) So, last thing for today. I think we've reached an agreement now, but just to confirm: Would you be willing to allow a change to the proposed good topic criteria on audited articles to match the current featured topic criteria? With the understanding that any changes to the featured topic criteria, due to our current proposals, also happen to the good topic criteria. (If you agree to that, then I'll change my oppose to support) - rst20xx (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what the change is. What's your proposed additional wording to add to WP:WIAGT ? Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, to match criteria 3.c) at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, as I would feel uncomfortable including our proposed revisions to 3.c) until they have passed. However, once they have passed, those changes can also be brought to WP:WIAGT problem-free - rst20xx (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, since we are starting with a fresh start for WP:GTOP anyways, I'd prefer using the 2nd proposed revision additional criteria. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously, I'm not going to agree to that, as I don't agree with that criteria. However, I will apply the simply logic that whichever passes at WT:FT? is bound to pass at WP:WIAGT, and restate that we should use the default position, i.e. the 3.c) currently in place at WP:FT?, until the proposals have passed, at which point we should change it to whatever it is that passes. What say ye? :P - rst20xx (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the 3.c) currently in place at WP:FT?, and as WP:GTOP is a fresh start, I don't think we should be using that. However I would not be opposed to adopting the consensus of one of the two proposals given for the changes to 3.c), if consensus is to adopt one of those two. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well look, I'm not going to support until this changes, and that might be after the good topics poll has finished. However, you must see that if neither of the proposals on the 3.c) change pass (which I'm sure one of them will), it would be quite simple to bring a rule change proposal to WP:WIAGT suggesting that the WP:FT? 3.c) is adopted there, and that is also bound to pass. Also, surely the 3.c) currently in place at WP:FT? is better than the contradictory situation that would arise without it. It may not be perfect, but at least it makes sense - rst20xx (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pages such as List of Nunavut general elections and Gillingham F.C. records being part of a "featured" topic are prime examples of why I am against the current version of WP:FT?'s 3.c) being adopted at WP:GT?. I continue to disagree, and say there is zero contradiction with the current criteria at WP:GT?. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a contradiction, firstly for inherently unstable articles, and secondly for the possibility of an list/article failing its FLC/GAC solely being inherently short - such as List of Nunavut general elections! rst20xx (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, we've got feedback from 6 or 7 other editors over the course of this discussion, and every other editor has agreed entirely with what I've said. We are bringing rule changes to fix the two problems you had with the criteria. Can you not just compromise that little bit, and include it for the short period it will take for the two changes to pass? rst20xx (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to use an exclamation point about this. List of Nunavut general elections could absolutely be brought up to featured list status. I looked over its last WP:FLC. Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) brought up suggestions of how to lengthen the list, such as: How many votes did each person get, or what percentage? Were there any other candidates? - there could even be a few sentences about each election. The nominator essentially refused to do this, and the FLC did not succeed. The "featured" topic promotion was sort of an easy way out, of having a featured star on the talk page, without doing the work to add more paragraph/prose to the list about each entry, which would not have been that hard to do. A prime example of all that is at fault with the current criteria at WP:FT? 3.c) and why that should not be implemented for a process that is a fresh start like WP:WIAGT. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason he was unwilling to change it was that at the moment it is presented in a consistent style to the other articles, and felt that any more information would be overkill, ESPECIALLY when it's all included in Nunavut general election, 2004 and should also in theory be in Nunavut general election, 1999. If you included the extra information in List of Nunavut general elections, you may as well merge the 3 articles together! So not making these changes seems perfectly valid to me, and hence, the article is inherently short - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way. You said, and I quote, "Obviously I will defer to community consensus on whatever is decided - so if consensus is to keep using the "audited quality" part of WP:FT? in the WP:GT? process, I will certainly go along with that." Now, editors directly expressing opinions in favour of including the current audited bit are, myself, sephiroth bcr and Ruslik. And indirectly we have Judgesurreal777, PresN, MASEM, Guyinblack25 and every editor that voted for it to originally be in WP:FT?. Against it, we have you. I call that consensus - rst20xx (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, no need for the exclamation point, or the CAPS. You may wish to do that on a general talkpage, but there is no need for the emphasis here with me - again in my opinion it detracts from a constructive dialogue and gives me the appearance that you are shouting at me.

And indirectly we have Judgesurreal777, PresN, MASEM, Guyinblack25 and every editor that voted for it to originally be in WP:FT?. - Indirectly? That seems to be stretching it a bit. What about all those 20 or so editors that placed their sentiment as "Support" at the first proposal on the talk page of WP:GTOP? In any event, I am still hesitant to place the WP:FT? 3.c) criteria at WP:WIAGT - because if neither your nor my preferred modifications proposals gain consensus, we are left with what we started with.

But, I have given this some more thought, and there are indeed multiple editors that seem to support in principle this "audited quality", so perhaps we should just keep a tighter eye on things at the actual candidates page where discussions take place.

As for List of Nunavut general elections, I think it is quite telling that we simply attempt to explain away resistance to trying to get the list to WP:FL status, which is unfortunate. So what if some information may appear in 2 articles, if it makes the list page better for it, as a standalone piece, then so be it, IMO. But that is a discussion for another time. I really do think that if this idea of "audited quality" were the way to go, it would be something that should be accepted throughout all of Wikipedia and not just singularly at WP:FT. I think we should let the straw polls at WP:GTOP play out for the duration of the 7 days set out at the beginning of the polls, and see what the community thinks. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will comment at WP:WSS/D. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello there have replied to your comment at talk Portal Arctic. Thank you very much. Have been spending a lot of time, trying to make the portal not empty, can re-do appearance shortly, unless you want to putter also, no problems from me. Do you like tabbed portals, such as Portal:Africa or Portal:Australia for two quick examples. I removed the news box section as there is no wiki news arctic portal nor wikinews arctic category, so the robot for bringing in fresh news content I don't think will work...will try it shortly. Perhaps a box section on selected quotes would work, however. I would like to also change the topics section to an Arctic topic template - perhaps similar to the Antarctic topic template - I think rather than a mixture of topic templates. ... Would like to still put rotating pictures into the category section, and categorise these pictures as well, and make a talk page Portal:Arctic template acknowledging that the article appeared on the portal. Lots to do yet, and still tagging article as I go along too. Do you want to have a peek at the nominations at articles and at biography and have a say one way or t'other. I wasn't sure to add them or not, so just commented about them. All the pictures are featured- except one -which is a nominated featured picture. For feature criteria, we seem to be getting close to the 10 articles, have more than 10 images, more than 10 DYK, but they like them 3 at a time on the sub page, so as there are 15, can rearrange the DYK page to be 5 each DYK sub pages showing 3 DYK hooks. I just cannot find 10 biographies of GA or FA quality however. SriMesh | talk 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it would be cool to compare portal notes. I have just put one of mine into portal review, cannot find the minimum GA, A and FA articles to try to apply to put it forward for feature for the portals I started. Perhaps, I can revamp one that was FA and died, which I changed to rotating recently, but it has too many main page mistakes still. I will modify some of the above notes about the Portal and put them on the Portal talk page, and then make a comment at the new wikiproject for feed back tomorrow. Kind Regards, and your comments are appreciated. SriMesh | talk 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your bizillion portal features WOW!!! that is awesome. Will look at the all of them tomorrow as well.SriMesh | talk 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Shawn Lonsdale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Shawn Lonsdale you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Shawn Lonsdale for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) - Cirt (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

rst20xx (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

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

Hope you like cake - rst20xx (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I love cake. Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The lolcat image in the article is free... dunno if you wanna use it though. —Giggy 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That could work, could use the caption to show relevancy. I'll probably get to adding that soon. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I also added a (free) Project Chanology pic to the article, for some more variety. —Giggy 03:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider the issues being raised there. Milo 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the article a little, and added a reference. My question is, would you be willing to co-nominate the article for FA with me? I'll create the FAC page if you like. --LAA Fan 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying on my talk page. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please revisit Talk:List of new religious movements#Recap and see if you agree with my placement of your comment in my recap. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if my comments on talkpages are not copy/pasted into other locations without checking with me first, as opposed to after the fact - especially in a Request for Comment discussion. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I was trying to recap as the main section was way too tl;dr to make sense of without an effort. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is the page Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations only edited by a bot? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt/Archive 4, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
— JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Good luck with the new tools. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good! You can now use the buttons that should appear under "What links here", which are a lot more convenient than the clunky ones along the top. No doubt you've worked out what they do. Please sweep through the diff each time, because glitches do occur, such as the one in Clinton that someone kindly pointed out at the bottom of my talk page. And I'm now using the very bottom button where the article is and should be obviously in US format (cleans out any inconsistencies at the same time) and the second-bottom one for international; but please be careful: if there's a risk of complaints by editors that you've wrongly changed the format, it's better to use the "remove date links" button, which doesn't change any of the formatting; then leave a note in the edit summary or better on the talk page asking them to work it out using MOSNUM's guidelines.

Last thing we want is edit wars over anything to do with date formatting!

Let me know if you have any queries. Tony (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd, seems kind of redundant to have the links for the script both at the top right tools and below the "what links here"... Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right to say that it is redundant. The ones at the top have been there a long time. The ones at the right have only been there a few days and we are still working on the code. It is planned to eliminate duplication. But this is something that I would be delighted if you added to User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Feel free to add anything else there about the script. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented over there. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have removed every single edit I have ever done for David Gaiman, including one of his children from the box (top right), his british scientologist cat (yet his english scn cat remains, so therefore he must also be a british scn!), his date of birth, his place of birth, and his jewish cats despite the fact that the article says he is of jewish origins. Why remove all this? It is just wasting time. In what way are my edits not "reliable" and "controversial"?

With regard to Narconon, the international link was already there - what's inappropriate about giving the UK link as well? Also, what's wrong with showing NN Arrowhead's CARF certificate which shows it's professionalism and high quality. Why would you not want this known? It is an important fact in Narconon's story that they have achieved this. CARF is even mentioned in the article. I am very familiar with citing references so what specific edits did I make that I should have referenced - please be specific. Johnalexwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You say "none of your edits added any cited sources at all to back up any of the information you added." I added his date of birth - other entries don't have a reference for DOB. I added his place of birth - other entries don't give references for place of birth. I added his third child - other entries don't give references for their children including David's two children that have been listed in his entry, unreferenced, probably since it was first created. I added the Jewish cat as it already says he is Jewish in the entry. I added the British Scientologists cat because it already had English Scientologists. Please tell me what I have to do in order to put my edits back. Johnalexwood (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What do i need to fix on the WP:Russia page to make you like it, if you tell me i can fix those links your talking about. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Sorry for my late reply. Your right i should have asked someone before the major revamping i did, but i have done it to so many other project without a user who has objected it. But your right i should have asked. Oh and thanks for adding them on the talkpage, i'll begin straight away. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not needed:

Their are links to the userboxes.
Gallery
Did You Know is on the portal and most project has this on the portal page, so its not needed here.
Tables of contents and indexes
Project divisions
And the i've re-written the lead so thats no really importent either.

--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously i think you are doing a great job, but all of this is not needed and the the WP:Russia is now the best organized wikiproject for a country on english wikipedia. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats okay with me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job, question why is it an example link at the bottom of the page? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Link title, it leads to a page where its written example com so i'll remove it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that. I'm basically trying to give him a chance to come clean and address the username problem on his own. I prefer to avoid username blocks without discussion where it's possible. Mango juice^talk 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere once that Wikipedia editors can make life so difficult for 'ordinary people' who are just trying to contribute to WP that it puts people off. I can really understand that! I'm just trying to contribute and everything I have added is true! Just search for "ramzy" and "scientologist" in google and you will see what I mean. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_scientologist.html and http://www.our-home.org/hossamramzy/ for example. But you have been vague again and not specifically told me what I have done wrong or what "could be regarded as defamatory". Johnalexwood (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'personal' websites I just added to Hossam Ramzy's page and Frank Laidlaw's are actually pages on Scientology's own site http://on-line.scientology.org/ and the other site I referenced for Hossam was http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_scientologist.html which is a completely independent page I just found in Google. Can you please put the references and the categories back? Johnalexwood (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no other site out there that proves Frank Laidlaw is a Scientologist, what else can I do? And if http://www.adherents.com/ is not independent, what is? Why is this site not good enough? Johnalexwood (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He has told me personally that it is OK to use that photo, the copyright of which he owns. Please guide me through the correct procedure so the photo can stay on his entry. With regard to references, again - what specifically do I need to reference? The reference citing page you sent me said that you need to reference things that are likely to be challenged, not every single sentence, surely! Johnalexwood (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the photo - I have run out of time now so it will probably have to just get deleted and I'll sort the paper work out as soon as i can to put it back. Re his entry, can the 'needs more references' notice be removed now as there's nothing left that hasn't been referenced now! What I don't get though is how his official site is given there and that corroborated everything that was said there (that has now been removed).Johnalexwood (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, we try to take care not to overwhelm any one editor or WikiProject at FAR. If an editor or Project intends to work on article, having two up at once can be daunting, and they may give up. You have added a Chris 73 article when I just put one up a day ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's likely to be fallout from that; it tends to really upset people to get back-to-back FARs, leading to little likelihood that someone will work on the article, or the need for an extended FAR if he asks for extra time to deal with two at once. Just a heads up. A note of explanation, that you weren't aware, on his talk page might help smooth things over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Unfortunately I won't have much time to review either the articles. I may give a try on the weekends, but otherwise the FAR may run its normal course. It is unfortunate for me, but i completely understand that this process is necessary to improve Wikipedia in general. Cheers -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is a problem, since, as far as I know, his birth date and place have never been published elsewhere. But I do have personal and documentary proof. Ksnow (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Ksnow

Roll call and Coordinator nominations

It's that time of year again – we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!

It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Red Hot Chili Peppers Krusty.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged it with {{db-author}} to speed up the process, there are much better images in the article now. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of Mick Woodmansey (who everyone else knows as Woody Woodmansey, although his real name is Mick), the second External link given in his entry http://www.nndb.com/people/503/000091230/ states that his religion is Scientology. Is that, therefore, good enough to give him cats British & English Scientologists? Johnalexwood (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was originally going to wait until the weekend, but I noticed that WP:DOH is at 99 GAs right now, and that's my bid to get the 100th. However, Ctjf nominated When You Dish Upon a Star first, so it will likely become the 100th GA. BTW, could you take a look at Shii Ann Huang for me? An obviously biased person keeps adding unsourced facts to the page and criticizing me of being an unabashed fan of her (when in all honesty I had never heard of her before and when I read the page I found she lacked notability and nominated it for deletion). This user is willing to edit war (at one point violating 3RR) to keep his POV in the article and I was thinking full protection may be necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to alert you to a statement I made on the Leo Ryan talk page about whether he was the first, and only, member in the Congress killed in the line of duty, whatever that's supposed to mean. I don't see what weight is to be given to Lantos when he speaks in defiance of fact. 71.136.180.66 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As a result of a recent AfD on this article, the decision was made to redirect, and you were responsible for performing this. Checking this morning, I noticed that one of the original article contributors had restored the article over the redirect without having made any substantial changes to the content. Personally, I'd regard this as not following WP guidelines - much the same as restoring an article deleted as a result of an AfD discussion. I've rolled back their edits on the article to your redirect, but would like an opinion as to whether I'm correct. There have been some....err..heated comments from the author(s) about my deletion proposal of this article (and several other related ones - Hansen Nichols, Miguel Mendoza (singer) etc.), so I don't want to be accused of being biased. I also think the author should be warned about this sort of action, but again think that if it came from me, even if worded carefully, it may be taken as a personal attack. I'd therefore appreciate any thoughts you may have about the appropriate course of action to take (if any). :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any WP guideline/policy that actually says that this sort of activity isn't appropriate ? I can't find anything lurking in the AfD guidelines. If I could actually point them to something that said either what they shouldn't do and/or what they should actually do, it would make a much better point. (Incidentally, I rolled back rather than undoing as they'd made three edits). CultureDrone (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you found it useful! Unfortunately I don't maintain the script anymore - I don't have much time for even editing these days. Sorry, but I hope you still get some use out of it! Johnleemk | Talk 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this page, a wise move, especially to deal with the disruption coming from external sources. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, however it's locked because of a blocked user who might be tempted to come back, rather than anything coming from enturblation.org. It seems that a lot of people have (proven!) claims that they've been subject to systemic abuse by Scientology, and I don't want an edit war starting. I feel this issue will become more of a battleground between those who have been abused and those who belong to the Church - tensions will run high, and I don't want them spilling over onto the article! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the film section in its entirety. It should not have been whittled away. I'll keep an eye open and see if it needs to be a matter of community discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We shall see about that. :) Hope all is well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I convince you to replace this instead with Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard? That's the form that all the other categories within Category:Works by author take, which are further subcategorized not by fiction or non-fiction but by the form of the work, such as novel, short story, essay, etc. Furthermore, "fictional work" sounds not like it's about works of fiction, but rather about fictional works depicted within real works of fiction. If you could create Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard and then move all the articles over there, I could just delete Category:Fictional works by L. Ron Hubbard without the trouble of a CFD rename. Thanks! Postdlf (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On 3 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Help at Any Cost, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good job with a DYK and GAN at the same time! --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, better hearing it from me now than in a GAR later! =D the_ed 17 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think we can just leave this as is now. I realize you weren't the only one talking, I just didn't see why any new discussion needed to be initiated in the first place. Marskell (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I imagine that it can be done, but I'm not the maintainer of the script. I would recommend that you talk to Johnleemk as he wrote the original script. I can probably make the changes, but it is often better to have the original author make changes than a third party and the original author will understand things better than I would. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Sure, I can give it a try. It might be a few days until I can get it working. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I was faster than I thought. =) You will need to add

importScript('User:Gogo Dodo/CloseAFD.js');

to your monobook.js replacing the import of the current script. The script should automatically figure out that you are not an admin and put in the non-admin closure as appropriate. It doesn't add it to the Talk pages for "no consensus" and "merge" since those should not be non-admin closures. In addition to the non-admin stuff, I cleaned up some of the code and now it does the proper thing should you cancel or not answer the prompts. Anyways, give it a try and see how it works for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No problem. You should be able to try it out on any live AfD as it does not save automatically. I didn't want to alter the behavior of the script too much and surprise editors that are using it by automatically saving. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your messages: I added the links in. You'll need to reload the script to pick up the changes. I checked the procedures at WP:NAC and step 1's example shows "(non-admin closure)" in it. I also looked at a couple of live non-admin closed AfDs and they are all in the AfD itself. You're right about the oldafdfull. I fixed that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I'm glad that it works. I'll probably wait a day or so before replacing the live copy so you can test it a bit more and I can mull over the changes to make sure I didn't make any mistakes. I can't say I've watched that show. Obviously, I'm partial to a different cartoon. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you had any issues with the script? I'd like to push the changes out and delete my fork. Though Mr.Z-man has come up with a script that pretty much supersedes any need for the update. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I've updated the main copy. Once you change your monobook.js, I'll delete my forked copy. Mr.Z-man's script is fully automated, while this one is not. I believe it also does all of the Talk page notifications automatically instead of you having to track it down. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Like I said, a day late and a dollar short. But, oh well. =) I don't think that replacing the script would be a good idea since they behave so radically different. Once Mr.Z-man finishes his script, I can make a note in the documentation that the old script is deprecated and recommend that the new one be used. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Not a problem. It gave me a chance to refresh my memory on JavaScript programming, so it was all good. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget when you relist an AFD to remove the transclusion from the old AFD log and add it to the log on the day you relist it. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hey Cirt,

I just fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuǐshū, an article you relisted. Simply putting the relist template on the page isn't enough--you have to untransclude it from the former log and re-transclude it in the current log. You've done some others like this, too. I haven't fixed them yet--I need to go offline now--so I hope you'll check out your contribs & fix 'em up. It's a common mistake, so no worries. Thanks for helping out with the AfD backlogs. — Scientizzle 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think I have addressed them all, though it was very very very slow going loading and saving all of those very very large AfD pages for those different days. In the future it might be helpful to have a script, or better yet a bot, do that. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. You're right--I didn't notice that Stifle had already brought up the same issue. I believe there is (was?) a bot in the works that would automatically relist, but I can't remember who was working on it and am unaware of its progress. The tedium of editing those log pages is why I try to do them in bunches. Cheers, — Scientizzle 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I have reversed your non-admin closure of this AfD discussion - we've already had the drama of a deletion review request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3 following the previous non-admin closure, which led to the AfD being reopened - I really think it's for the best to let it run it's full course to avoid any further protest. Don't worry, it's pretty clear the article will be kept. --Stormie (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being cool about it, and yep, I figured you probably hadn't seen the previous back-and-forth at DRV. --Stormie (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Started writing that before a meeting and it would look like someone's beat me to it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your help. I wanted to add one comment but the AfD page was closed before I could. Anyway I added it at the collectonian's talk page. Katzmik (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but as you saw I upped the pic pages and then added one of the noms. I didn't add the other noms since they are my own pics, and I'd prefer some oversight/more than one person agrees they are good for inclusion. So, if have a chance, add or remove. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about that Cirt. I just tried to find you on #wikipedia but you disappeared about 50 minutes ago... I may just need a quick tutorial on how to move the transcluded pages over. If you could drop onto #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en I am in now. Or just message me on my talk page with some basic instructions if you wouldn't mind. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. I got it! Cheers! :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to see that the article passed. Thanks for taking the time and effort to review it. thebogusman (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much for doing that, I took at look at moving the image yesterday, but didn't know how exactly to do it myself. thebogusman (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that wikipedia has a set of guidelines on when a debate may be closed as "speedy keep", available at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I mention this because I think that your recent non-admin close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Politics in America doesn't meet those criteria. I'm not suggesting this in order to contest the outcome of your decision (as the Afd was going to be closed as keep anyway), just to inform you abot those guidelines in case you didn't know. Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, will most certainly take WP:Speedy keep into account in the future. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: see also other side of thread as related to application of WP:SNOW. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like for you to take a look at the proposal made on the talk page for renaming the Section header, and addition of citations. I think this more reflects Academia's viewpoint. Thanks. Groupsisxty (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look, thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look there :) Groupsisxty (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message :-) Production info is always the hardest stuff to find for 30 Rock episodes. I am quite busy, but I'm sure Jamie will be able to find something, although I'll still be on the lookout. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why there are certain members of the DYK talk page unwilling to go to the community to build consensus? Haven't we already had many ANI complaints over actions like this in the past? Am I the only one who finds this disturbing when combined with the fact that they are putting forth "unspoken rules" which are constantly changed and reedited by the same user, and that they no longer reflect anything that was originally there, nor have the community through consensus building accept them? Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But heres the rub - DYK involves everyone, as a lot of admin watch the template page and main page, but few watch the talk page because its not connected in the same way, nor do people look to it for any radical differences in DYK. Thats why the WW problem happened before, and why DYK claims of "consensus" are quickly overrun when issues happen on the main page and the like. The lack of inclusiveness causes problems, and we should really try to notify as many people as possible for a change. I put forth three interpretations from what I can see. Are there any others to list under the DYK rules section? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is trying to get something set so I can act in the future. If they seriously want to put forth this 20% requirement, I will not be putting forth complete pages like I have been doing for DYK. I will be leaving a lot of content out until after it has made it to the main page. Why? Because I believe that there are a lot of things that I will miss and will be corrected by those viewing it on the main page, even if I have to produce a shoddy article first. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi as both yourself and CalendarWatcher have contacted me regarding this article and the AFD, I am going to respond to you both on the article talk page rather than having comments spread all over the place. Hope this is ok. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, responded there in the subsection above your post. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt, you participated in the FAR for Hydrochloric acid. With a joint effort of WP:Chem and other editors, significant progress has been achieved. Would you please comment in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hydrochloric acid, and adjust your 'remove' recommendation accordingly? Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

Best of luck, although I doubt you'll need it! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too, for your RFA. Have a gr8 day -- Tinu Cherian - 06:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the existing comments on the talk page covered the issue sufficiently. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay if that's what you think, no worries. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I'd like to request further information on this ticket. Specifically, is it a blanket permission from the Ontario New Democratic Party to use all of their photos of their ten current MPPs (Howard Hampton, Gilles Bisson, Cheri DiNovo, France Gélinas, Andrea Horwath, Peter Kormos, Rosario Marchese, Paul Miller, Michael Prue and Peter Tabuns), or does it apply only to Cheri DiNovo? Thanks. I'm asking because Horwath's image is currently being nominated for deletion, and several of the others have no images or very poor ones, so I'd like to clarify whether that permission is extendable to all ten of them or not. I've already been waiting for almost a week after having asked another editor for assistance with this, so I'd like to resolve it as soon as possible. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Miles Fisher you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Miles Fisher for things needed to be addressed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand if you can't work on the article for a few days, and I appreciate your thank you. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations on the article. I appreciate it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, great work and it was a good read. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict on dyk ... I hasd been debating with BorgQueen where the hook should go and wanted to get it in place. I am not desperate to do the rest. cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it was just one of the many articles I've looked at so far in Category:B-Class Film articles needing review. I've already whittled the category down from about ~1,000 articles to ~350 and will hopefully finish them all within the next week or two. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Norways is easier ... but the easiest are where you just edit them. Sadly many portals just get out of date. these random ones at least give the impression that they are changed. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers thanks. I hope you enjoyed the read! :) Gary King (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good...Join us in IRC CTJF83Talk 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Will reply at your talkpg. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people are being attacked in your RFA for various reasons, such as not editing recently. You should take the highest moral ground and condemn this. These accusations inhibit commentary. Your win will be tainted by possible voter manipulation.

A good strategy would be to forcefully condemn this intimidation and condemn anyone that does so. By doing so, you will stand above the fray. In the end, you will still win.

This is what political courage is all about.

Good luck as an administrator. Be very kind to others and you will go far. Pretend you are the Queen of England. She talks nicely to her subjects. However, she is not a weakling. If you mess with the UK, she will have nuclear weapons dropped on you (in the extreme case). Spevw (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and your suggestions, and your well-wishes to me as a potential administrator. As far as comments in the RFA by users that have not edited recently, I defer to the judgment of the bureaucrats, who are more experienced in these matters than I. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, only one day to go. I know how difficult it is to be the subject of so much discussion. I am sorry if my zealous comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt might have put you in an awkward position, as noted in the section above. Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully the crats won't have too hard of a time sorting it all out in the end. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your new tools! henrik•talk 21:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's over at last! Congrats mate. Not that I ever doubted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations -- I'm surprised to learn you weren't already an admin, and dismayed to see that I missed your entire nomination -- I would have enjoyed the opportunity to give you my enthusiastic support. Thanks for all your hard work! Also, don't we have a DYK to write up for a new article you wrote? I'd be happy to do that if you don't have the time/inclination, I think the 5 day mark is approaching. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A user who's extremely deserving of the tools. Congrats! Wizardman 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! =D D.M.N. (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - you've been demoted from editor to janitor! I hope you enjoy cleaning up after messes and changing broken light bulbs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

May you wield the mop and the flamethrower with dignity and equanimity, and hope you prove all us naysayers wrong. Good luck with the new buttons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing your RfA, use the tools well and prove the result was the right one! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. It was a bumpy ride. But I admire the way in which you have handled yourself not merely at the RfA, but also more generally over the past year or so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the crew! Down here in the basement with the brooms, blowers, mops, vacuums, overalls, rubber stamps, inkpad (dry), canteen (out of coffee again), message board (fallen bits of paper littering the floor below), telephone (often out of order), union rep office (empty), forklifts (enter in the next race!), and toxic industrial strength chemicals, you'll be a good addition. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations ' on your successful RFA... Best wishes and good luck again -- Tinu Cherian - 10:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
All the best wishes for your adminship! But careful with that mop, pls, these Janitor tools can get out of control...Gray62 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		You are an inspiration to all editors who wish to live down their mistakes. Thank you for all your hard work, for your many featured credits, and most of all for making the most stunning turnaround I have yet witnessed on Wikipedia. It's been an honor to work with you on featured portal drives and the triple crown awards. All the best with your new mop, Durova^Charge! 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, it has indeed been a most interesting experience, and thank you very much for your nominations. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy adminship (I'm not actually familiar with the modern expression of what one says to a newly-promoted admin). ;) Qst (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just created a couple of new templates that simplify the "trophy case" thingy at the top of user pages. See this diff to see how they're used -- and, if you have any suggestions, please let me know (I haven't made many templates before, it's a new area for me). -Pete (talk)

Looks quite useful, will look into this in more detail later. (I also think I like the lighter stars. :P -- ) Cirt (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually this diff is probably more useful, as it shows a transition from the hard-coded version to the template version. (By the way I'm not sure what the "title" field was used for, and didn't incorporate it -- so any suggestions on that are welcome.) -Pete (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Protonk (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

After all the animosity towards your RfA, you could only be Rush Limbaugh! Anyways, congrats on your RfA. I think WBJ made the right choice and was saddened by the number of obvious Socks that came out to oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about your identity or other user names, but I know who you are too. You're a gregarious and somewhat adversarial reviewer who actually cares about the pagespace you review and edit. Your edits and your actions under this user name tell me plenty about who you are and how judiciously you'll swing any mop-like utensil. Congratulations! Now get to work... BusterD (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. WJBScribe made a valid summation and close. A lot of good editors put their trust in you. I hope you find the admin bits of use to you and I hope that you are sensitive to the concerns raised in the RfA. I sincerely hope that any suspicions that I might harbor are ill-founded. If they are, then best of luck to you. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure ~~hope~~ Cirt is cognizant of the doubts that people have, and will do his best to prove them wrong. Congratulations. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty dumb and useless thing to say. Keep your doubts to yourself. If you have a problem with someone's behavior, take steps to have it addressed. In the meantime, happy editing. -Pete (talk)

If only you knew... Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion, and good luck. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Cirt on your successful RFA! :) I'm glad you are now an administrator. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, Cirt, if so many people hated you that they'd sock to keep you away from the admin tools, you must have become an admin halfway through the RfA! Good luck, you'll do great, WJ made the right decision, etc, etc, etc. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! --69.156.172.115 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Sorry to hear that your RFA was disrupted by socks and general nonsense, but you'll do just fine with the tools. seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Rather late I realized I was being swallowed by a drama not of my choosing but I'm glad it turned out right. Happy administering! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratualtions. Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done. All the best. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! rootology (C)(T) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Have fun with the mop :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Congrats and thanks for the good work lately for WP:ORE! Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Congratulations on your successful RfA. WJBscribe to me made the right choice in promoting you. I just wanted to come by and say very well done on all your featured articles on Wikipedia. Your work has definitely increased the knowledge of many of our Wikipedia readers. I hope you continue doing this, even with the administrative work that might be in the way. Your work is a fine example of what Wikipedia is all about and what we're doing here! And like I said before on my talk page, don't forget to add yourself to WP:DYK/A! ;-) It's entirely your choice, but I'm sure you'll be able to help DYK. You even have some past experience there! Anyways, take care, RyRy (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks for your kind words, most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your very welcome, Cirt. If you ever need help with anything related to DYK, or anything at all really, just leave a note on my talk page. :-) Cheers, RyRy (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. By the way, I left a brief note for you on my own talk page. Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I know you can handle the heat and pressure. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship. I believe we may be old wikifriends (my username used to be Acropolis_now/Merkinsmum) but you need neither confirm or deny:) If it is you, you were a great inspiration to my starting out on wiki, and I've missed you muchly:) Anyway, from all I've read of your contribs, Cirt, you'll make an excellent admin.:) Sticky Parkin 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cute picture. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats on passing your RfA!!! Great Job!!! sorry, I don't have a cute pic! :) lol CTJF83Talk 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Congratulations on passing your RFA. I have been having a small problem, lately. There is this editor (86.18.178.155) who has been deleting the Personal background section of the article falsely claiming that they are incorrect and rubbish, inspite of them being sourced by reliable and credible sources like The Guardian and The Sun. I have repeatedly requested him to leave it as it is and reach a consensus on the subject in question, all in vain. He refuses to do so, and just keeps vandalizing articles. I have warned him thrice, and this time he has done it again using another IP address ( 86.166.13.162). In the edit summary, he stated "Go ahead and block me you Biased Anti-Muslim editor... let the world see how the agenda of wikipedia is to attack Muslims blindly... idiot!"

As such, i request you to block both the IP addresses. Thank you. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There were four or more anon IPs doing the same thing, so I semi-protected the page for one week. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Athaenara (talk · contribs) ! Cirt (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) If you're anything like me, you aren't in a rush to start banning people mere hours after the conclusion of your RfA. — Athaenara ✉ 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page, Athaenara, but i am pretty certain that all these IP's are in fact operated by the same person. Why dont you block all these IP's? If not all of them, then atleast 86.18.178.155 and 86.166.13.162, since we can safely say that they are the same person. He insulted wikipedia and called our bluff. Suitable action must be taken. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting a problem like this on WP:AN/I or on WP:AIV is more expedient, because it will draw the attention of a large number of capable admins, one or more of whom will address the issue swiftly. (I removed JN's cross-post [diff] from my talk page.) — Athaenara ✉ 07:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you just do it yourself? Your a capable administrator. I have already mentioned the problem in great detail. Just block the two IP's and lets move on. I have already let you know about this. Why waste more time by complaining to the AIV? Joyson Noel (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the noticeboards exist for this very purpose. Please use them for that purpose instead of trying to shanghai (pardon the expression) individual admins. — Athaenara ✉ 07:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just reminding you of your duty as an Administrator (pardon the expression). I'm not coercing you into doing anything. It was a simple request. I didn't hold you at gunpoint and say, "Block em or else". If you are too proud to do it yourself, then you should have just let me know. Anyway, i'll take your advice. Thanks for wasting my time. Joyson Noel (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome (I think). — Athaenara ✉ 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears this has been dealt with for now. In the future please warn the user(s) and if trouble continues with obvious vandalism report to WP:AIV, or start a section at WP:ANI. Hope everything turns out for the best with that particular article. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Tip of the day/September 16 ({{totd}} etc.) was about this very thing. How's that for irony? — Athaenara ✉ 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! —§unday b 10:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note even though I voted against you. I look forward to being impressed.Momento (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations...and best wishes! Modernist (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add another congratulations. --Banime (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine too. I sent you an email, and I look forward to you proving that I had nothing to worry about! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

If you check the history, I badly misread a diff. Thought the unblock message was what you typed. Posted, re-read, and realized I completely misread it, and self reverted. Full appologies to you. New moto read twice, post once.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And thanks for your great contributions to the process, particularly the all-GA idea and the daily log of status changes idea. And well done on becoming an admin! I'm just waiting for it all to quiet down a bit now, haha - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!! America69 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations!!!! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from an internet cafe in Delhi! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

And congrats on your adminship! Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks so much! Cirt (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep writing those FAs! Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, hopefully at some point soon, more FA writing would be fun. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to know we now have someone else who can edit protected pages for DYK too....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will help out when/where I can. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice "Proposed change" on Current Events talk, but that's not your fault and I love the addition. But I think that Portal:Current events/Wikinews/Today through Portal:Current events/Wikinews/Today-6 should be protected from anyone except Wikinews Importer Bot editing it (if I correctly understand how that's updated), as they're now prominently featured on Current Events. --Gotyear (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, hopefully semi-prot should do the trick. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the same level as CE, so it seems reasonable. Gotyear (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what does it mean to conclude the AfD for this article with speedy deletion, as opposed to just deletion? What was the basis for that decision? I'm curious in case the article gets recreated again and I want to justify a speedy deletion. Otherwise, because the AfD didn't result in a regular AfD-delete outcome, I'm concerned it would have to go through AfD all over again. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply at user's talkpg - my mistake, didn't realize the prior deletion was due to WP:PROD, so restored it and back to AfD, as in this case WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you advise me how to proceed please. In talk:Osho I created a section Medical condition as possible pretext to enter America - source review provided a source overview of disputed material, and asked that people keep discussion on topic. User:jalal decided to ignore the request not to add information that was not discussing the sources presented, and he also placed comments retroactively.

I then created a badly attempted thread split and placed his material in a new section with a request to refer to the original notification about dicsussing only the sources presented on the page, this is detailed explicitly. The User then made a number of reverts, reported me for vandalism, and accused me of bullying, despite the fact that I instigated the entire thread, presented multiple source extracts to make my case, and clearly stated that I would like a third opinion before any reverts of the thread split be made. I also aked him to view details on thread splitting. I was attmepting to figure out the linking procedure for the moved material when the reverting started.

I would appreciate some feedback on this becasue I have gone out of my way to tease out facts and taken the time to present material fro discussion in efforts to improve the factuality of the article - which I don't see a point in doing in future if users do not adhere to discussion requests, veer off track, and place comments retroactively. Best Semitransgenic (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, that's all I was after, I wasn't clear on the best way to approach this situation. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll call and Coordinator nominations

The September 2008 WikiProject Films coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of candidates. Additionally, we are keeping nominations open during the voting period, in case any additional editors wish to nominate themselves. Please vote here by September 28!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Thank you for informing me of the unblock, which is fine with me. Well, this "teaching session on information literacy" the user evokes to justify the deliberate insertion of factual errors is quite odd, but it's okay to assume good faith if he says that it will not happen again. I have also added his talk page to my watchlist and will see what he does in the future. Regards, Hús ö nd 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Cirt. Glad to have you on as an Admin. Keep up the good work now. Manxruler (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm late, but CONGRATS! Don't be afraid to ask questions... we're here to help each other. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Habit? Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no, I just thought someone else should deal with it so I reported it through process (I had deleted the article edited by that user as copyvio). Cirt (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing's finished. It would be appreciated if you took another look. Congratulations on passing your RfA, by the way. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented there, and many thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. User 195.61.140.5 is still vandalizing. Im not entirely sure that it's outright vandalism, But I think it's time for admin intervention. Thanks --Superflewis (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I thought it had been established that users who continued to make personal attacks could be reported through AIV after the normal warning process had been followed? The user in question has been repeatedly incivil (and warned about it in the past), and the very first thing he did yesterday after the final warning (after deleting it, of course) was to make another attack on a different page. Isn't this sufficient? (it'd have been nice to have gotten a non-templated response as well, by the way.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to blanket block 59.92.xxx.xxx for 24h? This has been, what, four? five? different IPs . Prince of Canada^{t | c} 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah will get to it in a sec. Cirt (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. That was a serious question; I didn't know if it was actually possible to do. Good to know. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see also User:59.92.158.187. E Wing (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the "be brief" to heart....

Because it's now double the size it was, is that going to discourage mediators from taking it on? If there's one thing I would love more than anything, is for this to drag on with no resolution for several more weeks or months. That would totally rule. --Moni3 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Cirt mediating.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a general interest in the topic and I think both of you have some useful contributions here, but I am going to be a bit busier IRL with stuff and so unfortunately I don't think I can be the mediator at this point in time. I wish you the best of luck with this and I hope you will focus on the content issues during your dispute. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt: I'm following your advice about not commenting on the ANI board, but user Benjiboi is now making up complete lies about me -- in fact, laughable lies such as that I'm affiliated with the website "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown", which I most certainly am not. I don't want to reply to just say that's false.

So I'm not sure what to do about this stalker poster? Normally, I would just reply stating that this is incorrect, but I want to follow your advice by not posting on ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Before calling me a liar you may wish to read what it actually says - "I think they may be aligned with the Peoples Temple survivors and/or Alternative considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple". -- Banjeboi 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Please stop engaging in this incivil behavior with each other, and focus on discussing the content of the article as part of the mediation process. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt I was only responding to being called a liar. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Please take further disputes between the two of you to a more proper venue. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to further such a dispute, but to clarify, I am neither "aligned with the Peoples Temple survivors and/or Alternative considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple".Mosedschurte (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On 18 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portland Center Stage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is my adoptee, User:Editor510 who's into Dr.Who. But he did write the 'wikirose' page especially for me.:) I find Dr.Who a bit long for my attention sp... and aimed at a younger audience, and prefer comedy shows such as Karen Taylor, Katy Brand etc. Highbrow stuff lol:) Sticky Parkin 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, we'll force you to watch it and I'm sure it'll grow on you :P. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone said that to me about Family Guy lol, and it wasn't actually that bad once I got over the voices. Torchwood was slightly more gripping to me than Dr.Who, it was a bit kinky lol:) Sticky Parkin 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen Torchwood yet to be honest, I'll have to get the DVDs at some point and sit down with some Irish coffee and give it a try. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy!

Congrats on your successful RfA, which honestly slipped my attention - for what it's worth, had I kept an eye on RfAs recently, I'd certainly voice my support for you too. All the best, and welcome on board, Миша 13 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, your support is most appreciated no matter when it comes. :P -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, what is up with this... you leave Risker Wikipe-tan but I... just get a bucket. Is it too late to change my vote? ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's too late. Sorry. :P -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

hi, i just noticed that you've rm'd the stuff about bomb the bass from the william burroughs page as its "unsourced". if you look at the Bomb the Bass page you'll see that the track and its references to bill (and the film of the naked lunch) are mentioned there. is that sufficient? cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks, i guess that because i know bills work and the lyrics to the song itself, it just seems self-evident :) but i'm guessing that aint enuf either :) cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ah i see. ok got it, thanks. Mission Fleg (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

…on Portland Monthly. And yes, I saw your WP:ORE userbox updates -- quite flattered, actually, sorry I forgot to say so! -Pete (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded over there. :) Cirt (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

The article Miles Fisher you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miles Fisher for eventual comments about the article. Well done! JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, since you did the changes to our user box, with the recent changes, talk, and stub, can you do it to the LGBT userbox? I got a consensus here, and one user had asked if the text could be a bit bigger, along with the icon. Let me know if you can do it! :) CTJF83Talk 00:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will take a look in a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On your recently found mop :) I know you'll use it well. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Would you also mind commenting at my editor review? As I said with Jenna, I'd like some commentary from the uninvolved. :) —§unday {Q} 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get a chance, thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears this has been withdrawn. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the inventor of WikiRose. Not Sticky Parkin. Just saying.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 19:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, awesome. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you weigh in with your opinion on the issue of merger? It makes absolutely no sense to me, but I'm guessing you have a better perspective on this than me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt
76.29.59.179 previously rereverted the change at the list of Scientologists after our discussion at User talk:76.29.59.179#List of Scientologists. He might very well be right with it, although I can't find a good reliable source for Courtney Love following Buddhism either. I created a new section at Talk:Courtney Love#Religion about this, but as it is I'd remove her from the list of Scientologists, the source doesn't seem to be good enough for calling here one.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so did I just now. OK, I'll make note of it at her talk page. Thanks. --Amalthea^Talk 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess that list should then be better qualified to say if a particular person is a "follower of the doctrines and beliefs", or has only "attended at least one course". As I understand it there's a lot of notable people who have taken a course, but who wouldn't call themselves Scientologists. --Amalthea^Talk 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What does I recommend you wait and allow the Commons:Deletion requests to run its course. mean the one you post. Being patient is tough you know??--57 Free ways 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I have now begun to get the Scientology documents moved to wikimedia commons and tagged - following your suggestion. That will keep me busy for a while.

This is how my initial efforts were greeted today. Why do all things connected to Scientology articles have to be so difficult!! Oh well.

I justed want you to know that I haven't forgotten your suggestion.

Cheers, Martin Ottmann (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Enjoying it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but just an FYI... You placed this page uner semi-protection per WP:RFPP, however you placed the page itself under full protection instead of semi-protection. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request at RFPP, but I think you may have accidentally fully protected the page. I was going to revert the latest round of vandalism before the protect, but I am unable to edit the page. Thanks in advance, Green451 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am sorry to bother you again, but I am feeling that I am fighting against windmills. My template for the Scientology-documents has now been nominated for deletion. These people obviously do not understand the term 'public domain" and "government document". Could you make a point at the discussion page? I am sorry to bother you again with this.

One of these people also put up one of the documents up for deletion. Here is the discussion page on wikipedia.

Thanks for your help and your suggestions. Martin Ottmann (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt, I see that you're currently active for DYK, so could you give DYK medal to Cplakidas (talk · contribs) and Mspraveen (talk · contribs) if you have a spare time? According to Wikipedia:DYKLIST, they're eligible to get the award, but still have not received from admins working for DYK. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. well, I'm not a native speaker, so don't know what I should write about in the award box. Plus, I think they'd be more glad to receive the award from admin not from somebody unfamiliar.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt, Thanks for all the wonderful work you do. -- Poeticbent talk 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Poeticbent has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks very much! Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On 25 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raven (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Congrats on the article! Alansohn (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you blocked this user for removal of an AfD template and talk page content. This goes a lot deeper: the user appears to have two sockpuppets,

AleisterCrowley222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JimLees123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.156.207.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.71.79.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.22.84.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.48.109.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.251.88.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.185.27.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This activity led to the articles being semi-protected. Hopefully somebody can look into this! QaBobAllah (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I didn't know the proper venue. QaBobAllah (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt.
While I don't completely disagree with semi-protecting the List of Scientologists (John Gavin is surely happy that he won't be added to that list again anytime soon), in the end I don't think it is warranted. There were only 4 vandalistic additions in the last seven days (and 2 constructive removals, although they were contestet at first) by non-autoconfirmeds. In my opinion that's not heavy vandalism per WP:SEMI, not even having WP:BLP in mind.
Also, I don't think that you, as a strongly involved editor, should have been the one deciding on page protection in this case per WP:UNINVOLVED.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article back down to zero protection. Hopefully the vandalism will not be an issue anymore. You are probably right, I should have submitted a request to WP:RFPP on this one and if the vandalism crops up again I will do that next time. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK great, thanks.
What I meant by "not completely disagree" is that this list is obviously a very BLP-sensitive topic, and appears to be a constant target for vandalism, so semi-protection is never off the table. From what I see though the amount of vandalism is still far beneath my threshold for pain, so to speak, and manageable without shutting all anons out.
I'll keep it watchlisted, maybe I'll eventually RFPP it myself. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

YES, MY APOLOGIES. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT THE EDIT YOU HAD MADE WAS AN ACT OF VANDALISM FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS BUT I NOW SEE THAT I WAS MISTAKEN. I'LL MAKE SURE IT DOENS'T HAPPEN AGAIN. X Ray Tex (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt: I clarified my understanding of the concerns that caused you to raise an FAR of David Helvarg here. Please could you clarify those issues that I did not fully grasp? Thanks. —Theo (Talk) 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I already responded there and that page is on my watchlist. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WSJ. is ready for review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt! Is any way to remove that report at Commons? That was the entire point. I am having a serious problem because it appears in Google search. Would it be possible to archive it at least or keep out of sight? Thank you very much.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt,

I am confused and disappointed by the deletion of the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. This is a group that was founded so both sides of the table can come together and talk about important issues. It is a nonprofit organization with student chapters. The reviewers said it was not notable dispite links to CBS news coverage on the work the organization has done with mortgage fraud, links to a Minnesota Historical Society article as well as magazine articles.

It seems that coverage by t.v., internet and magazines is notable. Is this a case of administrators being drunk with their own power. I thought that was against the purpose of why Wikipedia is an open community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.182.206 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a deletion discussion. If you wish to contest the deletion, the place to raise that is at a deletion review. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt,

The reason we started with you was because the deletion review process stated that the first place to start was with the editor that deleted the article. Your name is listed as deleting the article so we were follow Wikipedia's deletion review guidelines and trying to resolve the issue with you.

The reasons for the deletion do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The deletion discussion stated the Laweyrs' Council was a "small" student group, with coverage only by a school, and was not notable. All three of the reasons were inaccurate. How the administrator determined the size of our organization ("small") baffles us because there is no listing of our membership size. The assertion that there is no outside coverage was also bewildering because we were covered by three outside organizations since we are an independent, nonprofit organization. The University of St. Thomas is one of our chapters. We have been covered by CBS news - here's the link to the interview and our very notable and important work regarding mortgage foreclosures (wait until after the commerical airs and the interview will start)- http://wcco.com/video/?id=32984@wcco.dayport.com - Our recreation of one of the most important Supreme Court cases - Dred Scott (which many believe was one of the contributing factors of the Civil War) was covered by the Minnesota Historical Society - http://www.mnhs.org/newsletters/localhistory/2008/February13.htm - Again, another third party source of our work.

We understand the need for administrators to be vigilant in their duties but we believed that they would follow the established policies of Wikipedia and our deletion for lack of notability does not comport with the stated policies regarding notability. Again, we're addressing the matter to you to follow the stated policy of how to begin the process. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.172 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I still suggest the matter be referred to deletion review. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see we're up! Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

DUde, you hurt my feelings when you blocked me! I'm just a poor sap trying to make a damn living. Gimme a damn break!!!!24.14.33.171 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 23:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you realize that you fully protected domestic sheep? You added the pp-semi template, so I assume you meant just to semi-protect it... Steven Walling (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt,

I wanted to ask a brief explaination of why the page Dallas Defenders Football Club was deleted. There was no reason listed in the deletion summary and no reply to my post in the deletion discussion. Granted, I am very new to the Wikipedia process, however I don't see how the team or the league were deemed non-notable (if that was the reason for the deletion). I did take out the "semi-pro" reference that was mentioned by on poster, although the National Public Safety Football League is listed as a semi-pro team in many different sites, including Google, Semi-Pro Football Headquarters, and the American Football Association. If it could help in the discussion of the notability of the league, I can provide a list of news articles regarding the league, it's teams, and sponsorships.

I feel this should demonstrate the notability of the league itself, and a team in the league should be notable by virtue of being a part of the league. If the delete was for any other reason, such as a technical error on my part in the content, or if you have any suggestions on how I can recreate the page in a better way, please let me know. Thanks. --Dsboice (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt. You missed deleting Strictly Come Dancing (Series 6) Weekly Scores when you closed and deleted Strictly Come Dancing (Series 5) Weekly Scores. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Cirt :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Slàinte! Cirt (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing a passage from the intro because the same facts are repeated later in the intro. It's pointless to include them twice. WillOakland (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, quite right - you're correct, it reads better that way. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

hey Cirt can you tell me why u deleted our producer page for "Tha Bizness" all the info on our page was FACT and i dont see what happened to make it be deleted can u please explain or if this was an error and can u make it back active thanks... Dow Jones Tha Bizness Productions sept 29 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tha Bizness Productions (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware what I was doing was considered over-linking. I figured the terms were spread out enough to warrant it, but I'll keep what you said in mind. Thanks a bunch :) Groupsisxty (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I don't want to start an edit war, but with Scientology and the Internet, I think the linking I did was approp. The ref showed how software can filter noise out of a newsgroup, and lawsuit was changed to point link the whole word. Maybe revert your change, and go through and look at what I did, rather than just revert the whole change to avoid an edit war or anything. K thanks :) Groupsisxty (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, take a look at the article. lawsuit's had a funky link where only part of the word was linked to lawsuit, The reference provided was the Killfile FAQ for TIN (UNIX's first internet newsgroup reader), etc. Just look at the diff to see what I'm talking about. And the Official FAQ for TIN I would think would qualify for WP:RS IMHO. Thanks. Groupsisxty (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So, the statement "Other more advanced software can filter out this noise of a newsgroup", supported by the official FAQ for TIN(The Internet Newsgroup reader) for UNIX, covering the use of the killfile to cut down on Newsgroup noise isn't WP:RS (Mind, it's the Official FAQ on the killfile), and WP:SYNTH and WP:OR showing it does filter out the extra noise and spam on a newsgroup? I think I am missing something then... Groupsisxty (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I honestly figured an Official Newsgroup FAQ about killfiles would support reducing noise in newsgroups. I'll take it to WP:RSN. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hmm, OK, sorry about the revert then, I honestly thought you just missed the reference in the article.
I removed the Scientology membership allegation from her article as well, since a cursory search didn't bring up any reliable source confirming it.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mbenznl. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 01:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanksomuch. Cirt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you check the page history, you can see that I wrote it on the 22nd and couple of portals were promoted after this date. The signpost was delayed so you thought it's published after the portals were promoted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed that. Added now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I do so many PRs I do not watchlist them and while I try to check them all every few days, I had not seen that. I will weigh in in the next 12 hours or so. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in at the PR again. Will try to keep a closer eye on it. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Those redlinks will be gone in a short time. I just left them in while trying to figure out who has an article and who doesn't. Thanks for the suggestion on who to ask for help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to point out in this AfD, you deleted the redirect A King Of Oneself EP, but not the actual article, which was moved to A King Of Oneself. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt. Thanks for dealing with this user - they were becoming quite a pain! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It did indeed seem to be a bit disruptive. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, just a little(!) Lets see if they're slightly more co-operative after their day block. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt,

Why did this page get deleted? No rules were broken and you simply deleted a perfectly legal article which only provides useful information regarding the topic.

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpassy (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started reviewing Portland Monthly. Looks like a nice article. Please keep an eye on Talk:Portland Monthly/GA1 to see any issues I bring up. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've listed all the issues I can find at the moment on the review page. The article is amazingly well referenced, but I believe it is not in depth enough on some things. It would be great if you could make the changes I have suggested so far (I will review it more tomorrow). Also, I would really be interested in any feedback you have on my reviewing, as I am still a relatively new reviewer). Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay will try to address your comments soon. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your response. Firstly, thank you for pointing out the point in WP:LEAD, I have read the polcy several times and I have never noticed that. I understand that a limit in RS can mean that the length of the article is limited. Just give me around 30 minutes and I will see if I can pass the article (or I may finish the review tomorrow morning). Anonymous101 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous101 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Per the results of "Check 3" I have passed the GA review. Congratulations! Anonymous101 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing the GA review, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

no problem. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I just submitted my first DYK ever; if I did it incorrectly please let me know :) Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I might have just wikilinked Green Day by itself and wikilinked/bolded the list itself somewhere else, maybe "nominations" or something. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm okay; I'm basing it off of "that David Bowie (pictured) was awarded a lifetime achievement award at the 2007 Webby Awards?" from Wikipedia:Recent additions. Gary King (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay no worries. It's a wiki, so we'll see what others think at T:TDYK probably in a day or so. :P -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, some excellent person has recently managed to delink dates in most, but not all, of the infobox templates. Tony (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could fill the next update, since I am tending to someting else. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I have to run out for a bit actually but will be back in a few hours, sorry. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I started it off with four, will leave it to others to fill in the rest. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,you relisted the AfD for The Sunset Sound. I'm not altogether au fait with the AfD and concensus process and so I'm a bit bemused as to why it has been relisted - more so the reason for relisting. I know the concensus process is not a vote, but does it require ALL the actions (delete, keep etc) to agree? If this is the case then surely just one dissenting opinion will stop anything ever getting deleted. In the case quoted, it seems like most of the cases put forward to delete are valid, whilst the one to keep is not. Could you please clarify the position and advise on next steps? Many thanks and best regards Spoilydoily (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- To further the above point (and thanks for your promise to revisit), following AfD, the ONLY 'keep' was by the original creator of the article, versus 4 independent deletes and a redirect. Does 'concensus' mean unanimous?Spoilydoily (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  - It can be different for each AfD. In this case I see there is some more discussion ongoing there, so I will let that play out, or else of course another admin might get to it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's a big deal, but how did an AfD with 4 keeps, 2 merges and 2 deletes (including nom) get to be "no consensus"? There are plenty of sources identified, and the sole reason given for deletion was a lack of sources by anyone in the AfD. Again, not a big deal, but I've noticed a number of closes like this recently (clear keep IMO closed as no consensus), and I'm curious why folks are doing that. Thanks, Hobit (talk)

AfD is not a vote, so it is not a strict end-count of the various keeps, merges, deletes, whatever. The closing admin weighs the entire discussion. In this case, it seemed that there was a small majority of arguments in favor of keeping, but those that commented merge/redirect effectively were saying the article should not exist separately and should be a mention at Emil Fackenheim. That's why the end result seemed to be no consensus, IMO. But as the article was not deleted, it is a moot point. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the not a vote thing. I just would have closed it as keep, so wondered why you didn't. I agree it's moot, but you've closed another one in a similar way (for Plurality). In both cases, the only reason for deletion was notability, sources were supplied that met WP:N (especially for Plurality), and the majority after the sources were provided felt keep was the right outcome. No biggy, I was just curious what the thought process was. Thanks Hobit (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The thought process will be different for each AfD, and as the articles were not deleted anyways, it should be no big deal and there is no need for a deletion review for something that was not deleted. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't even thinking about it. As I said, I'd have expected those to close as keep, (and one other you closed to be a possible delete) but you went no consensus on all three. I'm not often surprised by how things are closed anymore, so I thought it was enough to come and ask for the reasoning. That's it. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And it is possible other admins would have closed them differently, but I did have a thought process for each one, and I believe they were indeed valid. Again, this seems like a moot point to be debating so much in back and forth discussion simply over "Keep" vs. "No consensus", when the article was not deleted. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I saw that you just took up my report to WP:UAA on User:Srdesignink and the spammy elements of his User Page. I am glad to see you are doing fine work as an admin. I hope all is well, online and offline. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for the positive feedback and I am glad that you think I am doing fine work as an admin. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a strong believer in telling people when they do a good job. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to work to earn your full confidence. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt... what's wrong with the refs of Getting It: The psychology of est? Peharps I can be of assistance.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am still learning and slowly getting experience with {{Harvnb}} (see the note I left to that template's talk page). I can't get all of the Notes to successfully link up with each of their counterparts in the References section. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Show me one that doesn't work... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fisher, Crockett, Charney, and Lewis. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fisher.. only one name in the {{harvnb}}, but several in the ref.. they should match.. will fix... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) {{harvnb}} doesn't seem to be very well-written.. I left a note on its talk... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I think it's quite well-written! It's looking for a match with the "last" field (or the editor or the last1, last2, last3 fields if appropriate) and the "year" field. Once you've figured that out, then all is well. (This is just another reason why the "cite x" templates are not well written, mind you... They fudge that field half the time, by allowing people rather sloppily to use "author" and "coauthor" etc. fields instead. See my talk page passim.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently on hold. See Talk:Portland Center Stage/GA1. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the GA review. Responded there. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's work on Outrageous Betrayal together, so you can learn the deep magic ;-) .. look at the changes I made to the other article.... ask me if yu don't understand.. the one with 5 authors is slightly tricky; the others are not so tricky.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

was Fisher the only one that didn't work? .. but another question.. why do you list books in the Notes and journals in the References? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fisher was the only one. Depends how heavily they were used as a source in the article. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen it done that way before... I also asked jbmurray (who has quite correctly rmvd his accusation that I am "sweet") about this... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained more about this at Jbmurray (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Please note that the Fisher work was actually published in book format. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How did we manage this? Did it give you the "success" screen? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the guy was blocked but not notified, sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no problem, I just wondered if we discovered the blocking analogue to an edit-conflict. Apparently not. Oh, well... I guess I'll have to save Special:BlockIP/Jimbo_Wales to get noticed ;-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to look at your close again, and the link you've redirected the page to : ) - jc37 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you might be interested in this "fix" for some of your portals: User talk:RichardF#Overflow scrolling in a table? RichardF (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will check it out. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt—I presume you've trancluded the script and have seen the interface. After a quick assessment of the existing/correct format, I hit "edit this page", then hit either "Delink dates to dmy" or "Delink dates to mdy" (the latter as a kind of default); then in the same sweep I hit "Delink common terms". I do this to three pages in succession on my large monitor. Then I check the diff quickly (occasionally I've chosen the wrong format and have to correct it, especially when I see red on both sides of the diff as a tell-tale sign that there's "tension". If no dates needed to be delinked, I use only the common terms edit summary, not both (slightly different sequence of tabs and returns, plus autofill).

The only problem with common terms is that is occasionally yields inconsistent blue and black in lists of country names. People have complained. LM has kindly increased the scope of this function, which I think is likely to address most of these issues. Tony (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glenn E. Coolidge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the update and credits. Cirt (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this AfD was exactly nominated properly. Even though I !voted to delete, I just discovered that the article was nominated for AfD by an IP here. In addition, the AfD page was created by someone with no user or user talk page with no reason. (I decided to IAR as I believe the article lacks sources to establish notability.)

Should this AfD be speedy kept per lack of following process, or should we keep moving with it? I would say to close as a SK, but I feel I am not in a position, having already voiced my opinion in the AfD, to make that judgment. MuZemike (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just let it play out. Were major contributors/creators to the article notified of the AFD? Cirt (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was notified, looking at the IP's contribs. I'll go ahead and make the courtesy notifications. Do you think semi-protection would be necessary due to the slightly troublesome IP activity going on in that article (regarding a few of the edits like "just stop the vandalism on this article immediately" and "who needs the wiki guys")? MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything for a few days, but you can request it at WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deadly Cults, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you recently blocked User:Jimbob77, citing a username policy violation. I just wanted to let you know that there is a long-standing practice that usernames with "Jimbo" are only blocked if the name clearly is trying to impersonate or insult Jimbo Wales. In this case, I think the name is referring to "Jim Bob", a common nickname in the southern USA.

If you look through the username discussion archives, you will see that many names such as "Jimbo online", "Jimbo1977", "JimboV1" and so on have all been allowed, the reasoning being that these are in no way impersonating Jimbo Wales. I therefore suggest that you unblock User:Jimbob77. If you still insist that the name is a problem, I suggest that you open a discussion at WP:RFCN, and that you unblock the user temporarily so that he may participate in the discussion. Is he back? (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unblocked. Thanks for the polite explanation for some reason I was thinking "Jimbo b77", not "Jimbob 77", which is probably the more likely. Cirt (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that his first contribution was not exactly productive, but maybe we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was just a "newbie test". Is he back? (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not outside the FAC village - probably it should have been. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm listening to the commentary as I write this, so I'll have some form of a production section up within the hour. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, take your time. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. There wasn't much, but I got some good stuff about the writing of the episode. If you want, I can do the commentary for Brother from the Same Planet at some point too. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go over it soon, I think there are a few more secondary sources I can try to get access to. Yeah, if you could do that for Brother from the Same Planet that would be awesome. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the comment I made here and tell me what you think? Johnalexwood (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of those sources do seem acceptable, could use a brief mention. Posting to the talk page is certainly a good idea, hopefully someone will respond to you there soon. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Am new to Wikipedia and editing. Posted a review of possible deletion for this article on Sept 29th. Logged in today to review the discussion, with the intent of adding to it based on a recent email, to find the review already completed as a keep.

Had I known the discussion could be closed in under 6 days, I'd have made a point of contributing something further earlier, especially based on new information I just received via email today.

No personal agenda here, I've not lived in Knoxville since 1992, nor been active in that church since then, other than as an occasional (less than yearly) visitor. This is an organization of less than 25 people. Hardly seems notable.

By comparison, I was involved in the exopolitics conference in Washington DC last April, involving over 300 people, including a press conference at the National Press Club. The keynote speaker at this conference was Dr. Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to walk on the moon, whose recent comments regarding exopolitics have been reported in major media worldwide -- but that article here on Wikipedia has been removed.

Not complaining, just working to educate myself on what the standards are, and trying to contribute as best I can, including getting the exopolitics article revised and reposted. Currently a search for "exopolitics" on Wikipedia results in an (apparently malicious) redirect to a musical group's cd.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exopolitics

I hope the above example explicates the trouble I'm having regarding where Wikipedia standards are on notability for articles here!

All advice, information, help regarding these issues, and especially what seem like far different standards for these two articles is welcome!

Thanks,

Jbuchman (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am writing about the recently deleted article Tragedy (event). I feel its deletion was unfair, and the article, which was proposed for deletion minutes after I created it, was simply not given a chance. Just about everyone else who commented on the afd said that it was a dicdef. I completely disagree. On the day, I created it, it was just a single line. That may be viewed as a dicdef. But by the time the afd was finished, I had expanded it to three sections with headings, and added 5 excellent references that meet WP:RS guidelines. All this should have been enough to save it from deletion. But most likely, those who commented felt it was a done deal, and were not willing to admit that yes, the article had been improved.

I have been planning to take this up with Deletion Review, but on the Deletion review page, it has instructions first to contact the closing admin directly, so that's what I am doing here. I just know, based on what I've seen before, that the closing admin, most likely working fast through the whole thing, would see the overwhelming number of "deletes," and would just say "the result was delete" with no further comment. That is what happened. But if you look more carefully, most of those who said delete just said one thing: DICDEF. I gave very good points throughout, and explained why I felt it was not just a dicdef.

I am requesting the full restoration of this page, so me and others can continue to pick up from where it was left off, and continue to improve the page. Just be aware that I am very busy most of the time, so any articles I create take a long time and go slowly. But I have created some really good articles before that have started off the same way. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you deleted reverse funnel system and replaced it by a redirect. Although I can understand that the case for keeping the article was not very strong, I wonder whether you could motivate the choice for placing a redirect rather than doing a complete delete. As I've stated on the AfD discussion, this does not seem a proper use of redirects to me. Han-Kwang (t) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please give us your take on this. Thanks --Justallofthem (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask for a RfC if we cannot figure this out for ourselves but I think that I make a compelling argument. I would appreciate your assistance in keeping this out of the article pending some conclusion on the talk page. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure that is certainly reasonable. I also posted to WP:RSN, so hopefully the article will get more eyes from there. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will check back later and see if we need an RfC. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tragedy (event). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that there has been a recent update to the criteria for relisting AFDs. You can see the full details at WP:RELIST. The main update is that relisting an AFD a second time should only be done in exceptional circumstances. I'm letting you know because you have recently been active in relisting AFDs. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think generally I tend to only relist the first time 'round on AfDs and not a second time, but I will avoid doing a second relist in the future. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There were 4 votes to keep, only one to delete, 2 to merge. I would call that a clear victory for keeping. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. It was no consensus to keep, but the article was kept anyways, and not deleted. No need to go into a big back and forth over it. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me but I am focused on other things for the time being. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt: I am a fan of your article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" and would like your help, however small, with an article I started for Nicholas Carr's Atlantic article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". Having read it, I am in the process of reading it again. There is also tons of discussion on the web and in print that I think a Wikipedia article should summarize. With these intentions, I have created the Wiki article. Magazine articles I figure are a little tricky to get done around here so I thought you might have some advice.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words about that Featured Article I worked on. Okay, will take a look. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt: I would like to believe that with some additional work, including many other sources, it will be clear that the article is notable. Atm the article is in no condition to be a DYK, but that is also one of my aims.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this message to my alternate account's talk page, you're welcome for my support. :) I'm glad you passed your RfA. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Would you be willing to undelete this article? It received no discussion at all in the AfD, and, as you can see from this search, this person has received likely enough coverage in The Jerusalem Post to meet the general notability guideline. (Of course, it would have been nice if I had brought this to the AfD, but alas I was too slow.) Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also reverted myself at the AfD closure as well. You can feel free to comment there now. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the triple crown and for your kind words about List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Holiday Parade. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Baselineace (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User has evaded block you made yesterday on him by editing as an IP here. MuZemike 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add that he may not understand what you're not supposed to do when blocked, judging by the nature of the comment. MuZemike 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦^C 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. I hope you're doing well as an administrator. I was wondering, does anyone in particular take care of WP:CROWN/NOM nominations? I nominated myself today, and noticed quite a few editors have nominations too, and I'm just curious of who takes care of them. I noticed you took care of some previously, so I came to ask you. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thanks. – RyanCross (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt,

I am trying to remove the History of Mayors section from the Eagle Mountain, Utah page because it has been subject to frequent edits from people of opposing political parties who are using it to write their own version of the history and as a forum for personal attacks.

I thought it was Wikipedia's policy to want only the facts and information that is verifiable listed. With respect to Eagle Mountain's political history, it will be difficult to come to a consensus as to what the facts are, as there are many different versions in existence. Thus, in an effort to respect Wikipedia's usage policies, I thought removing that section and leaving just the chronological listing of Eagle Mountain's mayors would follow your guidelines better.

Also, there is a large gap at the head of the Geography section of the page which I was hoping you could help remove.

Thank you,

208.186.134.103 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! Thanks so much for all of your help! Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, I think you did this block slightly wrong. The "Spamusername" option is really for people with company usernames who have been promoting the company, be it through a user page, or spam links, etc. In this case, this should have been a plain "{usernameblock}" because the user wasn't actually advertising or promoting. The problem with the way you did things is that (1) this user, unlike actual spammers, should have been allowed to create a new account, and (2) the block message was probably confusing because the only issue is the username. Personally, I disagree with the need to block usernames like this if they aren't promoting anything, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, he's been unblocked now to change his name. Mango juice^talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

just search "The Simpsons: The Complete # Season" and it should come up! CTJF83Talk 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, since your such a good guy, you wanna copy edit Davenport, Iowa for me, so I can FAC nom it? CTJF83Talk 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look, though my plate is pretty full at the moment. You might want to try asking for help at WPP:COPY. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a citation needed tag because the "citation" demanded was mind-bogglingly self-explanatory, e.g. that the "traumatic engram" of the Xenu/Xemu story was far from unique, and LRH concocted many other such anecdotes such as the Bubblegum Incident, the Gorilla Goals, the Space Clam and anything else covered in Incident (Scientology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.59.92 (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flying Blind, Flying Safe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...on Portland Center Stage GA! Sorry I wasn't more help in getting it over the hump, it's been a crazy off-wiki time for me. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the instructions and followed them. I have now reported the sockpuppetry case correctly. -- IRP ☎ 18:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt/Archive 4, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quickie - a couple of cases you've closed and marked for archive weren't being archived by the bots...I'm not sure, but I suspect you may have substed the {{SSPa}}, when I think it's not meant to be substituted, as its presence is what the bot looks for. Thanks! _Gb^T/c 13:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators made it seem that either substing or not, would work either way. I have changed the instructions there accordingly. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I've always admired your work (from afar), especially your writing ability; hence, I was honored you supported me. Additionally (more importantly?) your userpage strongly influenced mine. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, I am glad I had a positive influence on you. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I would let you know that Portal:Chicago will sometime soon be adding a featured list section since WP:CHICAGO just got its 10th WP:FL.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I passed the article "Marge in Chains" for GA, nice job.--Music26/11 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanksomuch. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you closed the SSP report I open. I was just curious if I did it all right, seeing as it was the first time I've reported a sockpuppet. I just noticed that you commented: "User already blocked, blocked the IP for a week.". Should I have done something differently or is it all good? Thanks. --Wizard191 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been appropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome...thanks! --Wizard191 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you indefinitely semi-protect my userpage? There's no reason for Anonymous IP's to edit it anyways. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb ^talk 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to, but I have a very busy few days and wouldn't be able to until Friday. You could ask User:Theleftorium, I think he would be willing to do it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Cirt (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it later today/tomorrow. =) --TheLeft orium 16:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll get the production section for Lisa's First Word done this weekend (I've been meaning to for a while, but I WILL get to it). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! - I think I got everything. My English isn't great so it might need some copy editing though. ;) Let me know if there's anything you don't understand. --TheLeft orium 19:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go through it. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have expressed strong opinions at Rick Ross (consultant) over Jayen466's attempts to include information cited to Shupe and Darnell's Agents of Discord. Were you aware that he has created an article Jason Scott case which makes no less than 38 citations to that book? I have {{prod}}ded the article, as it appears to show no more evidence of notability than the article Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church), which was AfD'd because of lack of notability. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty much in agreement with you on this. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 has now removed the prod tag, saying "This is not a recreation of the article on the person, but an article on the resulting civil suit, which received very wide coverage." This is not convincing to me. The only reason Jason Scott was ever notable was because of the civil suit. If there was sufficient "wide coverage" of the civil suit to demand an independent article, I feel sure that that coverage would have made its way into Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) and the AfD would not have succeeded. But, of course, it did.

I believe that Jayen466's article should be AfD'd, but I do not believe I can initiate it; as an unregistered user, I can't create the AfD page. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ONEEVENT – cover the event, not the person. Jayen 466 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said already - I agree with 65.78.13.238 (talk · contribs) and the consensus of the previous AFD and the delete comments raised in that AFD. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466, do you believe that there is any significant information about "the Jason Scott case" which was ever excluded from Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) because the article was titled after the person rather than the event? I do not know of any reason to think that any information about the only event that made Jason Scott notable was excluded from his article. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that what you feel was "wide coverage" of the case was, according to the previous AfD, not enough notability to justify a separate article.

I am also wondering how exactly you feel that your article on Jason Scott does not qualify as a POV fork. You realize, of course, that other editors have objected to your use of Shupe and Darnell's Agents of Discord as a source for claims about the Jason Scott case at Rick Ross (consultant). Now, you have created an article which is all about the Jason Scott case, and cited Agents no less than 37 times, at last count. WP:POVFORK says "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ." Are you prepared to state that none of the material which you have cited to Shupe and Darnell at Jason Scott case is the material which other editors stated quite firmly was inadmissible for content policy reasons at Rick Ross (consultant)? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion somewhere else, and not on my talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there CIRT, VASCO from PORTUGAL,

I was the one removing that bit in the "INTERVIEWS" bit, because the sentence did not seem to make no sense whatsoever (i mean grammatically, not spiritually). You reinstated it, sorry 4 any incoveniences created.

From Portugal, a pleasant weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I'm concerned about the process here with this deletion, and would like to know your perspective on this. User:Shii added new sources to the article on 16 October 2008, and then commented at the AfD. The AfD was closed as "delete" the same day, and Shii took it to Deletion Review. User:Stifle then immediately closed the Deletion Review and relisted the debate. Within three hours you then closed the deletion discussion again as "delete". I'm concerned because this gives at least the appearance that a Deletion Review was circumvented. A Deletion Review is supposed to last five days, but here it looks as if it effectively lasted just a few hours. As I said, this is my own view of what happened, and it could be that there's something here I'm missing. Thanks in advance, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored. Feel free to comment at the AfD. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was annoyed at the POV pusher who added (and re-added) the junk OR and didn't look properly when removing it. I did a better job this time Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there checkuser evidence showing he is a sock? Even so, I believe he is not a sock puppet. I have been involved with this on and off for the past year or so and have strong reason to believe Kermanshahi is the only innocent party. Do you have nay objections if I unblock him and keep an eye on him? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers that are non-conclusive are not immediate grounds for blocking, especially in situations such as this. If you look at the history of the check users, kermanshi has been involved in alkmost all of them and while he is in the same geographic area, has NEVER provided a concrete hit. Review of all of the evidence through the past highly indicates that kermanshi is NOT a sockpuppet. I have also worked VERY closley with these cases in the past, and blocked several bold guy sock puppets. I have also been in contact with kermanshi personally several times and have EVERY reason to assume good faith in this situation, even with the circumstances can appear to be sketchy. I ask that you unblock Kermanshahi with my word that I have been monitoring this situation and will continue to monitor this situation. I dont care about the other editors as I believe they are trouble makers. I however have every reason to believe Kermanshi is not a sock puppet. Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the tehcnical evidence does rule it out(checkuser results). Kermanshi has NEVER been confirmed as a sock puppet through time (multiple occasions). Dont you find it likley over the past years that if he was a sock puppet, and active at the same time as the other suspecs (which evidence shows they are), he would have had a concrete hit on CU? Furthermore, the fact that this is not a single case of failing to get a concrete hit on CU is even stronger evidence against it. Other evidence (circumstantial) may not be as clear cut but per your statement on your page, you said that the technical evidence does not rul it out, which I strongly feel it does. I am going to go ahead and be WP:BOLD because there is no evidence that Kermanshahi is an actual sock puppet other than some tenuous links that to a casual observer reveal more than is realy there. If you have a serious problem with this, please feel free to address is. I have made every effort to explain this situation to you and STRONGLY disagree with this block and feel it is wrong. Thanks Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Other side of thread was here. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the CU has not proven he is a sock, you keep saying that. CU evidence that is likley/possible should be taken with a grain of salt and use other evidence/knowledge of the situation to make a decision. I have that other knowledge due to my extensive experience with this situation. My caps were used for emphasis and I would hope that you as an experienced editor could understand that (especially with my highly positive track record and experience here) and understand that it's intent was for positive empahsis on key words not to, "fosters non-constructive discussion." Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to disrupt my talk page to make your point. I capitalized 2 words for empassis, this I see nothing wrong with and in the future will likley used caps every now and then for empashsis, however this is a bit pointy and can in no way be construed as attempting to foster constructive decision. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why some people feel it is inconstructive and why others (in limited use) can see some constructive use. Part of it is, we are communicationg through a very low-fi communication channel and attempts at expressing things other than basic text often risk being mis-understood. I apologzie for any miscommunication/offense and in the future will refrain from using CAPS in communcations with you. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for voicing your concern over my username. I will change it or not use that username, no problem. I was wondering if you have any tips for making Wikipedia entries? It's been nothing short of hellacious for me, to be honest. There is an editor who keeps flagging and deleting my entries without really giving time to contest... There are so many rules, it's completely overwhemming. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalhealthcouncil (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding here. I do not have any fault in Mrlob and his sockpuppets. I have never created another account thatn this one and I cannot guarantee you that Mrlob will not make more, as a matter of fact, I believe he will but I myslef have no influence in this. The problem was that I got involved once with him and his sockpuppets and since then every time he makes new ones I am associated with them. That we live in the same city is really unfortunet, bet you can hardly expect me to move to another city because of this... Kermanshahi (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the RS/N posting. I put a link to it at the BLP/N page soon after posting it. I don't see any reason why I need to inform you directly on your talk page -- your name is mentioned for accuracy but this had absolutely nothing to do with *you*. In fact having you and Jayen show up immediately at the RS/N (as you had no problem doing despite my lack of notification) is a detriment to getting outside opinions on the topic. The necessary links are there. People can read over them. I'd rather this didn't devolve into the same dispute between two editors the BLP/N discussion became. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Cirt.

I saw that you reviewed The Deal, which among others was a movie. Would you, by chance, have time to review Ghost Rider as well?

Please get back to me as soon as you can.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source for you, from the Salt Lake Tribune (they tend to have a pretty good grasp on Mormons in popular culture). Hopefully this satisfies you.--Terrillja (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just surprised that you were disputing the fact that former Mormons were interviewed. I have added a fact tag to the polygamists though, since the Toronto film release mentions polygamists, but not Mormons, making me wonder if the studio said polygamists rather then Mormons to sensationalize the movie. And for whatever it's worth, I'm not Mormon, nor do I have multiple wives, or one for that matter.--Terrillja (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cirt! I wanted to submit an article for GA, but I got it peer reviewed. Here's how it was BEFORE, and here's how it is AFTER. Is it better? Thanks a lot! A _talk 13:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Should I lengthen it? Which edit was better, before or after? Thanks for helping! ;) A _talk 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Message left here. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the page about William Russell, candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania's 12th District, deleted? 71.236.116.143 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Paul Crawford, 20 October 2008

Are you available to do the DYK update (it's pretty much prepared)? I'll probably be around to help with the crediting if needed. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing the update. I started on two usertalk credits (which had a mistake in formatting, anyways), but I've reverted them once I saw you doing all the credits. :-) Jamie^☆S93 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for including the article, appreciate it very much! --HJKeats (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you have blocked this in the past, they continue to vandalize Dick Clark David Unit (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David Unit (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Rather than removing the tag and posting a curt note on my user page, perhaps it would be more constructive to add material answering the question. I appreciate that there is a reference, but it has no hyperlink so I can't readily check what it actually says. Is there an online access to that paper? If not, could you indicate who these "critics" are, and what they actually said? IMHO, a ^[who?] tag is appropriate to a sweeping statement such as "critics characterized the training methods as brainwashing,and suggested that the program had fascistic and narcissistic tendencies" even if there is a supposed offline source. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Thanks for your prompt responses on my user talk page. Just to clarify, I'm well aware that there is no requirement for a source to be available online to meet the verifiability criteria, nor do I doubt that the APA review of books is ok as a reliable source. I'll also take it on trust that the book being reviewed does identify some individuals who hold the wild opinions reported here. But the reason I'd like to follow it up is that I'd like to see whether these "critics" are notable enough for their opinions to meet the Undue Weight requirements (and also to satisfy myself that your synopsis is a fair summary). I guess I'll just have to go to the library and hunt it out. All the best. DaveApter (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ps The author of the book being reviewed, William S. McGurk, doesn't seem to be notable himself. Do you have any background on him? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spurious claim? -- The sources listed below are not exactly the best representation of all sources out there, but it is rather instead quite a selective list, to say the least. Since you are directly contradicting my original claim to having provided a balanced set of exemplary sources, I'm not sure it should be such a surprise that I find your claim spurious. If you would rather I use a more neutral tone, of course, I'll happily oblige.PelleSmith (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel like it, you might check the history of Landmark Education and group the edit warring accounts by POV, and then CU the lot of 'em, along with any of the recently blocked socks. Too busy at the moment to do it myself. Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Allen3 ^talk 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! You just resolved a 3rd AfD for The Colt (Supernatural). I was actually in the midst of making substantial changes to the page to improve it and to make it comply better with WP:RS. I had added at least three sourced articles and was gathering several dozen more. Rather than open an AfD review, however, I would prefer to fork the artifacts on the plot page and add The Colt as a subitem, as I had suggested merging as a compromise in the AfD itself and was going to propose it even if the article survived AfD. Could you please help me with this by Userifying the material to my page so that I can have it to work with? Also: most of the material is too verbose and story-internal for Wikipedia and belongs in the fan wiki (Super-Wiki), so I will be merging it over there.

Thanks Banazir (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. FYI, I expanded a page you created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/MfD, with some additional MfDed portals. I also revised Wikipedia:Portal guidelines to make it usable at MfD, and added some see alsos to WikiProject Portals. -- Suntag ☼ 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Cirt (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't realize you were in the midst of blocking. I had added a warning to User talk:69.22.221.46 for 3RR, then saw you'd blocked the account. Someone had removed the block notice, so I removed my 3RR warning and returned the block notice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These CIA conspiracy links are likely to go up over the next month as we near the 30th Anniversary of Jonestown and specials start to run on TV.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, on Frank's page it says "This article does not cite any references or sources." yet 1 references is given, and 2 WP articles are shown in the references section, which, themselves are referenced. So can that that notice be removed now?Johnalexwood (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so I have nominated the article for deletion. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

→ I know Frank personally, and this is an excerpt of an e-mail from him about himself:

"I am a former Scottish Rugby Internationalist and British Lion and captained Scotland on three occasions, once against England and twice against Australia in 1969. During my rugby career, I played 32 times for my country and my home club is Melrose RFC."

1966 British Lions tour to Australia and New Zealand confirms that Frank was a British Lion and is referenced by Thomas, Clem; updated by Thomas, Greg (2001). The History of The British and Irish Lions. Mainstream Books, pp133-141. ISBN 1-84-018498-1. and he is also listed here 1971 British Lions tour to New Zealand which is referenced by J.B.G. Thomas (1971) The roaring Lions (Pelham Books).

See also this page about Frank here which shows his photo and lists his international record.

See also: Rugby History of Scotland which says that Frank "was one of Scotland's great hookers and his combination with Carmichael and McLauchlan formed one of Scotland's best ever front rows. He played for the Melrose Club. Frank played for Scotland over thirty times from 1965 and 1971 and also captained Scotland on 2 occasions." OK they forgot one, but at least the stories tie up.

Lastly, and most importantly, see this list of Scotland's International Players on Scotish Rugby's official site. He is listed as Laidlaw, FAL (Melrose)Johnalexwood (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These are brief passing mentions and one-liners or less than one-sentence long. Anything to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is all I can find. There may be more on him in the 2 book references given.Johnalexwood (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have a question re asking a question in the Talk or Discussion page of an article. If it's an article which is not very popular, I fear that my question may never get seen by anyone. Am I right? Johnalexwood (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You could post a notice linking there, at the talk page of relevant WikiProjects. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The inline citations there arent needed. If multiple consecutive sentences use the same reference, its inappropriate to replicate that citation over and over. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What does being controversial have to do with anything? Having four consecutive citations, all to the same article, doesnt make anything less controversial or significantly help readers find the reference. Overciting just patronises them and adds a bunch of unneeded blue links. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are enough people watching over an article this contentious that new insertions shouldnt be an issue. And i dont need the condescension. Ive done at least one featured article myself so i know what Im doing here. I also noticed that you decided to make implications about my motives rather that pointing out anything wrong with the point I made. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you recall blocking an ISP for various issues regarding a conspiracy theory link yesterday, including pretending to be an administrator. I wanted to alert you to this reversion by a newly registered account, which accuses me of vandalism for the last revert I did there last night, and alleging that he was reverting to an admin version (the pretend admin reversion). Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please userfy the following for me: Soul Edge (weapon) and The Colt (Supernatural). Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More information Hi there Cirt! ...

Hi there Cirt!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Close

- -The Spooky One (talk to me) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation but I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See this. -- Suntag ☼ 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the part of the sentence in the Dianetics Racing section that talks about the volcano is irrelevant to Kenton and should be removed. Do you agree? Please also see this: Johnalexwood (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning the source, merely the correct place for such a comment. Johnalexwood (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate and relevant information for the entry on Dianetics itself maybe, but it should not appear in that guy's WP entry. I doubt the significance of the cross is discussed in the WP entries of Christians who wear a cross on a necklace etc. It would obviously be appropriate to discuss it in an entry on Christianity. Johnalexwood (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We will just have to disagree on this - to me it is obvious that the correct place to make comments about Dianetics is the entry on Dianetics, not the entry of an individual. Johnalexwood (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I have another go at understanding how cats and subcats work? We have cat (A)British Scientologists, and then subcat (B)English, (C)Scottish, and (D)Welsh (no members yet) Scientologists. So, when a Welsh Scn is added, should they be given both cat A and subcat D or just D or what, because WP doesn't automatically make entries cat A if you give them subcat B, C or D. So if you don't give every scn a cat A as well as B, C or D, then when you click on cat A, even though they are a British Scn, they will be missing from the list. So how is it supposed to work? Johnalexwood (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On 26 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hollywood Undercover, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

While I have your attention, I would like to ask how people use those tools that accomplish tasks with a few clicks.

Things such as placing correct tags, table format and diff checking that more experienced users seem to be able to do rapidly within a short span of time. I've looked over pages like Twinkle, and I am not too sure what to make of them. DDDtriple3 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt

Is it possible to review the deletion of page "Lightworker".

It is (was) a very good basic description of what many of us do and linked out to other topics. It is a valid term that covers many modalities. We call ourselves lightworkers the way some people call themselves "accountants".

Thanks for your consideration

LightWitch (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt.

A while ago, you deleted that page. While that template is only technically used on Commons, if it is not included locally, things like this result. Would you have any objections to me restoring it locally? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It should not be restored, because any images that use it should be deleted as they are either duplicates to Commons or should be moved to Commons. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all images on commons automatically have a "ghost" page on enwiki which displays the information shown on the commons page; thus the need for the template. 204.193.204.17 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the welcome, but I'm simply an editor on Wikibreak who checks in once in a while to see how things are going (and can't be bothered to log in). 204.193.204.17 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(And yes, like I said above, it does need to be restored) 204.193.204.17 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - it serves no purpose on en.wiki - only on Commons. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See my explanation above - the ghost pages will look strange (and documentation will be slightly messed up) if it's not restored. 204.193.204.17 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See my explanation above - there should be no "ghost pages" - only temporary pages which should be deleted anyways. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's a feature of the MediaWiki software - image pages on Commons are automatically viewable at any Wikimedia wiki. Random example: Image:Buio Pesto 2006 B.jpg. The file doesn't actually exist on enwiki - hence the nom de plume "ghost page". Yet the Commons page automatically is accessible from enwiki, using enwiki's templates, hence the need for the template. 204.193.204.17 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that particular image. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with that image, true. I was just using it as an example of an image that had a ghost page. All my handwaving here has been in vain; alas. I suppose recently the software has been altered to use Common's templates rather than enwiki's, i.e. see the template on Image:"The right way".jpg; it's actually transcluded from commons. My apologies for wasting your time. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, as the one who claimed and started work on Brother from the Same Planet, if you have time, could you apply the finishing touches? I've cut down the plot, but that may need some more work. Aside from that, all that needs doing is the lead, and I hate doing those things. It's the last article we need to finish for the Season 4 GT, so if you have time, that'd be great. Thanks. Gran² 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I will work on it soon. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt! Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and the advice. Jedish (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi cirt I'm nosebutton. I've been on wikipedia for a while and I thought it's time I actually started to talk to people. I've been sending messages to Huntster and Huntster's been sending me some too. I just wanted to talk with someone else too because it's fun getting messages so can you please write back? Nosebutton (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read your message, I had no clue what you meant but now that I see I have no Idea how that got there. I just wrote a message and I thought I was done,but I geuss something happened. Sorry about that. You can erase the extra ones. Nosebutton (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt Thank you for the info!! Nosebutton (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Cirt. Thank you for all of your edits to the Anonymous (group) page. I can appreciate your adherence to good policy especially being a new Wikipedian. I would also respectfully ask that you provide your own opinion on the matter of moving Anonymous (group) to a more descriptive title. Thank you. Spidern (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Just wanted to drop by with thanks for the semi on Twilight, I was thinking about requesting protection this weekend anyway. Noticed that it's set to expire on November 13, and I just wanted to give you a heads up that it may need to be re-protected after it expires, since there's a good chance that there'll be a new wave of anon edits around and after its release on November 21. Thanks again, Cliff smith ^talk 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you create the Twilight (film) article?Nosebutton (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you an editor or an article creator? By the way,did you create the H20 just add water article? I've been trying to figure out who created it. There are many who are cleaning it up but I'm not sure who the one who created it is! Do you know?Nosebutton (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! thanks so much for your contribution to DYK:Süreyya Opera House. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'd have to say I'm more of an editor too.Nosebutton (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I would never exceed the 3RR rule. The other user, User:Steve Dufour, has been banned however. And I have begun a discussion about fixing the page's problem on the talk page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem sir :D MatthewYeager 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo Cirt, nice work on the template. I reverted the merge with the works of Ayn Rand template; editors of Objectivism-related articles have been trying to discourage the confusion of Objectivism as the personal philosophy/personality cult (depending on your pov) of Rand. Rather than Rand the philosopher God-Queen, consensus exists to treat Rand as a writer of philosophically-oriented material and to treat Objectivism as a separate (but not unrelated) social/political movement. If you don't mind this, could you AWB {{Objectivism}} back on the articles it belongs? If you do mind, I suggest we talk it out at Template talk:Objectivism. Regards, the skomorokh 22:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my work on the template. I think it should be one unified template. Please discuss at Template talk:Ayn Rand. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.

Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

The Wikipedia valued picture project has opened for nominations. Please feel free to nominate an image at WP:VPC today!

Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I will take a look. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to do a lot of the reviewing for portal peer review and portal featured candidates. Could you take a look at P:HV and let me know where it stands and what might need to be done for it to be a featured portal? Thanks. Gimmetrow 02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you noticed that the "developement" section had only two references and one is used several times to justify nearly the whole section. There are no refrences in the lead at all.

Just something to keep in mind as you review. --Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will take that into consideration, thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I've been extremely impressed with your neutrality. You do great work. If I could vote again in your RFA, I would certainly support. Cool Hand Luke 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Oops. Didn't mean to revert. I clicked wildly on my edit history.) I appreciate how you've conducted yourself. You told all of the opposition that you would strive to earn their trust, so I just wanted to give you one data point: for me it's been effective. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi cirt - i really think my article spielraum was relevant and a positive contribution to wikipedia - why did you delete it? i would like to argue for its inclusion. can i at least access the content? thanks maxsenges —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxSenges (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the reference in Sathya Sai Baba movement I can only improve it on the talk page because arbcom thinks I have a conflict of interest on this article. Please try to be specific. I have the most important listed references at home. Andries (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, thanks for finally removing a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba_movement#Kent_"wrongly"_describes_the_Sathya_Sai_Baba_movement_in_Malaysia_as_a_"Hindu_Revitalization_movement."Andries (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make a version with improved references in user space. I think that would be the most convenient solution. There is already one in citizendium Andries (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, You recently closed the subject AFD, but it is not clear to me how you determined that there was a wp:consensus to delete. I see little if any serious effort to dispute the Keep rationale. Am I missing something?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with an explanation. It's not an emotional issue, I just want to understand how the decision is made.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I don't really buy the decision, but I'll accede. For future, though, please consider rework in disputed cases like this. There's no real reason that articles can't be moved out of mainspace for improvements. It is characteristic of these accident/incident articles that the best ones (e.g. Swissair Flight 111) are based on a mix of sources, both contemporaneous news and post-investigation formal reports. If we routinely WP:DEMOLISH the contemporaneous-based articles, the post-investigation material may not be sufficient on its own. I've previously advocated establishing an article holding zone for this purpose.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I was wondering if you would be able to help me with this. Jay Burridge has contacted me, and said that he would like to provide some more information for his page. All well and good, but how exactly do I then source it? Thanks. Gran² 15:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How is D2M entry an different than Cesaroni, sparkfactor, Speck design, etc. All firms related to Stanford design program, all doing design/engineering in the bay area. Some have fewer or zero references (but obsessive linking?). 216.158.203.155 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)heather

I want to make two related, but conceptually distinct points -- a request and a question:

1. Please retrieve or otherwise help me to access a copy of the now deleted Japanese Jamaicans and Talk:Japanese Jamaicans. I want to use the text and its supporting citations as a basis for Japanese expatriates in Jamaica?
2. What should I have done to make clear that this was the intention which motivated my contribution to the AfD thread? Effectively, your action devalued, diminished, marginalized my attempt to contribute constructively by putting this thread in context? Surely, your intention was neutral, but the result was unhelpful. Not that I disagree with the view expressed by the majority or participants in this thread -- no, rather I thought the decision-making was too narrowly focused in terms of corollary articles.

I feel like something missed the mark a little bit; and by investing the time in puzzling it out, I hope to develop a better strategy for the future.

FYI -- I don't care deeply about Jamaica or about this specific topic; rather, I'm concerned about what this false step has achieved in a process of clarifying the scope and ambit of Template:Japanese diaspora. --Tenmei (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please delete User:Tenmei/Japanese Jamaican and User talk:Tenmei/Japanese Jamaican. Thank you for the opportunity to copy the text to User:Tenmei/Horikawa which I'll treat as a temporary sand box.

The issues involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D2M (2nd nomination) have nothing to do with me ... but I am a little troubled by the following if it doesn't relate to the unfamiliar "D2M":

I stand by my assessment of AfD consensus to delete. But if you wish, feel free to bring a deletion review, just let me know if you do.

I regret creating even a thin impression that I might have had any serious complaints or disagreements with your actions in closing the thread at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican. The consensus was overwhelming. Clearly, you did nothing wrong .... This is just one of those things I needed to learn the hard way. Please trouble yourself no further. --Tenmei (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy •
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

hello...the changes i made to the template was primarily removing plays that had not received awards. i plan to go back through to back fill the years with the correct works. --emerson7 07:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

what's really to discuss if the data is 1) factually incorrect 2) completely unsourced? --emerson7 07:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I was wondering, I'm trying to get the above article to GA and was wondering if this could apply to the music video of the song? I'm completely out of reliable sources for this article and I need to get it to GA. Cheers. — Realist² 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. — Realist² 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:OBIE Plays has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. emerson7 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this can make a DYK after it gets more content/characters with reliable sourcing? --Kanonkas : Talk 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied back on my user talk page. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it would've made more sense to move Farmer's Daughter (band) to this title instead of redirecting it to Surfing USA? I would think that more people would be looking for the band than the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This sentiment was expressed at the AfD. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the image was that it was used on the Glenn Quinn page, when it is only allowed to be used on the Allen Francis Doyle page. You only tagged its used on the Doyle page, but I'm just assuming that it was an oversight. Anyway, I removed the image from the Glenn Quinn article, so all is well. It was a pretty simple, straightforward fix. kingdom2 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the image tag, then. Incidentally, I was not the original uploader. I merely converted the image to jpeg for TheScourge as it was labeled as Category:Images_that_should_be_in_JPEG_format. — trlkly 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On 8 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the update. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cirt, I guess you are the person who approved the deltetion of the article "taken in hand". I want to re-create it under the heading "taken in hand relationship". Can I have your support please? The following is the message I wrote to VG, the person who originally proposed it for delteion. I explain below why the article should exist unser the title "Taken in hand relationship" Although (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not very good at Wikipedia, so I hope I am writing to the right person. If I understand things correctly you, VG, were the person who proposed it, (Taken in Hand), for deletion. I have never contributed to this article, nor have I seen the website "takeninhand.com".

I was discussing with some friends a variety of new words and expresseions which have entered the English language in the last 5 years, including "dogging", "office wife" and *taken in hand". There was some discussion as to whether "taken in hand" was a domination/contolling style relationship, or a leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship. We decided to clarify the answer by looking it up in Wikipedia. We were somewhat surprised to find that an article on this subject had been deleted in the past few days before we looked.

In our opinion the words "taken in hand" are used to describe the state of a relationship between a man and a woman. "She is a taken in hand wife/girlfriend" "She is taken in hand", They have a "taken in hand relationship". From an encyclopedic point of view taken in hand" is a type of relationship between two partners, in the same way that "marriage", "domination" "subserviance" or "love" can describe a relationship between two people. '

I have heard the words used to describe both the domination/contolling style relationship and leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship. Possibly both are correct, and an article is needed to clarify the meaning.

One of the reasons mentioned for deletion was that it was a BDSM term. I have not really heard it used as a BDSM term, although the submissive in a BDSM relationship may also be in a "taken in hand" relationship, just as they could be in a "married" relationship, or a "love" realtionship, but one does not automatically imply the other.

Another reason given for deletion was that this term is not used beyond the site "takeninhand.com". This is not true. Me and my friends had never heard of such as site before looking at the deletion log. Clearly "Taken in hand" would not have been discussed by us if the term was not in wider use beyond a website. In fact the taken in hand style relationship is widely used as an experession. To prove this, use Firefox, go to Tools and check the box "Search for text as I start typing". Now load Google and start typing "Taken in...". Immediately you will see all the common searches by Firefox users on Googele. You will note that the second term searched is "Taken in hand relationship" with 6.6 million searches, with more than 100'000 websites referring to the term. "Taken in hand" is a widely known and widely used term.

However, I agree that the Wikipedia encyclopedic reference should not be a crib of an existing website. I also think that the reference in Wikipedia should be to "Taken in hand relationship", not to just "taken in hand". I would like to re-start the article under a new name "taken in hand realtionship". Please can you consider this and give me your support? Although (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)'

I've replied to you on Talk:Dianetics. We can create a new one if it applies (there are plenty of alternative psychiatric or psychological treatments that could go in it I imagine) with it defined as "psychological treatments not currently endorsed by most mainstream medicine" or something, or remove it from both. Or a sub category might apply. My only concern is that I'm tidying up Category:Alternative medicine, other than that I don't mind.:) Sticky Parkin 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are working on. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

Chanology

Family Season 7 Episode Guide

My RfA

Jump the Shark

Support clusters

Hello - perhaps a deal (over audited articles) is in order

{{Arctic-stub}}

Portal:Arctic

Your GA nomination of Shawn Lonsdale

Your GA nomination of Shawn Lonsdale

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

You give me a smile, I give you a cake

Internet portal/4chan

Talk:Christian cult

Krusty Gets Kancelled

dates

List of new religious movements

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

RfA thank you

script

David Gaiman &amp; Narconon

WP:Russia

User:Ken Moxon

Hossam Ramzy

Robin Hogarth

FAR

Cathedral of Magdeburg FAR

Michael Snow

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Red Hot Chili Peppers Krusty.gif)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

Mick Woodmansey

Re:Krusty Gets Kancelled

Leo Ryan

Bugoy Bogayan

CloseAfD script

List of new religious movements

My RfA

Re: Guru of Sex

Category:Fictional works by L. Ron Hubbard

DYK!

You're welcome

OK

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTPRN

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C9orf3

Ignore my last edit

P. M. Pu

Oregon Portal

Re: AFD Relists... Tutorial needed!

Sopranos GA nomination

Speedy Keep

List of New Religious Movements

Re: Corporate Crush - GA Hold

question

Miles Fisher

Hydrochloric acid FAR: your further comments please

Your RfA

Miles Fisher

OTRS question

Your GA nomination of Miles Fisher

1995 Pacific Grand Prix

revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état

Next update

Revolt in the Stars

thx4thx

Re: Your GA nomination of The Dark Knight (film)

FT Drive

Suggestion to help you

Good Luck with Your RFA

Congratulations!

You are now an administrator

Resilient barnstar

User page/FA star simplification templates

Your page has consumed my watchlist

I know who you are...

Congrat

DYK note and a congratulations

Congratulations!

David Gaiman & Narconon