User talk:Cirt/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Greetings. I notice that you recently deleted the article Goresleeps, which surprised me a little since only one further vote ("per nom", adding nothing new to the discussion) had been made since the AfD was relisted to allow more time for consensus to form. As was mentioned in the AfD discussion, this band released two albums with a fairly major independent Russian record label, which should indicate notability as per WP:BAND. Goresleeps has also been the subject of non-trivial coverage in a Belarussian music newspaper which appears to be reliable source and wasn't hard to find: both articles are linked from the Russian Wikipedia article on Goresleeps. The band has also had reviews on various other music websites. I feel concerned that we may be losing too many articles on notable foreign topics because of language barriers involved in sourcing rather than because the articles should not exist at all. However I am aware that this article had several issues (dodgy translation among them) and is in need of improvement. Unfortunately I don't speak Russian, so I would like the article to be publicly accessible to allow other editors to work on it.

I therefore request that this article be moved to the WP: Article Incubator where it may be improved to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Incubated articles are noindexed so won't show up in Google searches until they (possibly) "graduate" back to main article space. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I just ran into Black Heung Jin Nim and Heung Jin Nim. They have been tagged as problem articles since March. I'm not sure if I should AfD them or not. What do you think? Northwestgnome (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's always a good way to gauge community consensus. :) Cirt (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The other article is Heung Jin Moon. They probably have enough sources to not be deleted. However they are mostly presenting an insider's (UC member's) point of view rather than the objective view that a WP article needs. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, at the moment I am working on another related article, Inchon. :) Cirt (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Thank you very much for placing a block on the vandal at IP 153.2.247.30. Unfortunately, that only solves a third of the problem, as the same user has been making the same vandalism edit from two other IPs as stated in my reports. The other IPs are 166.137.7.40 and most recently 166.137.6.62. I'm fairly certain one of these IPs or possibly another new one will be making the same edit again tomorrow if not actioned. Is this possible? Many thanks. 76.89.161.88 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to report again to WP:AIV at that time. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a different edit but it was still more vandalism, so I guess I'll report it AGAIN. Will this be an everyday thing, or will something actually be done to this user?? Very discouraging to have to file multiple reports about the same thing. 76.89.161.88 (talk)

You could alternatively report it to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. Further to this discussion and a message I have received on my talk page, please could you userfy the deleted article WorkTime to Rirunmot?

Thank you—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No one commented on the AFD so can you restore the article and relist the AfD? Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits!! - There should be more people in the world who do something constructive like this. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jediism should be on the list of NRMs. Possible sources for this are: " Religion And Popular Culture: A Hyper-real Testament" 978-0820466347 and " In Search of New Age Spiritualities" 978-0754652137, both by adam possamai (Professor in Sociology). Other books mentioning Jediism as a NRM can be found on google books: [1] [2]

Ren ✉ 05:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source suggestions, but they don't actually say it is a "new religious movement". They seem to use other terms. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering if you could explain why you removed Jediism from the list of new religious movements, as I did add secondary references as you requested.

Many thanks, Kai Tatsu (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you cited identify Jedism as a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the news articles I cited mentioned the Church was founded in the 21st Century? I quote: "rosecutor Nia Lloyd said Barney Jones had recently started the Jedi Church in Holyhead, in honour of the good knights from Star Wars." The use of the word recently implies the Church was founded within the last few years. The article is dated 22 April 2008.^[1] Also, "The handbook of the UK Jedi Church, founded by film nut Daniel last year, states: "Jedis must wear a hood up in any public place of a large audience." Says he founded the Church last year - again, in the 21st Century. I would've thought that would mean it is a New Religious movement, wouldn't it?^[2] Kai Tatsu (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do any independent reliable secondary sources actually specifically say that the group is a "new religious movement" ? Cirt (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are saying for it to be a valid reference it must have the words in there 'New religious movement'? The references I cited use phrases such as 'last year' or 'recently', and they are articles written in 2007, 2008 and 2009 - recently tends to mean within the last few years, it would not be used in a news article reffering to a past event that happened more than 7 years ago, would it? If the Church of Jediism does not count as a new religious movement, then what is it? an old religious movement? Seeing as it was founded in the 21st Century, I would've thought that counted as new. Kai Tatsu (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should specifically be identified as a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I was wondering if this would count as a secondary, valid reference good enough to entitle Jediism to be on the List of new religious movements? "The conference focused on New Religious Movements, with several seminars related to this topic. The most interesting was the talk by the founders of the Church of Jediism"^[3] Many thanks, Kai Tatsu (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Where you able to find out anything about the soundtrack album for Inchon? Everything I found was in fan sites, etc. Nothing in published sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do some research on that. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN? Nergaal (talk)

No objections. :P Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely honest, this comment puzzles and disturbs me. As I said, my belief is that there was agreement on this and I was responding to Binksternet's post on my talk page. You posted nothing else on my talk page except I agree with this comment and removed the note on WP:ACTOR with a note at WT:ACTOR. You didn't actually attempt to discuss anything with me whatsoever until you chose to respond to my response to Binksternet. The tone I commented on was the real feeling that I was being chastised by you in an administrative tone, although I'm not certain this was a situation where an administrator response was necessary. And I don't believe your last response there was particularly neutral. You commented on the intent of the template creator, I responded by noting the creator isn't around to explain his intent. I wasn't aware administrators generally post links to other editor's posts and edits for a non-admin editor like this either. Are you acting as an administrator or as a regular editor here? I said three times if you don't believe it was an agreement, I'd be happy to bring it up for a project discussion, and I note that was never acknowledged. However, I truly see no need for you to feel I need to be chastised that way, even in a backhanded manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel you were being chastised, that was not my intention. I am not acting as an administrator in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it best to actually ask you rather than think it and not be sure. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Cirt (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I move an image on commons to a new name? Or is that something only you can do? Specificly, File:Davenport-City-Hall.jpg should be moved to File:Davenport, Florida-City-Hall.jpg to better distinguish it from File:Davenport, Iowa City Hall.jpg CTJF83 chat 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done as requested. The Maslin article is positive, the other NYT is critical. The links for Chicago and SJM are dead; cannot verify context of opinions or quotes. EW is not really a recognized source for book reviews as contrasted with major newspapers, therefore IMO not great for a lede section. I think giving the "grain of salt" summarizes the critical views best. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think this was a "vandalism-only" account. Many of their edits appear constructive and most of the warnings they got were for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was redirected from WP:ANI to here. Simply put, 1989 Rosie refuses to enter dialog or dispute resolution. As far as I can tell he/she was banned for disruptive editing, addition of unsourced content and unexplained formatting changes (which unfortunately ended in an edit war with me) only to be unbanned for wrongful naming of the reason of the ban. From the few lines that where actually typed by 1989 Rosie it't clear that the users English is really poor so maybe he/she just doesn't understand the requests for dialog. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there something that can be done? I'm not sure what to do anymore. The discussion was archived away from WP:ANI due to nobody responding. 1989 Rosie is at it again and is being warned multiple times a day by multiple editors about multiple articles and just keeps going without the need to discuss or even respond to it. I just see that henrik also made a comment on the talk page about his/her behavior. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all thanks for the Barnstar. Yeahh!!! I would definitely want "Poker Face" to go to FA oneday, maybe next year, when the Billboard chart year ends. Even I would love to make {{Lady Gaga}} a GT someday. But at first I'm concentrating on Madonna's Confessions on a Dance Floor era to make it a GT. And I also promised User:Aaroncrick that I would collaborate with him to promote cricketer Sourav Ganguly to GA. Humph! Sumtimes I think that we need two Legolas2186 around here. By the way, I didnot know that you could mail the publicist of an artist and get an image through OTRS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you wanted me to do it myself but... Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think our best shot would be the official website http://www.ladygaga.com else wait for User:David Shankbone to upload an amazing photo. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you are listed on the GAN for Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride, I wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to Nergaal (talk · contribs), who has done some excellent work on it. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you consider reopening this? It was nominated on September 28, but mistakenly placed on September 9's log, so it was not properly listed until October 29 (see the relisting comment) and got only 3 days of proper debate. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise when a year after a save, a rescued article gets deleted with very little discussion. It might have been nice if the prodder sent out a few courtesy notices and I might have them been on top of it... but oh, well. Please userfy Pornstar (film) to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Pornstar (film). I'll do some work on it and then invite you to peruse it prior to returning it to mainspace. I do not find fault with your closure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even hear the plane that flew by. Fast. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want a [better] custom signature? I would be happy to make you one.  Btilm  04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but simple works for me. :) Cirt (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like User:David Shankbone has left Wikipedia over a spat happening over the article David Shankbone. We are all doomed :( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's this block all about? I don't see any problematic contributions, or any at all, actually. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. I think the IP tripped a filter multiple times. We can try it again WP:AGF. :) Cirt (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've not been paying sufficient attention to the filter log. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt- you gave a 24 hour block to the above-referenced user last night for vandalism. I pondered leaving this note last night and figured why not? I took a look through his contributions and the account is clearly a vandalism-only account, which has been active (inconsistently active, but active nonetheless) since 2008. Here are [contributions]. What do you think? Seems like a candidate for an indefinite block to me but, I'll be frank -- I am not entirely familiar with indefinite blocking policy, just that it seems to often be used for vandalism-only accounts, such as this one. Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Will give an indef block if it picks up vandalism again. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Was asking at least partly out of curiosity regarding the policy. Thanks! Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you protected St James Park for 3 days, perhaps you missed the attached Newcastle United, I have added a new request here for Newcastle_United_F.C. that page too, would you have a look please, it has been edit revert all day. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, its done, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

SoWhy 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't they have caused a bunch of errors by being spread through the article. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

I would like you to reconsider this and the subsequent deletion for Winweb (redirect to WinWeb OnlineOffice), please note we have a EU/US trademark for Winweb:

1. I note the original nomination is from Heyjohnd, a user account you have suspended?? 2. "Non notable office management software" only says the person who made the comment does not understand what is new or notable, as we are currently the only "Online Office Software" supplying real business services using SaaS technology as a delivery conduit. Apart from that we where the first online accounting software accredited by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. 3. As per the "more of the same" - looking at "Smerdis of Tlön's" ego trip page - I'm not sure what is notable about that page? 4. "Sounds like advertising to me" - you mean like the Microsoft Office page? All company pages fall into this category - a rather nonsensical statement, don't you think? 5. "Just a random piece of software", what does that mean? Just because we are helping very small businesses, who usually do not have even a website and are therefore less "internet" vocal, does not make our software less notable, rather the opposite. We have have 100,000+ registered users, most of which would not use the internet, like bakers, plumbers, gardeners, etc - see our ClientProfile on winweb.com pages. 6. "I can't find significant coverage" - more of the same general nonsense - I and Winweb have been in the media, last yesterday on CNBC TV - see WinWeb Business Blog (winweb.com) - not for the first time. We had the great misfortune that someone in Russia violated our trademark and made a virus by the name "winweb.exe" - which you cover here, helping with the continuation of our trademark violation. This has caused us problems that our content has been very fragmented on Google and other search engines, because this was a big problem for many users world-wide and gained fast traction on the internet, hurting our google placings greatly.

We have currently an alexa.com ranging of about 200,000 our monthly is around 120,000 - you cover web content that has rankings in the millions, to call us "random or insignificant" seems a little random to me. SaaS technology is new and Winweb has been in this for about 10 years, this software sector is emerging as a new, but hopefully dominant player in this market, so it may be excusable that some of the commentators are a little out of their depth.

I would like you to reconsider and reinstate our pages. I hope to hear from you soon. VB, STopfer (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See the unanimous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinWeb OnlineOffice. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read my message you would be able to tell that I have read the discussion!? I have dealt with each point above. STopfer (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want you can try to work on a version in your userspace, at User:STopfer/Sandbox. But I think it fails WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my Talk Page. Please go here:User Talk:Kai Tatsu to view the message. Many thanks, May the Force be with you. Kai Tatsu (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have probably royally annoyed the earlier editors on this article, but when I went in to look at it and add new victims that were named, I was completely confounded by what I thought was the most confusing and bizarre method of citation formatting that I've seen on Wikipedia. Seeing how it was somewhere around 5:30 am for me, and there was nothing said in the references section or in an internal note about this seemingly bizarre style of referencing, I moved them into the regular method of inline citations. About 15 minutes ago, as I was finishing, I got a message from a new editor telling me to stop with a link to the talk page. Considering I'd spent the better part of 3 hours working on this, I finished the last 5 references after I saw the talkpage. I'm sorry if I annoyed the editors who discussed this, but ya know, it would have helped immensely if there had been a note imbedded somewhere on the actual article explaining the use of this (in my opinion) rather bizarre method. I just thought I'd drop you a note, since you were the one who spoke up about it. I'm not seeing that a new referencing method being used on MediaWiki being introduced here is helpful when there is nothing noted about it. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but have since dropped that particular page. :( Cirt (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have died down when I was out (very rare) spending a day with my best friend and her daughter (my goddaughter) and her 3 young grandsons. And geesh, but I'm tired. Honestly, had there been an imbedded note somewhere in the article itself, I would have tried to fix things the other way around. There was a mix of styles in the article already - some using regular cite templates, some using the handcrafted ones and then the other mix. I couldn't quite figure out how to fix what was broken in the odd style and that's why I changed it. I'd even be glad to go over and fix any mixed citations over to templates as time goes on, but ... ehh, I don't know. Truthfully, I do not know how a new editor could ever figure it out. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, again I agree. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are satisfied with the results, closing the discussion is fine with me. There are still a couple editors that have been away, but the truth is, I know what they will say also. I suppose that's what happens when you work most closely with the same group of editors all the time - the consensus is really kind of unspoken, but we all approach the articles in much the same way, mostly edit in the same way and you start to know what the general feeling is about things. That's also why I was hesitant regarding the Worst Picture template - I don't think WP:FILM is quite as concerned about the templates - they are still trying to get the succession boxes removed because of the redundancy of them. WP:FILM and WP:ACTOR are close in agreement on most things, but not every single thing, though we have a lot of common membership. FILM is so much more organized than ACTOR, and I wish ACTOR could get it together as well as they are, we don't have project coordinators, though it often seems as if Rossrs and I do most of responding at the talk page and often initiate discussion. Not that we want to answer particularly, but that we are the ones who do. Then again, we fall back on FILM style guidelines when we don't have some style stated, so I suppose it behooves us all to work together. There are still some general consensus decision discussions clearly outlined on the talk page (filmography templates) but sometimes they end up dragged out and re-discussed. Thanks for your interest and help. And if I was short or curt regarding all of this, I apologize. I have begun to have some serious problems with insomnia (well, gee, see my contributions timeframes) and I probably am a little brusque at times. Again, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my question here to Nargaal, since you are also listed as a co-nominators on this article... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to suggest you should be removed; we've all collaborated on it... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article needs a couple more lines saying Beck's point of view since he did have reason to be all sorts of upset. Maybe in the "Beck initiates legal action" subsection. That being said:

		The Law Barnstar
		For turning Beck v. Eiland-Hall into an in-depth presentation when it could have instead been deleted, made to be a simple POV fork, or just turned into another internet phenomena based stub. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Eiland-Hall's lawyer really embraced the media but I still can't find commentary from Beck on it. I think a line or two discussing his perspective would be great if a source can be found.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you erase BS.Player page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.138.27 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS.Player. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you erase BS.Player page. Now you need to erase all multimedia players from Wiki ??

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

It's just not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat2000 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alvin Fields. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Some material was added to this page when it was up for deletion, then it was just deleted. What was the reasoning? More info could have been added (and would have been). Given the fairly high profile of the Croats in the UK, especially appearing on tv during sporing events, as well as the major historic role of dissidence (referred to in the late additions), there was a notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukous (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take a moment to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in the United Kingdom. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link - I will get back to you later in the week. Rukous (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the quote. You might also want to reference Talk:Dell#Lead_sentence_structure, where Pedant17 demonstrates a similar slow-edit-war approach against consensus; returning to the article periodically to rewrite it in E-Prime, refusing to recognise the consensus of other editors, and stating that he'll only stop the edit war when someone presents a policy which specifically says not to rewrite articles in E-Prime.

Talk:Dell also shows the (at least) second time that he's been warned about misinterpreting WP:SILENCE to mean "last person to speak wins the argument", which is possibly one of the major reasons why he thinks it's okay to pursue a slow-edit war. --McGeddon (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation in passing - the image on the page needs to have alt text added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also an observation after I was asked to copyedit it, IMDB is not a reliable source, but I do not see this pointed out as an issue on the review? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. Alastair McIntosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It took a while but "good things come to those who wait", as my mother used to say.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Alastair McIntosh's talk page.
Message added 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made a comment regarding the block. Would appreciate your comment. LouriePieterse 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the user was unblocked, but the templates remain on his page and it's unclear (at least to me) whether or not there is still a request for him to change his username. Can you clarify your position on this? FWIW, I don't think this is a case where it is at all required, though I accept the initial tag was in good faith. Just because a username is the same as a site name (and, apparently, an individual's given name) doesn't mean there is a violation of policy; I cannot find one in this case. Thanks for any clarification you can offer.  Frank  |  talk  11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shop.Com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bpops721 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Fefferman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've caught someone with a username violation red-handed. Jakarta Drum School (talk · contribs)'s the guy caught here. Block him indefinitely, until he renames the account, please.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 08:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please report it to WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements now has some page citations. The alphabetical sections at the top of the page are for those specific groups which have been listed in more than one of the three sources. Unfortunately, I am really, really bad at multiple reference citations, listing the page numbers of multiple sources in one reference citation. If you would be interested in setting up an example for me to follow on the list of NRMs page, I would be very appreciative.
And, for what it might be worth, the sections below, by source, are hopefully going to be eventually included as well. For those items, I'm not so sure if they might not be listed under other names in other books, so I think the only realistic option is to, basically, create articles on all of them, and then see if ultimately some of them are basically copies of others. Unfortunately, given the number of them, that might be the quickest way to proceed. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to a straight alphabetical format. Certainly however, it is a good idea to have sub-lists, such as List of UFO religions. I will see about setting up an example for you. :) Cirt (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Just wanted to let you know that you closed an AfD on this topic with the result delete (see here), but I just found out that the original author has recreated it. Do you think we should be doing anything to enforce the old consensus? I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm attacking User:SNIyer12 (especially since I'm presently involved in a similar AfD on one of his articles-turned-redirects), but thought it should be brought to attention. I left a note on the user's talk page to see what his intentions were with the article. -Sme3 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scientology and abortion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't BF101, it was sure a near-perfect copy. I just left word with Alison regarding the BellSouth IPs I blocked earlier tonight and I mentioned this accountin hopes she can run a CU. Glad to be of service, believe me.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The see also section and internal ink that you have added at the Kevin Bishop doesn't work for me I looked at the internal and didn't understand why he was see also to the link and I looked at the Bishop article and found the association unconfirmed by the cited content in the body of the article. Could you please clarify the association. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

He is the star of the show. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Really! Is that good? Is that detail in body of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Did you click on the link in the See also section? Cirt (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it didn't help at all, I went back to the Kevin Bishop article and there was nothing there related to it at all, sorry but I couldn't see the association, I would like to see it explained in the Kevin Bishop article if it is important enough to be a see also then it should be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is explained at the see also link, that he is the star of the program. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Then how come if he is the star of whatever if is doesn't say anthing connected to this issue on his article page, ? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It says it, at the page on the program itself. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the section related here you should at the least explain why the internal link is considered to be required? Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. He is the star of the show. Please stop pushing this and leave it alone. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

like this....*the reason this link is here is because he is the star of the show Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief annotation may be necessary when the link's relevance is not immediately apparent, this is the relevant guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help here. I agree with both of you!

I've added a reliable source for the information Cirt considers important (and so do I).

However, I also agree that a link in the main body of the text is much more preferable to a See also bullet, just as Off2riorob is pointing out.

What really doesn't help is that the Being Tom Cruise article has a monstrously long lede, which still doesn't even mention the names of the starring actors! But that's another issue. Wiki is always a work in progress, gotta cut people some slack. But for the current purposes, I'd be blaming that article for confusing you Off2riorob, not Cirt, who quite rightly is defending one item of data, which however apparently trivial to most, is still reliable and interesting to some.

Hope you guys keep working well together.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked Download.com to check its notability, and the software was given five stars by the editors in 2008, see [3]. That can ensure the software's notability, so please restore the article and find reliable secondary sources (Download.com, CNet, etc.) to broaden its scope.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS.Player was quite clear. Perhaps you could work on a version of it, in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is because voters then do not know it's notable, and I do not use this software so I'm not able to create it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, all the more reason for you to work on a draft, at User:RekishiEJ/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BS.Player. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring an article regarding a theological journal which was deleted without:

1. any explanation by the closing admin,
2. any consensus having been reached, and
3. any adequate grounds for deletion.

No big deal, though, cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in disruption by violation of G4. The proper process here is WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

G4 provides authorisation rather than prohibition; and probably doesn't authorise your action, since you were the closing admin.

Please strike your claim of disruption, which is hasty, unsustainable, a personal attack against a named user (and possibly proof of ongoing defamation).

By deleting the article you are edit-warring and disrupting donation of reliable information to the encyclopedia.

The correct action on your part would be to ask a subject area expert (me) for more information.

Please withdraw your comment, so we can civily discuss the matter.

I need your response to be as prompt as your deletion, as it will determine my course of action. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

24 hours have now elapsed with no retraction or comment, so I will now close this with a formal warning.

I see you are willing to swiftly delete sourced contributions unilaterally, with personal attacks, and without discussion;

but you are slow or unwilling to answer for your actions and words.

The decision is that I will restore the article at some point while working on theological journals.

Since I have already done what is required on reopenning name spaces, i.e. contact admin closing the deletion discussion, there's no need for me to do that again.

Regarding something so trivial, I see no need to ask others to comment on your mild incivility at this point.

However, should you decide to repeat your actions after I've restored the article, rather than, for example, refering it to people who may be able to offer an informed opinion, I'll need to report you for edit warring, as well as incivility.

I trust you show more reasonable humility in the normal cause of your service to content editors here, and wish you well in it.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is you who have violated site policy and engaged in disruption by (twice) recreated a page deleted by two different admins according to processes of WP:PROD and WP:AFD. The proper procedure to contest the AFD closure is WP:DRV, it is not to unilaterally recreate deleted material if you disagree with the AFD closure. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Common sense says respect a senior Wikipedia editor operating in his subject area.

If Wikipedia has a heirarchy, then I outrank you in my subject areas.

If Wikipedia doesn't, then you don't outrank me, so don't act like you do.

Simple.

Policy says no personal attacks.

It also says anyone can use common sense to bypass procedure in order to improve and maintain the encyclopedia. (Though I bypassed nothing in this case.)

Just a friendly bit of advice: respect and defend policy, I certainly do too.

But remember the main game, certainly respect contributors with high reptutations like mine (and yours, with your AWESOME content contribution), but respect all contributors anyway.

Looks like things are being sorted. John's a star isn't he? Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PS You seem like a great guy. If you need help anytime just ask. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments, and for recognizing my quality content contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You've recently username-blocked two people who were editing under their real names, User:Methlal and User:Jp-angeles. You shouldn't do this, because real names are specifically allowed by the username policy.

Yes, they were writing unacceptably self-promotional autobiographies, but deletion takes care of that easily.

You should note that the messages you are leaving say "Your username is the only reason for this block", and that can't be true at all. I believe the reason you placed those blocks must have been as a reaction to the autobiographical content they added, not because their real names were unacceptable usernames. rspεεr (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked the former. The latter appears to be a sock. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, I remember a couple of other times I've been dubious about your username blocks, and a look through your talk page archives shows a number of username blocks that you later undid. These mistakes are harmful, because editors rarely come back from being username blocked. Do you think you could be more careful when you place username blocks? Thanks, rspεεr (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'd also on the flipside appreciate some acknowledgement for helping out at WP:UAA and working to decrease spam on the project. I think you will also find that, perhaps unlike some other administrators, I am usually quick to unblock in these sorts of situations. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You do a lot of work at UAA, and I appreciate it. And yes, I have encountered other administrators who refuse to unblock when their block turns out not to hold water -- the response is often along the lines of "they were up to no good anyway, why would you want to unblock them?" So thank you for being willing to fix unnecessary blocks. rspεεr (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the acknowledgement. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In regard to your deletion of the Alvin Fields page: Define exactly how he does not fit the following criteria.

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
  3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Can you legitimately define the reason for this page deletion despite the fact that this musician actually does reasonably fit this criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nippyinc (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Fields. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a previous page on this gentleman back in September 2008. I'd like to redo his page, and have been instructed to contact you about it first.

Griffin is the Chief Legal Counsel for the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. While he does not have a lot of online notability, being referenced in only two spots - one of which is the Alabama state website confirming his position, he is listed in quite a few print articles, which I list in the bibliography.

What is the procedure, therefore, in allowing me to redo his page?

Thanks for your help.

The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you work on it first in your userspace, at User:The Librarian at Terminus/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's ready to be published now. Should I have you review it first in my sandbox, or can I just repost it? Thanks for your help. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The former is preferable. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the page at my sandbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Librarian_at_Terminus/Sandbox thanks The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my argument: >>>Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below

While Griffin is not well-covered on the Internet, the Bibliography of print sources is substantive. Griffin is Chief Legal Counsel for the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is in itself a notable position. Contrast that to two college football players, LaGarrette Blount and Byron Hout, two journeymen football players of no notability at all, except one guy taunted the other guy, and the other guy punched him out, then went postal and decided to go into the stands. Are either two of these guys notable for anything other than that one incident? Why do they deserve to be in Wikipedia?

Not trying to be snarky, just presenting a case for someone who's served the state of Alabama for several years to be given his due at Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to contest it, you can go to WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt,

I noticed that you converted {{Abortion}} to a footer with this change.

This was a bold edit on your part, and to implement it, you had to change lots of pages. I appreciate all the work you did in order to make a consistent change.

14:23, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Women on Web ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:23, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Amnesty International ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:23, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Scientology and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:22, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Beginning of human personhood ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:22, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Christianity and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:22, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) I'm Not Sorry.net ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:22, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:22, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Genetics and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:21, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Societal attitudes towards abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:21, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Genocide Awareness Project ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:21, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Clinic escort ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:21, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Sidewalk counseling ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:21, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Fetal rights ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:20, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Beginning of pregnancy controversy ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:20, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Ethical aspects of abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:19, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion and mental health ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:19, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Pro-life movement ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:19, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Anti-abortion violence ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:19, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Crisis pregnancy center ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:19, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Unsafe abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:18, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Self-induced abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:18, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Viability (fetal) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:18, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:17, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Legalized abortion and crime effect ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:17, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Roe effect ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:17, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion debate ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:17, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Libertarian perspectives on abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:16, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Religion and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:16, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Pro-choice ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:16, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Sex-selective abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:15, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) United States v. Vuitch ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:15, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Colautti v. Franklin ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:15, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Bellotti v. Baird (1976) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:15, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:15, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Beal v. Doe ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Bellotti v. Baird (1979) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Azoulay v. The Queen ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Born-Alive Infants Protection Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:14, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:AbortionLaw-horizontal ‎ (←Redirected page to Template:Abortion) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion Act 1967 ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) H. L. v. Matheson ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) TRAP law ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:13, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) R. v. Morgentaler (1993) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:12, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Tremblay v. Daigle ‎ (→External links: {{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Roe v. Wade ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Planned Parenthood v. Casey ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) R. v. Morgentaler ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Doe v. Bolton ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Stenberg v. Carhart ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:11, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:09, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 (Ireland) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:09, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Re the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:09, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Pregnant Women Support Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:09, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Legal protection of access to abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:09, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Access to Abortion Services Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:08, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) California Proposition 85 (2006) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:08, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:AbortionLaw ‎ (←Redirected page to Template:Abortion) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion trial of Emily Stowe ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Interstate Abortion Bill ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Status of the Unborn Child Bill ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Morgentaler v. The Queen ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:06, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Conscience clause (medical) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:05, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Minors and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:05, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:05, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) McCorvey v. Hill ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:05, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) California Proposition 73 (2005) ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:03, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Paternal rights and abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:03, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Human Life Amendment ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:03, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:03, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:03, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Attorney General v. X ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:02, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Therapeutic Abortion Committee ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:02, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion law ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:02, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
14:02, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Late-term abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
14:01, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Mexico City Policy ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
13:59, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion debate sidebar ‎ (←Redirected page to Template:Abortion) (top) 
13:58, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion law sidebar ‎ (←Redirected page to Template:Abortion) 
13:58, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion law ‎ (←Redirected page to Template:Abortion) (top) 
13:58, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion ‎ (++ Law) 
13:56, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) R v Davidson ‎ ({{Abortion}}) (top) 
13:56, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) History of abortion ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
13:56, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Feminists for Life ‎ ({{Abortion}}) 
13:56, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Women on Waves ‎ ({{abortion}}) (top) 
13:55, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Selective reduction ‎ ({{abortion}}) (top) 
13:54, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion ‎ (fix) 
13:53, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Abortion ‎ (++ By country) 
13:49, 7 November 2009 (hist | diff) Abortion ‎ (mv {{Abortion}} to bottom) 

Does Wikipedia consensus prefer footers to sidebars?

Have you gotten any feedback from the participants in WikiProject Abortion about the disappearance of their sidebar?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Footers are preferable IMHO, as sidebars screw up the style formatting of the page, pushing text around, and location of placement often causes conflict in and of itself. The {{Navbox}} format is very widely accepted, and helps to improve standardization. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my objection to this change. It looks like Severa, the person who originally created and maintained the sidebars, has retired from Wikipedia.[4] So the sidebars would no longer be maintained without your change.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Last January, you deleted Future Lovers (Manga) after a deletion discussion, which mainly noted the lack of third party sources (reviews) available. Since then, I've compiled a listing of reliable reviews for the subject. I believe there are enough reviews for the book to pass WP:BK #1, and another user has left a remark to this effect on the listing of reviews I made. I believe WP:DRV says that the first step when wishing to undelete an article is to leave a note with the closing admin to ask them to undelete the article. So, given that there are now more reliable third party reviews of the book, could you please have another look at the deleted article and restore it? Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of those like About.com are not WP:RS. I suggest working on a version in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please undelete the page so that I can work on it in my userspace? The writer for About.com, Deb Aoki, is considered a reliable source who happens to be employed by About.com by the anime project. She is listed here. --Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Malkinann/Future Lovers (manga). And no, About.com is not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - even without the about.com references, there's enough to meet WP:BK#1 for this. --Malkinann (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TFD/H. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Chryssides' Dictionary actually gives this a separate listing on page 257, and actually describes it as a "movement" in the sentence "The movement is prevalent in the US, GB, and Sweden". Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Being Tom Cruise, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Cirt, Could you elaborate on why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET the way you did? There wasn't much of a rationale on the close itself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Consensus was for deletion. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I took it to DRV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. :) Cirt (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to object the deletion itself. This software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI. I feel the discussion was closed prematurely and the article should have been kept. I have also approached an admin "Nihiltres" in the past in order to get feedback and improve the article. On the list of project management software, there are much worse articles, with very little credibility. -XBammy

I listed it at todays discussions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Per another comment at the user's talk page, I've unblocked. The name alone isn't promotional, just informational, and s/he seems to have some genuine expertise to share as long as she discloses the Cleveland Clinic page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; will do in future. Normally, since most username unblocks involve the reviewing admin OK'ing the proposed new username I usually don't let the blocking admin know (and also, it had been over two months or so since the block). Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual recipient of your recent "Peace Dove" might not agree, but I'd like to thank you for helping bring the recent issue to an amicable close for most involved parties. The block was fine but perhaps too long, the unblock lacked consultation but amends were made, there was a trout, and then as Abecedare put it, all's well that ends well. Things like your Peace Dove stop these minor disagreements becoming the usual drama extravaganza.

So - thanks for working on brokering a peace. Euryalus (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I think basically at the start of this around 27 hours ago there were misunderstandings all around, and to go from open hostility to open cooperation inside a few short hours is really a testament to the fact that rumours of the death of good faith on Wikipedia are greatly exaggerated. That is a credit to you, and I agree with Euryalus above. Orderinchaos 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi I did an article about Derek Michael Sheldon. His site just won top 5 on Mashable.com best blogger to follow in 2009. I believe you deleted this page as it had no creditability. Since Mashable is a huge social media source and he clinched this nomination can we move this back to a page as it has relevancy now? I wanted to talk to you first before doing this. If you agree can you help me move this back as I am not great on Wiki? Thank you for your kind assistance.

Tanya--Lovingmusic (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would actually prefer instead if you first work on a draft in your userspace, and then get back to me about it. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. I have the article up for draft review in my page. I only changed the bottom portion mentioning the Mashable Top 5 blogger nomination and linked it. Shall I send you direct HTML to see the posting or can you access it?

Tanya--Lovingmusic (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please work on it at User:Lovingmusic/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again again for your assistance I have placed the article up for your review at User:Lovingmusic/Sandbox. His nomination is a great honor and carries the creditability you were looking for in my opinion. --Lovingmusic (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I can move it when you can..I will look for your posting on this talk page! I found the move page..AMAZING! Thank your Mr. Cirt! --Lovingmusic (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Sheldon was nominated top 5 blogger by a website that is ranked 426 in the world..Im confused on how that is not of interest or notoriety? It is very visible and verifiable by Mashable.com. Derek beat Perez Hilton in nominations. What else were you searching for if I may ask? The nominations had over 70k nominated persons and over 450k votes...--Lovingmusic (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See my prior comment, above. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[5] - it is a sarcastic joke account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps those types of accounts are appropriate on user talk pages, but not at Wikipedia process pages. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talk page - my info is limited to what is stated on that user's talk page, which makes it clear it is a sock. Beyond that, I haven't a clue. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference to JAPSS put back in by anon. Given this and one of the other edits from this IP number (an insertion of Otto F. von Feigenblatt as a supposedly notable member of the Royal Asiatic Society), I'd say that this is Our Friend VonFeigenblatt. (I'd undone both of these edits.)

I don't see the matter as pressing; I just thought that you'd be at least mildly interested. —SlamDiego_←T 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest go to WP:SPI. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you deleted the Rick Summer Droit page, how is it that you have permission to do that? There was nothing offensive about the page and there are plenty of other musicians that have pages and articles, I didnt start that page but referred t it frequently, can you give some explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.70.204 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More info, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Summer Droit. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right!!! - Xenu is actually not an Alien god of Scientology, but "the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy". I'll change the image title. Cheers.Trijah (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see you've already done it, cheers. Makes some sense to put an explanation as to who he is depicting, otherwise to people that don't know, its just a freaky protester guy in a mask and they wouldn't understand the relevance.Aye? Trijah (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kenneth Dickson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the arbitration resolution (we had issues before with that.) But the resolution does not stop editors (other than topic banned, which I am not, or haven't been notified of such ban anyway) to try and reach a consensus, which I have attempted on points of concern. Cheers. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, was just letting you know. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my edits from this page for no reason. The citation was legitimate and was correctly written what was the problem? CrazyFoxCU31 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll excuse my comment re O's "good faith" in a situation where that is now beside the point. There is a clear case arrayed against them, and my comment may be too caveated (?) to be a comfort, but what I have witnessed reveals someone worthy of a salute, even as they fall. (No reply necessary, again excuse my slight intrusion into this serious matter.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIBM as Delete, and also deleted the identical article IIBM Institute of Business Management. I've just realised that there's a third identical article which I had tagged but somehow missed adding to the AfD - IIBM Institute of business management. Cheers. andy (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cirt. I'm a bit perplexed by your closure of the above AfD, and I wonder if I could ask you to reexamine it?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was for deletion. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether DRV will agree. I want to say that I very rarely disagree with your closures, and I have raised the DRV in an entirely respectful and collegial spirit.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) Cirt (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why did you lock the page? Do you understand what is going on here? Because over at WP:ANI it doesn't appear I'm being understood and the case was closed with nothing being resolved. I reverted Collectonian's edits of making the table width 70% wide because she said it was for "standard screen sizes and known issues". I asked her what she meant by that and where I can find a discussion that there is a standard screen size for Wikipedia and where others are having the problem. She did not provide any reasoning and simply attacked me for undoing her edits. I believe is full of crap and wants things catered to her personal preference. It has now gone beyond a matter of the this article's table size. It's a matter of this spoiled brat trying to get her way. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try to resolve the matter at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cirt. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I apologize if I came on too strong. I like to see editors who are working in good faith treated with consideration and respect. I don't think constantly bringing up someone's past mistakes is helpful. The other editor is trying to follow the rules even if they get frustrated sometimes, and I hope that you can work out your differences and become friendly. I've found that editor to be a pretty nice fellow. There are many editors who are passionate and a bit strident at times (ie. imperfect), but we are usually far more responsive to collegial discussion than confrontation. Anyway, take care and enjoy yourself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the warm sentiment, much appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_in_the_United_States_of_America as:

"The result was keep. I would not object to an editorial move to Rape in the United States. Also, a merge discussion could take place at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)"

• Why would there be a merge discussion? This article was created as an offshoot from an article. If it was seen as having no valid reason to exist and was deleted, the information would return to its original source. Merge and delete are often the same thing in the wiki world, only merges get less notice than sending something to an AFD. Dream Focus 11:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge is generally an editorial discussion that can take place at the talk page of the associated article(s). It was sort of a clarification note, not really part of the close itself. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

I'm writing for you to reconsider deletion on the page Matthew LeDrew, who runs a small press publishing company known as Engen Books out of St. John's Newfoundland. People keep putting up a page on, and you keep deleting it.

The reasons why confuse we for the following reasons: it's claimed LeDrew is not notable, when other authors of the same caliber and comparability (ie: Kenneth Tam) have their own articles. Also, one of Engen's previous titles (NewFoundSpecFic) has its own article.

I fail to understand how an anthology Engen used to publish is notable and Engen itself or LeDrew is not. Regardless, it's more the bad press of it all: by your own machinations, wikipedia is a top search result on google. As a result, when people search LeDrew on google the first thing they get is his wiki page, which now comes up deleted. This looks bad, and is not appreciated.

As for the comments again in the discussion section on why his article was deleted that his books have not received attention or review, these claims are untrue and are considered defamatory. I have no idea where your office is located, but just because something hasn't reached YOUR attention does not mean it hasn't reached SOMEONES. Clearly it's reached enough people that two people put up pages on him.

I'm going to ask that you consider my request for Mr. LeDrew's page to be reinstated, siting the two page references above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.19.85 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew LeDrew (2nd nomination). Cirt (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved, in that there will be no more edit warring, if you'd like to go ahead and unlock this article so the others can continue working on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you put in a request at WP:RFPP, I'll defer to the judgment of the reviewing admin there. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let you know this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey iam trying to get lisa to FA could you take a look at this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro thy master (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest working on it at the main article, itself, and posting to the talk page of WP:DOH for further input. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but incase i screw up i have a page that i can fix without anybody nowing. so will you help--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I am focusing on writing a new article right now. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, could you please explain to me why The Scope does not meet WP:RS? I am not quite sure why The Evening Telegram would meet them but the Scope would not, considering they are both reputable newspapers.--Newfiechick88 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog - does it have independent editorial review? Cirt (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a blog, though. It is a print newspaper with a full editorial staff. They even have an article available here The Scope talking about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That wiki article is entirely unreferenced, and does not show anything. That comment also did not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The decision to delete the article was based on biased and unproven information. The discussion clearly indicated that the consensus has not been reached: the reviewers who argued for deletion did not support it in any way, except for Ckatz. It seems that Wikipedia is monopolized by clans that overrule any policies and apply double standards to articles, based on their authors: If it is one of the clan members, the article stays regardless of its quality; if not - they will find any reason to delete it. I have to add that, while the initial version might have suffered some of the problems indicated by Ckatz, the last version had none of them. Relying on comments such as "I have not read the article, but I am assuming that such and such went through the mess of references. Therefore it need to be deleted." is not good practice. The phrase "mess of references" already shows that the reviewer is biased and has nothing to say to the subject. Does Wikipedia define "mess of references" in its policies? While it is quite clear that references like that clearly violate the good faith policies set on this site. None of the reviewers who argued for deletion did not do any reasonable attempt to verify references. Some of these references are (just some): W3C: http://xml.coverpages.org/xsl.html

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/sliceG.html#section-N87175-Acknowledgements

Patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7025268.PN.&OS=PN/7025268&RS=PN/7025268

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RenderX.ASNM.&OS=AN/RenderX&RS=AN/RenderX

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RenderX.ASNM.&OS=AN/RenderX&RS=AN/RenderX

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RenderX.ASNM.&OS=AN/RenderX&RS=AN/RenderX

Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=-pO-EV3qrf8C&dq=xsl-fo&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zwnWSsysMM_4_AaF7NHZAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=renderx&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wa9QAAAAMAAJ&q=Just+XSL&dq=Just+XSL&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0=

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZH53LNiKaS8C&pg=PA188&dq=renderx&lr=#v=onepage&q=renderx&f=false

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=O9q4PtNJXUIC&dq=Sams+teach+yourself+XML+in+24+hours&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=HBrbSoiBIcn8_AaGx-HbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=RenderX&f=false

http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Languages/XML/XMLFamily/Exploration/Ch12-XSLFO.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=TlMTMpbDh7oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ken+Holman&ei=NFDfStyjAoPuyASn65H-BQ#v=snippet&q=RenderX&f=false

Do you want me to continue this list?

- Did the reviewers tried to improve the article in any way? - Did they stated any specific reference they disagreed with? Any part that was not referenced? - Is any of them has any knowledge of XML, XSLT, XSL-FO? - Where they able to specify a more notable company in this area? Did they check Google search results on XEP or RenderX?

Therefore, I would like you to reverse your decision and restore the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.161.142 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderX. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that someone is going back and removing anything they do not like from this article (ie: dubious markers), even ones made by you and other seasoned wikipedians. I felt this should be brought to your attention, as the notes / talk page are becoming spiteful in nature by all parties involved. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to wikipedia and am interested in the process. What happens with this article now? At what point does it either get 'saved' or 'deleted'? Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Marc Koska's WP entry has been vandalized again. It was protected previously but now, I think it needs to protected permanently, because this keeps happening.Johnalexwood (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rjd0060 is on to it. :) Johnalexwood (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A report of your edits at Alford plea and elsewhere will duly be lodged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Redheylin (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cirt at the above page. Is there any chance, though, of discussing with me your motivation in this matter, which has led you into so many incidents? You're a capable person and it looks to me like a waste - I am very sorry about it and feel sure you must have a good reason - but not one that will support your actions. Please do feel free to contact me on this. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit bad faith to report a sourcing dispute to ANI. The correct forum for that is called WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith and let's see. I will arrange for us to talk invisible to wiki if you like. I do mean it. Something's driving you, and it does not look like the kind of drive that can lead to anything positive for you - certainly not from the POV of your wiki "career". I am not prejudging the issue or trying to demoralise you - I've seen the history. Redheylin (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, it appears you have "seen" something presented by someone POV offline to you. That is not the "history", but rather a POV summation. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Still does not get around the fact that you chose to take a sourcing dispute to ANI, instead of the proper place, WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the ANI noticeboard regarding my comments. These are muddy waters, in my view. Jusdafax 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cirt. Per your interest in those legal article, I figured you were interested in the law? You probably noticed I posted this at the other discussion, but it's probably more appropriate (if it's approrpiate at all) to discuss here.

Have you been catching The Good Wife? I think it's a pretty good show. The Practice was pretty good too, as far as lawyer shows are concerned, but I'm not a fan of James Spader (he joined late before spinning off into that other lawyer show). I have a link somewhere of a video of Jack Nicholson peeing on his shoe from some 80s (early 90s?) movie if you want to see it. He gives me the creeps. William Shatner makes a good honorary partner like those politicians that get signed on at firms for their contacts on the golf course.

Anyway, Thanks again for you kind words. I'll have to check out the underlying articles when I get a chance. I've been caught up in college football fever. Rivalry weekend and all. Are you in the U.S.? I'll have to check your userpage... probably says there. Well, take care. Sorry about the joking around. It's late here and I'm a bit overtired! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet seen The Good Wife. I caught a few episodes of The Practice and have seen a bit of Boston Legal. I happen to appreciate both James Spader and William Shatner, though Patrick Stewart was the better captain. :P Cirt (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the dispute has flared back up. I really do think Redheylin means well and is just frustrated. Editors get stressed out, especially when they're being threatened and aren't familiar with the consensus process (which does take some getting used to). I agree he needs to ease up on the accusatory tone (as do those making accusations against him), but I hope that as the more experienced editor (and as an admin) you can lead by example and stay focused on the content and sourcing issues. And what about Edward James Olmos as a ship captain? And Harrison Ford was a good one also. I lot of people liked Sean Connery (if we're counting subs), but I prefer Roger Moore (although I don't think he's been a ship's captain? I think there was a sub in one movie though...). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times for making unsupported allegations about what he calls "bogus" sources, when his statements are in fact false. He refuses to retract these unsupported false statements. Such baseless claims, after warnings not to do so, violate WP:NPA. Overall, I'd say David Tennant is the best ship captain. :P Cirt (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I posted an inquiry on the wp:content noticeboard regarding the underlying content dispute. I saw you already made a narrower request for input on the tagging issue, so this notice probably isn't needed, but I didn't want you to feel left out. :) Hopefully we can get some additional input and perspectives. Certainly you and Redheylin are both welcome to contribute to the discussion, but I think it would be best if this new venue was used to get fresh perspectives and that it won't turn into a rehash and further digging into the dispute with arguing of the issues by the parties already involved (which might scare others off). Anyway, I appreciate you willingness to make article improvements and to address concerns. On the other hand, the acrimony on both sides hasn't been a good thing, and I think the accusations have flown in both directions. Take care. I've never heard of David Tennant, so I'm going to have to go do some research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask why the nomination was closed before I had received responses from any of the opposers to my comments.--DavidCane (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3 opposes and no supports, did not seem that it was likely to pass. After two WP:FPOCs, I would highly recommend going next to WP:PPREV for the portal, contacting those that commented on the last FPOC, and if you addressed all prior issues - asking them to then comment there, prior to another FPOC. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think the closure of the nomination was premature:

• The first nomination was over three years ago (when the portal had a different name and only covered a fraction of the subject matter it now does), so it hardly seems relevant to the current nomination.
• For the first of the three opposes that had been made, all the issues raised had been answered, the second gave no additional reasons and the third requested something that is not required of a featured portal.
• The main issue raised appears to be the choice not to use automatic rotation to circulate a series of selected articles, but this is not a requirement and I believe I gave a clear explanation as to why this has not been used.
• Rather than chase the opposers, I was giving them the time to return to review and consider my comments as the featured content review process expects. The fact that they hadn't yet done so, should not have been construed one way or the other. As the nomination for Portal:Nevada has been open since 6 October there did not seem to be any hurry to push for a response.
• I didn't bother with the peer review as this seems to be a rather dead area. Of the three most recent entries there, one has not been responded to in a month. One took a month to get a response and the third nearly two months. The request for a peer review on Portal:Drink took more than five months to get a single response. Not particularly helpful. --DavidCane (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd suggest a peer review this time, when moving forward. Have you thought to notify those that commented at the FPOC, and also relevant WikiProjects' talk pages, about having a peer review? Cirt (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!!! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) Cirt (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We attempt to keep the queue to a manageable length by asking people to review one nomination for each nomination that they make. If you get a chance come by and review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay sure, will do. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry about that comment yesterday; it was completely uncalled for (not to mention unconstructive), especially considering the time you've spent on the article. While I'll be busier in the coming weeks, I think I can manage with the article. Again, sorry. Mnation2 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If you are going to work on it, for sure I can allow some more time. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blown for Good, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The description of the Alford plea goes in the Alford plea article - obviously. You do not repeat all that info in list of people who entered an Alford plea. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[6], [7]. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the talkpage with regard to this matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really no big deal. IGN made those "Flashback Reviews" about every episode in the first two season.Aquila89 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Behind the Exclusive Brethren, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I've just completed my monthly update of Portal:Norway's DYKs, and I came to think, should perhaps the selected articles and biographies be added to a bit too? I think that Nansen's Fram expedition and Harriet Bosse should be added, being featured articles. If you could have a look at that, that would be great. Manxruler (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! So you'll take care of that? Manxruler (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll give it a try. As soon as I have plenty of spare time again. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would back you up removing the tag but I'm about to go on an extended break, so if someone disagrees with me and you then I won't be around to voice my agreement. I have no problem with a film article saying that a film got bad reviews, and reporting bad reviews cannot violate NPOV. After all we report all the awards film gets, we should report the bad reviews. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I tell you, I don't know what it will take to get some serious rangeblocks imposed on this monkey. I almost cut loose with a page-long litany of obscenities on the talk page of that last sock; common sense intervened at the last millisecond. Someone needs to wring his neck. I'll keep an eye on that article you linked me to. Thanks for the alert and thanks for blocking some of those socks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• My bad. It defaults to full protection and I managed to hit the default instead of the semi-protect. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On 2 December, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bonnie Woods, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to remove the languages portal, not the religion one, from the Moonies page. I will correct this. RolandR 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Cirt (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly said these additions are worthy of discussion, personally as I said, I am of the opinion that the additions are giving excessive weight to a position, please follow the bold revert discuss editing cycle. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You removed duly sourced info (Associated Press and Chicago Tribune) with basically no other explanation than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is you who have not explained anything about it on the talk page. Please discuss there. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also your should give your sections more neutral descriptions, this ..Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob.. is not a really neutral way to open a discussion...perhaps a re-title, more neutral...perhaps...Discussion regarding the new suggested additions...would be a more welcoming title... Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Might as well make this official. :)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your – in my Wikipedia experience – unsurpassed ability to roll up your sleeves, compile a stack of sources, and pull a complete, well-written, encyclopedic article out of the hat in next to no time where there was just a wasteland of ill-connected snippets before – as evidenced in Alford plea and countless other articles. JN466 12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Like you needed me to tell you how good you are. While I am piling it on, I read about your troubles with the Thetans and you have my greatest sympathy. I have strong reasons to believe you also have a personal strong interest re the current subject and I understand that too. I'd just say one thing, having looked closely at the matter: it's my belief that the founder meant to show the followers exactly what could go wrong - he left it in their hands and it did go wrong, in ways that cannot in any way be excused. That's why I do not hold the founder responsible, nor the present leadership, some of whom were also targetted, nor the million others around the world. Perhaps you'll reject this analysis, but I'd like you to understand it. Of COURSE I respect your work, Cirt. Redheylin (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sign up has been approved for the Bacon WikiCup 2010. Thank you in advance for your participation.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you started anything for the Bacon Challenge already? Report it here to get your first points. I'll fill in the points table section later once several reports have been made. --Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't going to begin already but some editors have already gone ahead and have begun creating content. So it's been decided that people can get the event going (just remember to report what you have done to the project at the Bacon WikiCup report page) which in turn means that points can begin to be generated. I hope this answers your question.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh no no no no! They don't debut in the mainspace until March 1st. Create them in your userspace, report them here and automatically be able to get some points up.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job Cirt. Take a look at the points table now. You are first on the board with 7 points. ;)--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Cirt/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon Wow! Impressive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks! Cirt (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cirt. I'm glad to see you're onboard with the Bacon Challenge! The more the merrier. I just wanted to let you know that I apologize for any misunderstandings between us. I do recognize that you have done a lot of good work on the articles in dispute and have been responsive to editors seeking changes. I believe tehre have been problems on all sides and I don't approve of the accusations made back and forth between various editors (myself included, I suppose). I'm also wary of administrative boards being used in content disputes, but sometimes things don't go as we'd like them to and perspectives and opinions clash in ways that aren't constructive. I'm sorry my efforts at mediation weren't more helpful and I want you to know that I don't have any hard feelings. I make efforts to "speak truth to power" here because the politics and cabalism concern me, and I don't approve of the way we treat newcomers and non-admin contributors generally. I try to point out contradictions and impropriety when I think doing so can be helpful in an effort to highlight areas for improvement, but clearly my approach to doing so could have been more delicate and discrete. I am sorry to have been a party to inflaming the situation, even though my intentions were good. Anyway, what's done is done, we all have our moments and are human. I am optimistic that our interactions will be more constructive and collegial going forward.

As an aside, I'm a fan of The Art of Negative Thinking movie and got to meet the director. I also like Elling (of course) and am hoping for a role in the next sequel! Take care and have fun. Good luck with your bacon work, there are some passionate competitors involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the apology, I really appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. March 1 2010. It is a long way off but that is only because the Bacon Challenge is a HUGE event. It is bigger than the FIFA World Cup lol.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

At Raj Mov talk.... There's two things sure in life: Astral projection will get spam and Tamil poet-saints can be spelled 100 different ways.... Redheylin (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Still experiencing a slight lack of consensus editing here, Cirt... Would you care to answer at the talk page? There are these things called "tags", the function of which is partly to prevent your editing looking hostile. I know you know that a great deal of the stuff you removed is referenceable, so it looks tendentious. Redheylin (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. I just do things in a different order normally, but then I do not usually do bios. I was wondering where you were. Hope just happily busy. Redheylin (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Been working on a new article, it's a biggie. :P Cirt (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If anybody feels like explaining to me why everybody is talking about bacon? (see, I went looking for you!) Redheylin (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For more info on Bacon, you may wish to read the scrumptious book, Everything Tastes Better with Bacon. :P Cirt (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion, I'll still work on the remaining issues (adding more DYKs, etc.) though. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Christian Conventions/2 is a requested reassessment based on some fairly unusual factors. As one of the more active GA reviewers who deal with religious subjects, I think your input might be very valuable, if and when the time exists for you to do so. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a summary here of what the issues of controversy/contention are? Cirt (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically,

• 1) very little is written about the subject anywhere, most of which though seems to be written by opponents and qualifies as comparatively SPS or not otherwise necessarily reliable. And I mean very little, most of it comparatively unavailable. WorldCat only produces 27 total entries, including variant editions here.
• 2) one of the major editors involved is a former adherent who is accused of bias by current adherents
• 3) active disagreements about the group's theological stance, largely because the group has no official publications to verify beliefs one way or another. Some sources available, like collections of sermons, have reliability by adherents questioned because of allegations of selective editing.
• 4) And there is a lingering question regarding title. "Two-by-twos" produces much more ghits than "Christian conventions".

That's about it, though. ;) John Carter (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd first have to do some research on the topic, but were you going to comment at the GAR? Cirt (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding anything, and I mean that literally. I was involved in finding some of the material, and I'm consulting the sources I can get tomorrow, so I can at least try to add something that might be useful. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Cirt! Three months ago, you reviewed the GA nomination for this article and failed it due to instability. In the last two months, this article has only been edited twice - both edits were minor formatting changes. Would you like to read through the article and give it an unofficial review? Doing so would certainly help me prepare for the actual review. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I commented on your dyk hook that it seems like your source article lists Michigan as accepting the Alford plea and only Indiana and New Jersey as not accepting it. Please clarify, as I may have misunderstood the article and source. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This case is probably better than the newspaper articles you cite. If you poke through it, you'll find that an Alford plea is treated no differently than a guilty plea under Virginia law. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay will do, thanks! Cirt (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Bale Out.

Nice job! ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank Tony too, he twisted my arm into doing one. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, ya he does that. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. With a little more expansion, it should have no problems reaching B. It would be nice to see this article up to at least GA at some point so we'd have another example article for awards. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job on cleaning it up. It's definitely in better shape then the last time I looked at it. I wished more of our award articles were organized like this one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please undelete File:Future lovers volume 1.jpg so that I can use it on Future Lovers (manga)? Thanks. :) --Malkinann (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try first contacting East718 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a notice on his page saying that he's having an attack of RL, so I didn't think he'd appreciate it. --Malkinann (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cirt (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! :) --Malkinann (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alford plea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you get fair use images like the book cover you added for Seduced by Bacon? Do you just right click on the images and save them? How do you make sure it's low resolution? And when you upload them, you just copy a rationale from somewhere? There are a lot of issues to address. Are you going to add one for the Everything Tastes Better with Bacon article that you've written? I haven't done any fair use type stuff so I'm curious. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FURME. :P Cirt (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. I'll have a look. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but how did you know about the RfC and how did you decide to assume what appears to be a referee's role in it? Cla68 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. First I was taking another look at some of the WP:RFC/Us which were listed at the top of WP:ANI, as I had commented in one of those that had closed recently. Then I browsed through the regular ones, and saw it listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was surprised by the sudden onslaught of contention on the article talk page. If you look at the article history and talk page discussions, things were flowing along fairly well until this weekend. I recently found more sources and now hope to try to take this article to FA level. I'm sure you will be of great help in helping with the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to make it more relevant, including better references to show how its relevant to project chanology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ADDITION: It is perfectly relevant to Project Chanology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[8] :) Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes!! Finally found a new picture of the lady with the disco-stick!. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines. Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Did this really warrant protection? There wasn't a lot of vandalism... Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how it does for the time being with the prot. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of U.S. states by Alford plea usage, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job for creating Template:Bacon. I'm surprised that nobody had even thought of that. You deserve big recognition for this. On the condition that it survives the nom (I've gone and !voted strong keep) I will award you fifteen points for the very useful navigation template.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit down about the nom though. ;( Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what, even if it gets deleted, I still think you deserve some points for the idea. We'll see what happens.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not down or concerned about the points, or even the fact that it was nominated - rather the manner in which it was nominated. ;(. But thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you create a Bacon Wikiproject, please let me know so I can be one of the first to sign up. But a Bacon template of this sort seems silly, along the lines of a Milk or Bread navigational template. I intended to notify you but found it rather pointless given the fact you had left me a note on my talk page so quickly. And I will reiterate, once again, that this was nothing personal towards you, yet you seem to be taking the nomination (or the way it was nominated) quite personally and I find that to be unfortunate. Perhaps we can find something to work on together in a positive light in the future. JBsupreme (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would love to work on something in a positive light in the future. Thanks for reaching out, most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful about removing sources, as you did at the article Disconnection, here [9]. The source still satisfies WP:V, with or without an active URL. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about that. Hadn't read WP:DEADLINK. I was about to restore them per talk page but got an edit conflict. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (hope you don't mind I also pasted your comment here)

Thanks Cirt for the welcome.--Dunshocking (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I only asked them to vote, no influencing, and I was allowed to make comments on the talk page. Uwe Kils 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You violated WP:CANVASS, after being warned not to. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But Cirt, please spend a few words in reply to my remark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt

We are new to using Wikipedia and hope you can reply with some advice. We are trying to post a bio of Dr. David Lewis Anderson. We clarified and provided as requested very specific citations of his work and appearances, but the bio was deleted.

Dr. Anderson's work has published many articles, more than 30, has appeared numerous times on major radio shows, reaching millions, discussing his work. He has published books, audio CDs, and video documentaries. We provided information, includeing ISBNs and links from the radio show website, along will links to many of his most important articles.

His role with the United Nations was questioned, we did remove this but are working with UNESCO in Europe to provide a formal citation from their website that would be acceptable by Wikipedia. This is a very important part of his life and he has run programs for youth in four regions of the world, reaching tens of thousands of youth.

We value wikipedia and hope to use it not for commercial gain but to use the bio as a link to educational materials that are being provided free of charge.

We've read the wiki rules and feel many of the citations to work and appearances were really solid. Can you advise us on what we are doing wrong, and if possible more specifically, what we can do to get this bio on line.

Thank you for your consideration and best regards,

AMglobal (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "we" involved with this username? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lewis Anderson regarding notability was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corbin Fisher, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it was quite disappointing when I visited my favorite band dos Gringos Wikipedia to see it had been removed in October, is there any way we can have it re-established? I had a tough time finding out why it was taken down, it appears you had trouble finding reliable sources of them being a band? I am providing some sites you could look into that would prove them as a band, they are not signed artists, just independent and they have a large following. Thanks in advance!

www.dosgringosrocks.com www.myspace.com/dosgringosrocks

Please bring it back!

10:28AM EST, Dec 10, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.227.34 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dos Gringos. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in the rules about an "unsourced nonconsensus move"? If so, please tell me about it. Undoing a move without explanation seems hasty, at best. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving a page with no sources to back up your claims is inappropriate, especially on a topic of your conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the part about "no sources to back up your claims"? I changed Black Heung Jin Nim to Return of Heung Jin Moon, and you reverted the change without any discussion. Are you suggesting that the article is not about Heung Jin Moon? Or that it doesn't describe his alleged "return"?

If you will explain what you do, other contributors will be able to understand your editing style which will facilitate WP:TEAMWORK. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not presented any sources to back up your page move, and the move is on a controversial topic and not supported by consensus. And I see you have engaged in disruption to revert it back. Please undo your edit-warring move. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not violate WP:BLP and especially WP:BURDEN - especially when editing on your conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odette_Krempin&action=historysubmit&diff=330916508&oldid=330915783

Shouldn't a source at unesco.org be considered more reliable concerning UNESCO than a Russian wiki?

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4053&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Why was this reverted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odette_Krempin&diff=330911426&oldid=330911336

Should such a sentence really be in Wikipedia? --84.184.38.166 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing at the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You really think it should be discussed first whether such a sentence can be removed?

she was born on special day. The day she was born all eyes of the world were on the DR Congo(ex. Zaire) where the The Rumble in the Jungle took place(one of the biggest upsets in boxing history: the fight between Mohamed Ali and George Foreman)

Come on.... --84.184.38.166 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try to engage the other editors in discussion at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a reply to your comment on the reassessment page to explain the reason the website links are there. I'm not averse to removing whichever links you think fall short. The RS issue has been discussed at length in the past, with these 2 member-editors seemingly intransigent about accepting consensus. If there are other sources which you question, I would be happy to dig them out again to fully quote referenced passages, etc. Thank you for stopping by, and I hope you weren't scared off by the comments already posted by 2 involved editors at the top of the page. • Astynax ^talk 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, thanks for your comments on CC article reassessment page. Check here ->[10] to see exactly who the "involved" [11] editors are. Any questions or concerns please ask via my talk page or wiki e-mail, thanks,

JesseLackman (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, you might be interested in John Carter's comments here; [12], in the RS discussions Astynax mentions, and on the CC discussion pages, John Carter truely is an uninvolved editor. JesseLackman (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I respect his comments. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the move you didn't like, it doesn't matter know. I've been topic banned, so you can do as you like.

I only ask that you keep in mind the purposes of this encyclopedia, such as WP:TEAMWORK and WP:PRESERVE. There is no requirement that everything be either fully sourced or promptly deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Unificationists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please take another look at your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Correa? The subject plainly does not meet the guidelines, which is even noted in some of the KEEP votes. I think the majority of DELETE votes are based on policy, whereas the KEEP votes are not. Perhaps you could take a closer look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to me, however if you wish it would not be inappropriate to give the editors some time to work on it and then raise the issue of notability at the talk page in a month or so and perhaps nom for another AfD consideration. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I have no reason to believe it will be any different a month or a year from now - can you re-close it as a delete, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Cirt (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your reply. I'll take it to DRV. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I brought it already to WP:BLPN for some additional eyes. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now at DRV. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above article was created today. It seems to be a recreation of the page that was the subject of this discussion which concluded in deletion. Should it be left there?Autarch (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Everything Tastes Better with Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I'm pleased to see a respectable and uninvolved editor provide some assessment of this article. I hope you will assume the GAR Lead Editor role and assess Pass or Fail. I'm afraid that by my opening the GAR to simply to find an uninvolved GA lead, I may have suggested that I wished to be the GAR lead. This would be very wrong. With your credentials, your findings will be hard to argue with.

Note that there is a lot of hostility between editors. I came into the article to settle things down; ended up to my shame getting sucked into arguments; finally made the decision simply never to engage with the major critic of the article. I say this so you'll have fair warning of the heat involved if you decide to GA lead. I sincerely hope that if the article should fail GA that a clear listing of steps needed to get to GA status can be created.

I'm keeping this request on your talk page only for now, but if you think you'll do it, I'll make sure the request is fully laid out in the GAR. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GARs are generally decided by community consensus, not by a single reviewer. But thanks for your kind words about my quality contributions to the project! :) Cirt (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Cirt, you have "improved Wikipedia in a profound way" by creating the Bacon template. Kudos. May the pork belly always be with you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And you went through all the articles and pasted in the template...you'll need something to fortify yourself with, and I think the best means to do so is with a stiff Mitch Morgan. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmm ... Bacon whisky ......... Cirt (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked and asked that the pages for WordGirl and List of characters in WordGirl be protected from the unregistered goonies that have even put characters from Rocko's Modern Life into these pages, Tom Kenny not withstanding. I ask that it be done now...please. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:39 PM US EST Dec 11 2009.

Please see WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. There are plenty of ways to contribute significantly to the Bacon Challenge, for example creating a template or a category, that wasn't thought of at the time of making the criteria for point scoring that cannot go ignored. Basically, apart from minor edits to articles (except significant copy-editing) just about anything that has been reported has been of point-scoring value to bacon content on Wikipedia and I do my best to award deserving amounts accordingly. You have done a lot so far for the Bacon project which is why you are comfortably in 2nd place on the points table, with less than 10 points seperating you from being in 1st place. Keep up the good work!--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 07:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, any time I get a chance to bumble through a Japanese cinema site I jump at it. :) J04n(talk page) 12:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Cirt, I wasn't being rude, was just in the middle of something else. I haven't see it yet, though it is in the pile of DVD's currently gathering dust on the shelf. I must get round to it. Stay frosty. Quentin X (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to revert this. He slipped it in just before you protected it. Jolly Ω Janner 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd act to protect Gainline's TalkPage. He came to my TalkPage with thinly veiled threats and baseless accusations. I pointed out that he looked as if he was acting to protect the disruptive and POV-pushing editor Okedem. (See what he's doing on the Talk Page of "Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy"). GainLine's problem with me is that I've done the same as him, but to much more significant purpose. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried engaging in WP:Dispute resolution, at the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Cool video. Must cost a fortune. Few secs back i was looking at the trailer for this game:- Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II. Kinda disappointed i was hoping they would announce this title: Star Wars: Battlefront III. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Wouldn't it be easier to re-block the user with talk page privileges removed rather than protecting the talk page? Thanks! --Addihockey10 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's fine to leave as is. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

John Carter is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

John Carter (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, as the greatest gainer of points in week 2 of the Bacon WikiCup 2010, can you give us some feedback about how the Bacon Challenge has being going from your point of view?

1. What are your thoughts about bacon as a food?

Mmmmm ... unexplained bacon... Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2. There have been plenty of articles written by many participants. Which of these articles have you found the most interesting and why?

So far, Zeeuws spek seems quite interesting and a dish I would like to try - however all the contributions I have seen so far as part of the content drive are unique and intriguing. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3. You are comfortably in 2nd place at the moment. By the end of week 3, do you think that you could be at the top?

Well, I am not sure, but I would like to work on a bit more article creation in the topic area... :P However, I will be taking a break first from the bacon topic to focus on a new article related to Freedom of speech. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

4. You had an approved DYK this week. Are you intending to make more DYK nominations?

Yes, I like the idea of whetting the appetite of readers for bacon related DYKs, in advance of the push for more in March 2010. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

5. What are your thoughts on having a grand debut of a large quantity of bacon-related articles in March 2010?

I think it is a great idea. At the moment, I am not doing the userspace prep thing in advance of March 2010, but instead I've been submitting articles live to become DYKs. However as the time gets closer to March 2010, I will ponder perhaps doing a few articles with that DYK appearance timeframe in mind. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article The History of British Political Parties you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The History of British Political Parties for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good answers and already at User:Sky Attacker/Bacon WikiCup 2010. :)--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Cirt (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea, but I don't know how to submit them. Could you do it?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let's see what happens.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 05:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I'm not criticizing or anything, based on recent activity I'd just like to see your input here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Early closures if and when you have a chance.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any AFD in particular you'd like to discuss? Cirt (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. We were simply having a discussion about the process itself, and I thought that your input would be valuable.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have recently found myself engaging in what could become an edit war with User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch. These users have been deleting the section titled "Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany". They have both stated in the talk page and their edit summaries that they believe the section is nothing but "propaganda" and "libel". So I would like to request your comment on the matter to help reach consensus. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my approach. There is a thread for the issue at the article's talk page and both users were notified in their talk pages. But they continue to remove the section without attempting to reach consensus to that. Both cite WP:NPOV as their rationale. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. That would be very good. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a lightning-fast revert on Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry! I had just noticed the new sources that had been added since the August discussion and was about to undo the prod myself. Sorry about that! --Explodicle (T/C) 14:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do we, the public, have to do to get the Dos Gringos, the musicians/patriots, back on wikipedia?

96.19.219.156 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Ian

First I would suggest creating an account on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bacon: A Love Story, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as though User:Wikibencanaan may well be the same as the user you just blocked who was also editing the Richard T. Antoun page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:SPI. Cirt (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never done gone through that process, so it would take me more time than it's worth to explore. At the rate he is going, anyway, he'll be blocked before such an investigation could be concluded! Will keep in mind, though, if it continues and become too daunting to just revert him.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo Cirt, how are things? Just been helping a user on IRC with a draft, User:Crackofdawn/John Rosatti, and noticed you'd closed the AfD recently. The draft looks to have resolved the concerns in the debate to me, but I thought I'd run it past you rather than moving it myself. Cheers,  Skomorokh  10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit better. No objections. ;) Cirt (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this article, it looks like both you and User:Ed Poor were edit-warring over part of the lead. Since this is now stale, I won't take any further action, but this is not acceptable behavior and I would have been tempted to block both of you if anybody had complained at the time. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history, do not move Return of Heung Jin Moon again. This seems to be more of the same. Both you and Ed Poor have acted badly in this instance. Although you have no declared COI, this does not exempt you from our behavioral guidelines. Try to involve other editors and discuss changes in the future, rather than attempting to force your preferred version through reverting. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Dan Fefferman article, User:Ed Poor was removing sourced info, seemingly unaware of WP:LEAD. In the Black Heung Jin Moon, he was moving the page in accordance with his conflict of interest, and against consensus. In both cases, I agree you are right I could have sought out forms of dispute resolution earlier on, but the issue was primarily concerning Ed Poor (talk · contribs) himself. I have no interest in moving the latter page again, and the article on the former has been greatly improved because of my work on it. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection of Tzniut. That was quick. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way shape or form, putting down Scientology. However, I was just reading about the topic this evening because I wanted to know what it was about because there are a lot of web sites that you try to get *honest* information off of, but then it turns into a joke. The concern that I had was keeping a specific "Stage" in the program a secret. What about poor people that want to live life through Scientology but cannot afford the thousands of dollars to reach the "Clean" step? take it or leave it 07:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESopinion (talk • contribs)

No problem, take your time. The holidays are going to be busy for me, so I'm not in any rush... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Script fail? :) Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tim Song (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As of today Mr Sheldon won best blogger of the year in 2009 by the largest social media website in the world. I have placed the information and adjusted it in my sandbox. I am formally requesting his page get moved to a wikipedia page. He is OF notable interest, there are links provided. If you need assistance in moving please let me know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lovingmusic/Sandbox --Lovingmusic (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing WP:RS secondary source coverage in significant discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Whom do I need to contact past you at this point...I would like a contact above you. You obviously have biased issues, I will no longer to continue to deal with you. Mr. Sheldon just won one of the largest awards on the web, voted on by 1000's of people by one of the largest websites in the world. You are out of line. I have contact you 1st per respectful chain of command. I want your superiors contact. Thank you. --Lovingmusic (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the next way to go. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You..==Deletion review for Derek Michael Sheldon== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Derek Michael Sheldon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovingmusic (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was a nice trolling on huWP-s admin noticeboard, nothing that important. ;) Someone placed a link to an article from an online Hungarian newspaper discussing the enwiki banning of some Scientology-oriented people. It was a common misunderstanding that all the Scientology people are banned from editing the Wikipedia. We have had to tell him that it is false & nobody is banned from editing only because his or her religion/views. That was all. Bennó (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to inform the folks of the target?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems easy enough, I was just making a minor adjustment. You might want to set a larger goal for it . Cirt (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, when you closed this AfD, I guess you did not notice that it was actually a joint nomination of two articles, the other one being the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine... :-) --Crusio (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the skull on my user page and you are there - you are most welcome to query me on the parameters - I am working by my earlier thoughts of threatening to start the project about a year ago after seeing good olfactory create a massive amount of death categories - if you would like to have a discussion - good stuff - as to the finer points - do you want a 10 line answer or a 100 line one :) SatuSuro 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I dont agree with the current template of supposed death topics - but I await discussion at the project page, as I simply do not wish to over-ride any other editors on the current format. I have spent a significant amount of time thinking about a royal graveyard in asia - and on my recent overseas trip I covered a significant number of graveyards and related palces as part of my journey...

Your question looks suspiciously like topics that belong to politics rather than death - the topics I tag at the moment are those which the title of the category is clearly to do with death and dying and issues surrounding - if you werent such a high edit count i would read that question as being problematic - :) - I hope that answers the question in less then 10 - but if you want the 100 I can always pursue the issue further :) SatuSuro 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But to be fair - there are some categories that clearly belong more to crime, medicine, and possible limited sharing with other projects - cripes its not a straight forward issue - and I strongly believe more than 3 cat tags on a talk page is asking for trouble in the sense of understanding the limitations of the over-tagging'[13] - viz my conversation with other eds in the past which i can find diff if you like - however the initial tagging is to the parent cats - I do have reservations about passing down too far into cat trees that can be an issue unto itself - if you want the details can explain SatuSuro 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

well having revealed my vested interest in the issue - I would like to hear of yours as well SatuSuro 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

once again - it is a death issue - the specific event/act - but you are smelling of a political questioner - where are you coming from? SatuSuro 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

omg - seeing you edit the article and talk here at the same time i find weird - dont let me start about that lot - I have observed it in real time when it was at a peak in australia SatuSuro 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I have to get off - but I would be only too pleased if you share your interest in the issues - as I am not gonna go to some length to explain to you - if I dont know where you are coming from or your interest. The project itself is a valid one - it has a lot of sorting out - and I believe will fill an important hole in the WP project - as to the elaborated 100 line explanation of deciding between crime/medicine/death and a whole range of other categories when tagging - I think I'd like to see why you are asking - a simple courtesy I hope. It is good that there is interest - I'd just like to see why...

I hope you understand - but I definitely would be reluctant to stretch tagging into murder plots, and many political peripheral issues - that is for political categories SatuSuro 15:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK discrimination here is not for the weak hearted - mass death or suicide is - clearly a 'death' topic - people have died - however threats of suicide or conspiracies for murder (like your current edit) are not project items imho - what do you think? I have to get off real soon - its the graveyard bell any b minute :) SatuSuro 15:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be quizzed further unless you show your hand ok? - good night until we talk again - and hope you understand my humour or lack of it when it comes to category tagging - so few do - and even fewer in wikipedia seem to have any understanding of it [ - and for god's (yes I am sure she is smiling) sake make sure you get a GA for your current edit - she almost ruined the hopes and aspirations of the rajneesh movement here in Western Australia single handedledly - I only knew about 10 of them - but hey - that was a few years ago now - cheers - talk again soon SatuSuro 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

oops - conflation of ma-s and a potential deity - they are separate beings in case you read me wrong eh! :) SatuSuro 16:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Stuff!! - but you realise that I would not consider assassination plots as having anything to with the death project - and really at times it is almost impossible for bot like thinking to allocate project tags - some categories might seem obvious to some - but the subtleties of the issues that lean a category tag for sociology/crime/law/politics/death - it really is the limitations of the project currently extant in the pantheon of wikipedia projects that leaves some articles and categories annoying un categorisable (oh dear) - but even my life long friends who are professional librarians admit to the annoying items that end up in think of a number any number positions - my original university used to have intellectually honest cataloguers who allocated dewey numbers on the spine - and then in pencil put in alternatives on the title pages. oh dear the crow and bell have made their noise across the graveyard - I'm gone SatuSuro 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your assessment. Cirt (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - please feel free to revert any of my tagging if you dont agree with it - If I tag for the damned death project I may well catch up in edits soon enough :) SatuSuro 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to revert that I see. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On getting out of the graveyard - got up and changed one small part that could read like a PA, and a few spellings - still would like to hear your side of it - oh and a gmail is being sent as well - apologies for polluting the talk page - but these things happen SatuSuro 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And for my sense of making sure that I dont get the who am i and where am i and what am i doing thing which I recently kept seeing in shop windows in vienna austria and krakow poland and st petersburg in russia I will have [14][15][16][17] as bed time and pool side reading this christmas break - so i can stay away from this talk page and others re these subjects - just so i can sleep more soundly :) - the graveyard can get a bit boring at times :) SatuSuro 13:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I received a request to reverse the deletion of Spill.com. Since you closed the AfD, I pointed the editor to you to restore the revisions and move to user space should they request it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding the source when you zapped me. Don't leave threatening messages on my discussion page please, especially when I had done nothing wrong. If you see a an un-sourced statement, check it out for yourself first to see if you can add a source before deleting it and threatening the editor. --Grahambrunk (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you were in the process of adding unsourced statements across multiple articles. I checked and saw an inappropriate pattern. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I added them back WITH the source. When I see something like that happening, I tend to check it out first to see if I could add a source myself before I leave threatening comments on the users discussion page AND deleting their additions. Maybe you should develop that same practice.--Grahambrunk (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy seems to be a goody - and the block looks a little harsh. I think a note of concern would have been the ideal first step - he looks good-faith and I reckon he'd have happily trotted off to WP:CHU. If I might suggest a rethink? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly unblock if it is confirmed that there is only one individual behind the account, and if the account agrees to request a rename. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence of it being used by multiple users. My point was that this is a newbie, who's used a name that breaks our policy, but it's a not-for-profit (not some commercial outfit) and his edit history suggests the dignity of a "request before the block" would have been appropriate. Too late for that now, but how about an unblock before the request, to compensate? --Dweller (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

NB His further comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pispalan kumppanuus ry would be useful. --Dweller (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the comments in the AFD go even more towards a possible unblock being conditional on what I said previously, above. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea why you'd say that. Anyway, the AfD is now closed. I think it's a shame you've done this. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world should it be conditional? Unblock the guy already, he has done nothing wrong!!! JBsupreme (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but at this point I'm not sure whether we are going to combine the references by source and page or by subject. I've seen both done. And, also, honestly, I don't at this point which would be shorter. Any ideas? The Chryssides book has comparatively few entries, so it probably won't change the matter much one way or another. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I was editing the article, I find your coming and adding the work in progress and what I assume is a major edit is a bit much. What is wrong with allowing someone else to edit the article? Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to remind you that the article is a biography of a living person and there are articles about the crimes, the biography should not be a rap sheet, there are good reason to merge the content with those other articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep such content related comments to the article's talk page, thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work! —EncMstr (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This user, who you blocked for 24 hours, is back to randomly vandalizing articles. Mathewignash (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about your reasoning here. The block itself is ok, but the reasoning behind it seems flawed. I don't think that username directly violates the username policy and that the problem is more of a behavioral issue, and have indicated as much in my denial of their unblock request. If they agree to avoid COI editing in the future, would you object to them being unblocked without changing their username? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Account appears to be WP:SPA for "Midwest Hardware Associaiton". Possible WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cirt,

Thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia and your helpful links. Though I hold no degree my wife calls me the "professor" because I am so widely read. I hope to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where I am knowledgable.

On the subject of Bennetta Slaughter I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

First of on the subject of COI. I work for an internet company doing websites and SEO. Our company already got paid to put up a site for her and optimize it. I know when we tell her to look, the first thing she will see is the Wikipedia entry, complete with all the wrong information about her. I am not going to get paid to edit the Wiki, and I am not employed by nor related to Bennetta Slaughter. However it will generally assist the project I am doing to have Wikipedia at least correctly stating where she is employed. Does that count as COI? Can you advise on that? Is this a proceed with caution thing? Or am I at hands off level?

Also I am on site at the moment, working with her company on the website, and from being here I know that she is still a member of the Scientology religion and that this is a pretty hot subject on both sides of whatever bullet-pocked fence the two sides use. I saw the news that wikipedia banned the Scientologists from editing their entries. This brings me to a new question. If Bennetta Slaughter is a member of the Scientology religion, but holds no positions, does that mean edits have to be cleared through anyone special? It seems weird but I wanted to ask.

I know Ms. Slaughter is going to be irritated when she sees herself described as a prominent Scientologist and the CEO of applied scholastics, simply because the way she tells it she never was a prominent Scientologist and she resigned as CEO of applied scholastics several years ago. I even saw she is on the Wikipedia page of Scientology VIPs along with John Travlota and so forth. That was a little strange too. Anyhow, can you advise me as to what you feel would be the best way to do corrections to her entry? Could I send you an edit and you give me your comments? I really don't want to make any changes unless I am confident it has been done properly.

Thanks Cirt- I know this is a touchy one, and I appreciate your help. And I saw all your stars, so thank you for that too. Wikipedia is the perfect expression of the best qualities of humanity- knowledge, contribution, and openness.I am a huge Wikipedia fan and promoter. Waynekiwi (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted the issue to admin Jehochman (talk · contribs), who I think might be more appropriate to answer these questions than I, but I will ruminate on it as well. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Bacon Cookbook, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Could I have oversight of my last couple of edits please - I dont know how youd react? SatuSuro 07:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC) appears contrite - sorry to have intruded SatuSuro 07:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have that ability, please see Wikipedia:Oversight. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahah usage once again :) - I had meant it differently from WP policy :) - oh well back into the hole in the graveyard - cheers SatuSuro 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I recently created a new page for Spill.com. I'm not associated with the people previously trying to make this webpage but I do realize that it has been deleted a number of times for lack of reliability and notability. I would like to point out that first, the site has become more notable since then by winning an award for their podcasts, as mentioned here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast_Awards/ Secondly, I would like to point out that my references include two seminal newspaper articles that directly document the history and development of spill.com and they are much more reputable and direct then previous references involving cnn and other news sites --Smithers45 (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could use some refs cleanup, using WP:CIT. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I could definitely see that because I have never made a page before and I don't know how to combine multiple footnotes into one reference so that I don't have multiple reference links. I looked at that linked you sent me and it showed me how to do but its very confusing, like i have to add name=name or something? I'll try doing it but I'm not sure if I will be successful Smithers45 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not leave the project, I was on a long, long Wikibreak at this location. Anyways, I have seen you and others decided that this article was to be stripped of the FA status. Frankly, I agree. I wrote it in 2005 or 2006, cannot remember, but it was way overdue for some kind of makeover. I started the process and...imagine what Pepsi, ignoring the SO and Boston can do in a few hours. This is just a start, but I hope this is a move in the right direction. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Cirt (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The major things I am doing is first off, removed all of the audio recordings. I know the copyright rules of Russia changed in 2008, so a lot of works that might have been PD were restored. I won't miss the recordings, but if they are asked to be restored, I can do it. Second, I am expanding every section and adding citations for everything. I am also working on their formats too. If you have anything else to add or suggestion, tell me please. I am going to bring this back to FA glory. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to come on IRC and chat about this article so I make sure I snagged most of the important FA details? I still need to do the alt text, but not sure how to do it on audio recordings or stamps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest going for a peer review. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I stole the PR tools already, fixing the only dead link that is in the article now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, Cirt (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the Featured Portal master around these parts. Since I want to try a bit of everything, I was wondering if you have any advice? I want to work Portal:Volcanoes up to featured status :) ResMar 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, but I want to run a checkup of everything before I do anything. By the way, is it appropriate to create Category:Volcanoes Portal or something similar and post it on all the subpages? I've seen that done at other portals. ResMar 19:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking onto Portal:Journalism. ResMar 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and you're waaaaaaaaaay at the top :) ResMar 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is recording artist Rick Summer Droit, my record company recently drew to my attention that you deleted a page containing information about me and my recordings, I have tried to see why but do not understand your reasoning for the deletion and would like to inquire as to how to have a page on Wikipedia without this happening. According to your reason for the deletion it says that "I could find claims he is working on his third album, yet it doesn't mention where any of his albums are (or ever have been) available for purchase. " This simply cannot be true unless the person did not bother to look, I am unsure if the page listed places where it could be purchased or not, nor am I sure if thats even allowed on Wikipedia since that would make it an advertisement. My recordings available in CD form have National distribution, both online and on demand at over 2,200 record stores.. they are not only for sale at mt official website www.rickdroit.com but also on iTunes, CDBaby.com, Bestbuy.com, Walmart.com and others. I have been online since 1996 and cannot understand why someone would say that they could find where my albums were available for purchase, I find this highly questionable and wonder if someone who simply doesnt like my music was put up to contacting you with this false information. Please help me figure this out, I can provide you with whatever information you need including IRSC numbers, URL's, Testamonials, whatever you might need, personnel at my record company asked me to contact you personally since they do not know how to have a page on Wikipedia that will not be deleted by an editor. I am a songwriter and a musician and not familiar with how to go about this process, but I thought contacting you would be the best place to start. Thanks very much for any and all assistance you can provide, best wishes -- Rick Droit P.S. my personal email is [email protected] , if you need that as I am unsure if I will get your response on this forum, I will try to check back, but if you could possibly cc me there it would be helpful, thanks Cirt -- Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.70.12 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted after an Articles for Deletion Discussion. More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Summer Droit. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Kenneth Dickson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)