User talk:Cirt/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Clayton (Actor)

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Clayton (Actor). Is it unusual that the article still has not been deleted, a week after closure? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I see there was a move/redirect. -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding citation needed's to John Vanbrugh

I added some citation needed's to John Vanburgh and these were all reverted by User:GiacomoReturned and discussions on the talk page have gone nowhere can you take a look at it please as it look like you've been involved in similar matters before? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'm off to bed now and I'll look at this again tomorrow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cites on EDMD

Sorry, I hate citation templates and hardly ever use them. I have no objection to anyone changing the format of the footnotes I added, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Spring Byington

Please review the edits on this article as I believe that the anon is not only adding AGF material (admittedly in an improper fashion) but the submissions have the ring of veracity and insider knowledge. Other editors castigating the contributions as "objectionable" is a bit much. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, got that but the article intrigued me because of the aspersion that the actor was a lesbian, yet that was never public knowledge during her lifetime. The apparent claim of lesbianism is made by a serial Hollywood scandalmonger and attributed to an interview with Marjorie Main, her alleged lover. The interview was conducted prior to Marjorie's death and only has one contentious comment in that she had mentioned that her longtime friend did not have much time for men which in itself, can be interpreted in many ways and is not a conclusive statement as to sexuality. Based on this one dubious mention, two other rumour merchants picked up on the supposition and labelled the two women's relationship as incestuous. With both parties now dead, it is the easiest way to build a reputation by staining other's reputations. The submission by the anon, arguably unsourced, unverified and filled with personal observations, still rings true, at least a lot more than that of the Boze Hadleigh, the original source of the claim of lesbianism. This author is a "churner" of books, cranking them out with the fervour of a pulp publisher and with about the same attention to honest journalism. I currently work/write as an editor/author and know the type. We have a great deal of journeymen authors and publishers who are no better than schoolyard gossips.

After all that blather, I made a few suppositions based on the obvious editwar that was transpiring over the inclusion of a contentious new section. One was that the material could be treated as WP:AGF, albeit poorly referenced and relying on a personal background that can be characterized as WP:OR. When this type of situation occurs, I tend to give the newbie the benefit of the doubt and not arbitrarily delete the "objectionable" submission (which I feel is "objectionable" to use the term "objectionable" when there is no evidence of vandalism at play) but instead try to focus the edit and subsequent discussion so that the contribution can be placed into context, find a verifiable and authoritative source to attribute and failing all that, to at least have the material relocated to the talk page for a future revision that will meet all the criteria for a legitimate addition to a Wiki article.

One of the difficulties in obtaining source material on Spring Byington is the lack of a definitive biography or even any detailed account of her life and career, outside of the very questionable sources that have already been mentioned. FWiW 02:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

In addition to being unsourced, the user was also disruptive in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression although I did see some frustration that can be attributable to a newcomer not realizing that everyone and anyone can edit comments and not to take things seriosuly. Heaven knows, that 's exactly how I thought the WIkiWacky world of Wikipedia was when I first began editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Hopefully the behavior of the disruptive user will cease causing problems after the block expires. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the editwar, others also played that game and they have been in the playground a bit longer. Biting a newcomer is what I was concerned about, more than anything else. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not acceptable on this website to revert against multiple other editors, causing disruption in order to add into an article about a person material that is completely unreferenced, after being given a warning about this behavior at this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, but do you imagine that the first-time editor would be versed in the intricacies of wiki etiquette? I did not detect any personal comments about other editors, yet the editor was subjected to comments such as adding a "rant", "objectionable" entries and being "disruptive" when all I could see was that an editor was adding commentary and having it constantly deleted and not understanding why because the edit comments were probably seen as cryptic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Wholly disagree with your assessment. The user was clearly in violation of multiple different site policies. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to be obstreperous, but would a neophyte understand that? There seems to be no evidence that any other editing other Spring Byington was proffered. The editor made no edit comments but instead used the repeat of the same submission as an edit comment rife with personal observations that alone indicated to me a lack of knowledge regarding how to frame a proper submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

You seem to be repeating yourself now and going in circles. Unfortunately this thread has ceased the possibility of becoming productive. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems that one of us is saying the same things over and over while another is trying to provide some context as to how a newbie is being treated. You can provide the connection at will, as I see that you are unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue and I am wasting my time. Sorry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I said, "no'mas", but what occurred between the warning given to the anon at 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC) and the subsequent block at 00:57, 6 May 2010 when the last edit made was 16:08, 26 April 2010? FWiW, Jest curious, mind 'ya? Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

 Done, unblocked, to warn instead. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• That was exceptionally poorly done. After seeing the discussion above, I was about to just unblock them myself without bothering to talk to you about it when you beat me to it. Few things piss me off more than seeing an admin lording it over a confused, wrong, but probably good faith new editor. Except possibly seeing an admin patronizingly dismiss any hint of disagreement with their actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Got it, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"200" and "201"

I've nominated 200 (South Park) and 201 (South Park) for GA and listed you as a co-nom. I think you deserve it, but if you strongly disagree, feel free to remove yourself. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ministère de l'Education changed into Emartin33

Dear Cirt, with the very useful help of your collegue and administrator Peter I renamed my account as you asked (it is now not a 'moral person' anymore). I sent you an email but did not get any reply, and my account still seems to be blocked (I can edit, but my name appears in red, and it says that I am blocked and that I need to contact you). Now that I have made the modification you asked, could you please unblock me? Sorry for the disturbance, best regards,

Emartin33 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt, I just wanted to let you know that I created a new account so that I did not have to disturb you anymore, with the mistake I made with my account name at the beginning. Let me know if this could be any problem. Best Regards,

Discover33 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no objections. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulmgambolputty and WP:ARBSCI

Hi Cirt, I didn't see the point in posting him there. Tim Song banned him from the topic but I blocked him for the other edits that identified him as our determined friend. Given he's banned for other matters, and is unlikely to ever be welcome, is it worthwhile clogging the ARBSCI page ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You Denied My Protection!

Just you wait, Cirt, the edit-war will happen, and I'll be back!!!--Nate2357 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this nerd speak? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

TO GET ACCESS FOR EDITING SECTION OF ARTICLE "CELEBRITY SEX TAPE"

Hello! I want to create the article about Celebrity sex tapes in Russian Wikipedia. But i can`t get access to editing section here (default link "edit"). I need it - to copy & paste some components for comfort of my action (tags,sources.....). Please,give me access & Thank you for attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.150.160 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest first registering an account on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing AFDs "delete" with only one delete !vote

Since I've noticed you have been doing this quite a bit lately, I have not relisted any of these on the log for the 1st today except this one. Since the article survived a previous AFD, I think we should give it another week just to be certain that consensus really has changed.

As far as doing this in general, IMHO if the nominator's rationale is sound and nobody impeaches it or otherwise objects to the deletion, then they should be closed "delete", even if there are no !votes at all. However, such articles should be refundable since you can't really call one delete !vote a "consensus" but the 2 times I have tried proposing this, it's been rejected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, jforget relisted them anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Now what? (about the Samuel Johnson Jr. article)

Can I delete the "This article is being considered for deletion" note? Or should it stay there for a while? I have never faced this king of trouble before... Thank you!

--Betty VH (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done If the AFD is closed but the closer doesn't remove the AFD notice from the article, then anybody is free to remove it.

Note to Cirt. The MrZman script doesn't always remove the AFD tag from the article so it helps to look just to make sure it has. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71

Is taking too long - he now thinks he can edit his own long term abuse report - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/DavidYork71&oldid=360289062 - obviously there is further work to do... SatuSuro 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow the tone of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ulmgambolputty editing - it is like he is going to keep coming back forever :( SatuSuro 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Damian Collins

Could you undelete the article on Damian Collins now that he has been elected MP for Folkestone and Hythe (and therefore now meets WP:POLITICIAN)? --Zundark (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Zundark (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Protections

Hi, thanks for doing the South Slavs protection. The report also covered Galatia, which is also affected – could you do that one too please? Cheers -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71

Is taking too long - he now thinks he can edit his own long term abuse report - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/DavidYork71&oldid=360289062 - obviously there is further work to do... SatuSuro 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow the tone of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ulmgambolputty editing - it is like he is going to keep coming back forever :( SatuSuro 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Paramahansa_Srimat_Swami_Nigamananda_Saraswati_Dev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Paramahansa_Srimat_Swami_Nigamananda_Saraswati_Dev

I see you have deleted the above article, Can you please restore it?

We are represented by numerous websites and 100's of books in English/Hindi and other regional languages. We have more than 1000 places of worship across India.

We are also represented by non profit organization 503C status from the state of Minnesota.

www.jayaguru.net www.jayaguru.org

let me know if you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswaranjan.das (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This user appears to be a violation of WP:Role account. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? --Biswaranjan.das (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

we are the devotees of Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev, who is one of the most revered and beloved Gurus from India. Recently i found that his page "Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev" has been deleted from Wiki.

My sincier request to you and Wiki, to restore the page. If you have any concerns about the content on the page please let us know. If we have not provided necesssry references, then it may be due to our mistake, or we never found out that the page needs some kind of citation or something like that nature. But that does not diminish or falsify the information we provided about our GURU.

Please restore the page , and let us know what are the things you need to adhere to wiki's standards.

Subrat Nayak 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) (talk)

Sorry but this again seems like inappropriate WP:VANISPAM and WP:Role account issues going on here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey what do you mean by VANISPAM , Do you know anything about Sanatan Dharma? There are some few guru which have mastered in all 4 Gyana/Prema/Yoga/Tantra.

Again on conflict of interest? what do you mean by that? Which interest you are talking about? We are not posting here to collect donations? What exact paragraph made you think like we are a spam company????

Dont take it personally, google about "Sri Nigamananda" then decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswaranjan.das (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Biswaranjan.das (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"We are not posting here to collect donations ..." -- Who is this "we" that "we" keep referring to? -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Damian Collins

Could you undelete the article on Damian Collins now that he has been elected MP for Folkestone and Hythe (and therefore now meets WP:POLITICIAN)? --Zundark (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Zundark (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Protections

Hi, thanks for doing the South Slavs protection. The report also covered Galatia, which is also affected – could you do that one too please? Cheers -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK -- and you did more work on it than anyone. I stuck it on the DYK Hall of Fame page. [1] It got 5.1K hits! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

All citation and expansion work has been completed; can you revisit? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stricken my prior comment, nice work on the referencing improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Clapham

Hi, could you please restore the previously deleted version of Aaron_Clapham. I believe I can now show GNG given his call up to the NZ squad for the FIFA World Cup. Userfication to my space would be fine at this stage. Thanks--ClubOranje^T 07:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominated the new (unreferenced WP:BLP page) for AFD. Will defer to judgment of reviewing admin from there. -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenu

Yah, I see what you are saying. Thanks for the advise. Let me know what you decide to do.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Michelle DeFraites Page

I was told to contact you directly regarding the deletion of the "Michelle DeFraites" page. You were the one who apparently closed the discussion. I tried a "request for undeletion," to no avail.

Apparently, her page was deleted because she was not "notable" enough, although I am not quite sure what that criteria is. Since the original article was posted, she has starred in the record-breaking Lifetime movie "The Pregnancy Pact." It can be verified through IMDB or mylifetime.com. She is also now one of the Disney Channel MovieSurfers (verify it on www.moviesurfers.com.) Please undelete this entry so that we can update her information. Thanks!!

Sgdiii (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle DeFraites. Perhaps you could work on a draft within a subpage of your userspace, as a proposed version which could hopefully utilize multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion; it was only one or two comments. I no longer have access to the original page to work on; that's why I was requesting it be undeleted. Where might I find the guidelines on what is considered "notable" enough? Sgdiii (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Sgdiii/Michelle DeFraites. Needs lots of sourcing work with secondary WP:RS sources, per WP:BLP, and also in order to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! I will try to reference as many things in the article as I can... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdiii (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good luck with your research. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I have tried to reference as many things as I can. I am new at this, so forgive me if the references are not the type they should be; I am trying. The MovieSurfers group is apparently notable (they have an entry), so an individual MovieSurfer should be notable enough? Especially one who's starred in a TV movie? Please let me know if I have made any mistakes I need to correct. Once again, thanks! Sgdiii (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bongomatic (talk · contribs) and JNW (talk · contribs) might have some useful input. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you evaluate the changes to the page where it is, or do I have to re-post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdiii (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend notifying the above editors that I suggested. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP#User_talk:Tfrasheed_.28edit.7Cuser_page.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

Hi. You may be interested in the subject section.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like others have addressed it, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Classixx

Hi Cirt. I know this is a bit unusual, but could I ask you to relist this one? I added multiple sources to the article, and then completely forgot to return to the AfD to say so. Thanks very much, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Amy Pond

The image I uploaded is being used at the tardis wikia. It is a higher quality thatn the image currently used. File:AmyPond.png. The currently used image is extremely noisy and spotty. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

TM WikiProject

One of the reasons why the Wikiproject was helpful was that some sourcing issues stretched across multiple articles in the Prem Rawat topic, so having a central discussion was very helpful. That kind of issue doesn't really exist with the TM topic, but there may be other benefits. Let me think about it and maybe I can put together a proposal.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Michael Gurry

I see that Michael Gurry was deleted at AfD, but Mikal (US artist) was not. Was that your intent, and if so, what was your reasoning? Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory sourcing issues

On the Christ myth theory's GAR you indicated that you felt the article had sourcing issues. If you could spell these issues out a bit the article's editors could try to address them. Eugene (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be already explained a bit by others at the GAR page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's that the page uses books written by Christians? Eugene (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this the issue, or is it something else? Eugene (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For closing this. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to "The End of the Free Market" deletion

Hello,

I see that you've deleted the page I wrote on Ian Bremmer's new book, The End of the Free Market. I was traveling out of the country when it was nominated for deletion and missed the chance to contribute to your debate. I work for Ian Bremmer, who is a political scientist and academic. He asked me to post factual information about his bio and his new book. We did not realize that this would be seen as promotional, but merely meant to add factual information to Wikipedia. Is there any chance we can discuss this in more detail and resubmit it (or another version) for reconsideration, now that the book has been formally released this week?

Please let us know how to best proceed. We did not mean to offend anyone or do something that goes against Wikipedia's policies. But we do want there to be factual information out there about state capitalism and Ian's thoughts on the matter.

Many thanks, JaneEG —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneEG (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working first on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to reconsider deletion of Cage(BDSM)...

Request to reconsider deletion of Cage(BDSM)...

I don't believe this article should have been deleted, it is a legitimate sub-culture within bondage and has many unique features. The reasons given for deletion were "Reads like advert" and "no sources". The article does not read like an advert, the text is not vendor specific, does not suggest that the reader make a purchase and if anything suggests by emphasizing the expense of this item that a person should not be encouraged to purchase it. If advertisements were like this, businesses would pretty soon go out of business.

It is true that the article contains no sources, however if that were used as the sole criteria thousands of Wikipedia articles would be deleted. As an example the article "Bondage Hood" does not reference any sources but contains much useful information and it would be a shame if that were removed.

As you can see I don't have a Wikipedia account and am just a humble reader. But the fact that one person feels that the original article contained something useful (fortunately I found it in Google's cache), should surely be a good argument for it's reinstatement. I agree that it would be nice to see it expanded as an example see this text

article/1009678/bdsm_a_guide_to_caging_your_male_or.html?cat=7 on the associatedcontent.com site.

I am not sure how to correctly reference this article in Wikipedia, but I feel that it could be incorporated into the undeleted article to provide better insight into the role of cages within BDSM.

I respectfully request that you reconsider this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by67.189.191.188 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

First I would suggest you register on Wikipedia by creating an account, and then you could draft up some work on a subpage of your userspace. The link you propose above, fails WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BugNET Deletion

Hi Cirt, I see you were the deleting administrator for the BugNET article I started http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BugNET&action=edit&redlink=1 I am quite frustrated by this as I do not think the article received any kind of fair discussion. Myself and a couple of other people attempted to fix all inadequacies and believe we did so. In the end, the discussion page just had a few random people saying to the effect 'the article has no merit and looks a bit like an advertisement'. If the standard by which the article was judged was applied to similar pages, every single entry in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems and every single article linked off it must be deleted also. Can you please justify the action taken against an article about a piece of free software, started by myself, who is unrelated to the authors of the software? Is there a way to restore the article and related pages so it can receive fair assessment over time? The initial deletion nomination came shortly after my first edit, well before the article was completed. GregDude (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the article be restored BUT if the references are still considered weak, place a notification of inadequate referencing on the page so it can be improved in future.GregDude (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to first work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace, so as to better assess WP:NOTE failure or satisfaction. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding an IP

Special:Contributions/174.49.185.84. Any chance you can block this IP (and possibly the other one you mentioned on the talk page)? I've warned him several times, even issuing a final warning (as have you) and he is just not listening. It's getting frustrating having to clean up the mess. Nymf _hideliho! 17:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Best if another admin looks into this. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner. 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. Sapporod1965 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My-e-Director 2012

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My-e-Director 2012 as delete and then deleted My-e-Director 2012 but it had already been moved to My eDirector 2012. Were you intending to delete just the redirect or the whole article? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem

No problem man Old Al (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it

I'll go through the contribs one by one, but jesus christ, how dedicated is this guy? Old Al (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done

Went through some the contributions, seemed like all the comments on Xenu's talk page were the same, and the IP grouping doesn't help him either. I have your back on this one. Old Al (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also

Also, don't hesitate to notify me if you want any support on anything. I enjoy this stuff :D Old Al (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I contacted you because I saw your expertise on some other sock investigation cases. But sure, I will try to remember in the future if your investigative skills could be useful in a later sock case investigation. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I just gotta know

Did a future version of yourself get in his TARDIS and travel back in time 100 years to reply to this post? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed attention to my user talk page. This is so that the subsection does not automatically get archived by a bot. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I gotta remind myself to unwatch user talk pages after the user has replied to my post. Modifying the date does seem a little cludgy though. Perhaps the archive bots can be written to not archive sections if the string <!-- noarchive --> is in them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is really not a big deal for me. I had not given it much thought until now. -- Cirt (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS help

Hi Cirt. :) Can you confirm the permission at File:BocaJuniorsRecopa2008.PNG? Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to already be tagged by someone else. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was tagged by the uploader, not a member of the OTRS team. Can you check to make sure that the ticket actually exists? Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It does. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

JT Southern AfD

I am confused. The discussion was relisted to generate more discussion, but then you closed it less than two days later after only one more comment. That doesn't seem conducive to any sort of discussion. Shall I assume that you made an error in reading the dates and plan to re-open the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, restored, relisted, back at AFD. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michael C. Moynihan

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Josh McEachran

I have seen that you have deleted the page for Josh McEachran. I am ready to write up a new article for it. I have all the relevant sources that will be put in to it. Just informing you. No need to undelete the previous one, as I will start a new one. If you acknowledge this request, just leave an ok on my talk-page. Thanx! Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest first working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the draft: User:Laks.t.cfc13/Josh_McEachran. Just give an ok if it is satisfactory, if not, may the advice/reasoning flood in! Thanx! Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can maybe even put in the stub template, if there are not enough references, which seems to be the case. Currntly he is playing for England U17s at the Euros, which has so far furthered his notability (scored a goal) and in the coming season will most likely be a squad player. I can put the article as stub class, and then create it. Then as time goes on, and should his notabilty increase, the references will be added on. Thoughts? Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Phonesat2010

Please would you have a look at Comma10. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Chitoka Webb G4 Speedy

Cirt, you AfD–deleted Chitoka Webb which has been reposted. I've G4 CSD tagged it (among other tags), but could you check to make sure the G4 tag is appropriate since I can't look at the deleted version to make sure that it is different. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:City of Hamilton

Greetings. I noticed you blocked this user. User:City of Hamilton, User:Hamilton, Ontario, User:Hamilton, Ontario1, and a few IP addresses have made edits to Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and St. Eugene Catholic Elementary School, including removal of maintenance templates despite warnings. I was wondering if there is enough evidence to suspect sockpuppetry here. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

I would appreciate another knowledgable, interested editor looking over the discussion on the talk page of the above article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't really have a chance lately to delve into that in the depth of detail for an FA drive, unfortunately. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article - Comparison of .NET obfuscators

I found this article to be extremely interesting and revisited it occasionally, but unfortunately it's been deleted. I tried to access it using archive.org but to no avail. Is there any other way to access this content? I really need it. Thanks! Scatophaga (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted subsequent to a deletion discussion process called WP:AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand this and I'm not trying to get the article republished (as it probably doesn't follow the rules). I just want to be able to access the content somehow, even if only to save it for personal use later on. Is there a way to do it? If I recall in the past it was possible to access the content of deleted pages via their history, but I can't seem to be able to do it now. Any other way? Scatophaga (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Scatophaga/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate this and may try to edit the article to make it suitable for republishing. Scatophaga (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Shabby Chic (brand)

Dear Cirt:

I request your reconsideration regarding your deletion of the article Shabby Chic (brand). As I stated in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shabby_Chic_(brand), the article was created at the suggestion of another editor, User:Ukexpat in order to distinguish the SHABBY CHIC brand from the descriptive use of the term. I respectfully request that you undelete the article and await the comments of User:Ukexpat, who has not yet had an opportunity to address this article.

Additionally, I believe it is unsufficient to simply delete the article without responding substantively to the comments I posted in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shabby_Chic_(brand) discussion, and accordingly, I request that if you maintain that the article should remain deleted that you explain why you have done so.

Thank you.

Regards, KSatSCB 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working first on a draft proposed version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt: I do not understand your comments. I did work on a draft proposed version within a subpage of my userspace, and I sought review by the editor who originally deleted my content from Shabby chic. I would appreciate a more substantive response to my inquiries and my earlier comments in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shabby_Chic_(brand) discussion, rather than a summarily-made decision on an unresolved matter. KSatSCB 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSatSCB (talk • contribs)

Where did you do these things? -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Draw-you-know-who Day

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greg L (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your misrepresentation

Nice try. Your changes clearly reflect your extreme lack of knowledge and or interest in the Pakistani legal system and legal procedure.

Here is the most reliable source

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-lhc-orders-block-of-facebook-over-caricatures-ss-02

And specifically

"Justice Ejaz Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court directed the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to block Facebook after a group of lawyers moved a petition in the court.

An interim order has been issued until May 31, when the court is to start a detailed hearing of the case."

Go ahead and ban! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending the above linked source. I have used it in the article, [3]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken Buck

Very unprofessional for you to delete a page that has been up in years and had as many relevant sources as I provided. Ken Buck is a candidate for the Senate in 2010, seems noteworthy to me. He has been written about by a number of national news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.71.40 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR

Thanks for looking over Moon. The article has been kept! Iridia (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

India and WMDs

Hello, I think the IP vandal is back and he's making edits again. I was just wondering if you could protect the article again so that only auto-confirmed users can edit it in the future. Since this is a topic a lot of people have issues with, I was wondering if you could set an expiry time of indefinite this time as it will prevent both anonymous IPs from inserting both Pro-India and Anti-India comments on the article. Thanks,Vedant (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest WP:RFPP. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, left a note at AN

Here [4] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Josh McEachran continued ...

I can maybe even put in the stub template, if there are not enough references, which seems to be the case. Currntly he is playing for England U17s at the Euros, which has so far furthered his notability (scored a goal and have got a couple of more sources) and in the coming season will most likely be a squad player. I can put the article as stub class, and then create it. Then as time goes on, and should his notabilty increase, the references will be added on. I'll also re-edit to make the article more neutral.Thoughts? Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Previously deleted already, after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh McEachran. Consensus was pretty conclusive. If you like, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

request for content of deleted article

Cirt, I wrote an article that you deleted. Could you provide me with the formatted content of that article (Jim_Tisdall)? I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how this is done, but if it was installed as my Sandbox that would be fine. Thanks for you help! Desalane 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desalane (talk • contribs)

 Done, now at User:Desalane/Jim Tisdall. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

What problem do you have with making your comment a subsection of the previous one you already created? I would like my responses to your concerns, which I already posted, to be connected with your latest posting, so onlookers will note my thoughts on the subject. If you keep creating new sections for your related comments, it makes things difficult for those attempting to show an opinion. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is generally polite not to alter other users' posts on the talk pages. Certainly not so, without asking them, first. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Except for minor formatting, generally... Well, now that you've reverted me on general principle, would you mind reinstating the edit or otherwise refactoring your response, for the reasons I stated above? Thank you in advance. Politely yours, Equazcion ^(talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the subsection is a good way to refocus looking at the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree -- a subsection would adequately refocus the issue, while also keeping the previous comments tied in. Would you like me to make it a subsection again, or are you going to do that? Equazcion ^(talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is what the new subsection is for. It is an update on the refocus of the Commentary section in the article, and how that is being done. -- Cirt (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a subsection, exactly, but a whole new section. Ok. Well, you've shown a total lack of flexibility or willingness to compromise here. I won't try to fight you on it, because, well, that would be something you would do, and I'm not you. Good day. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think we were getting hung up on or confused about usage of "subsection" and "section". If that is my fault, my apologies. Still thinking a new section is best. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You concluded the {{afd}} on The Brotherhood Letter. I'd like to request the userification of the article's full revision history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/The Brotherhood Letter. I'll comment out the categories, and add {{noindex}} directives.

FWIW the nominator explicitly over-wrote the heads-up left on my talk page, that would have advised me this article had been nominated for deletion. This is puzzling and disturbing.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you also userify Jamat Mujahedeen Maroc to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Jamat Mujahedeen Maroc? Geo Swan (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OpenBSD

Hi Cirt - Could you please revisit your oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive1? The main editor working on the article has responded to your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will take another look. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for being on top of it. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

Appreciate your work on the Draw Mohammed Day page. It's a very interesting subject to me. PrimalSpazz (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21. 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.

Dear Cirt,

yesterday I noticed that you deleted the page, which I created on the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ISL_Online

I understand that the debate has been opened regarding the article deletion. However, I was away for some time and could not react on the proposed deletion of the article in due time. I am really sorry for that and I kindly ask you to open the debate again, so I will be able to present my arguments against the deletion of the article.

Thank you very much for your understanding. Having any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jure pompe (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward Kotlyanskiy

Hi, Cirt -- I'm writing to ask you to reconsider undeleting the Edward Kotlyanskiy article. I have been speaking to the author in IRC. He presented http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=126201 as an additional third-party source for Kotlyanskiy's record.

I didn't see the original article. The deletion discussion appeared to conclude that notability had not been established. I think notability is implicitly established under WP:ATHLETE, and confirmed by the fact that every other winner of the ICCF championship listed at Correspondence_chess#ICCF_World_Champions also has an article. (I know, other stuff exists, but this seems like a strong pattern toward assuming notability for winners of this particular championship.)

Please let me know what you think, and whether you think I have misunderstood the issue. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was quite clear. I would suggest you work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: If you were willing to do that, I would, of course, help out by userfying it for you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song got it per an IRC req. —fetch·comms 01:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats

This edit from an anon IP in Pakistan is disconcerting - not sure whether it's worth taking action though. -- samj _in^out 22:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An admin later protected that page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panic Of Girls

From the outcome of the discussion I am not sure why this is exists Panic of Girls, it is a red link on the AFD page... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The article got moved but not deleted, I did not notice the capital O at a 1st look. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, by another admin. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

JK_Wedding_Entrance_Dance

A new user (it was his second edit) has added the AFD tag to JK_Wedding_Entrance_Dance but did not follow through with the rest of the nomination. I have posted on his page letting him know that he still needs to create the AFD page. I am honestly not sure what to do... Should someone complete the nomination for him and add in rationale based upon his edit summary or would it be appropriate to remove the template at this time from the page? -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could be removed, if the process was not completed after explaining it to the IP after a suitable period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

done [5], thanks for the advice. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

About the deleted page "Dao (programming language)"

Dear Cirt,

I just noticed that you have deleted the page "Dao (programming language)". I wonder if the sharing of a common name with the abbreviation of Data Access Object is the main reason for the deletion, but they are two quite different things, I don't see there how people can get confused between them. Moreover there is disambiguation page, otherwise, what's that for?

For notability, I neither think it is a strong reason for a deletion of such page. There are so many languages listed here List of programming languages, I doubt all of them have better notability than Dao.

If the article need to be improved, I would be gladly to do so. Please reconsider if it is really necessary to delete this article. I would appreciate very much if this page can be restored.

Thank you! Phoolimin (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, after WP:AFD discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao (programming language). I would suggest working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, there were discussions (which I unfortunately did not read in time), but the reasons for deletion in the discussion were not really sufficient in my opinion. Just for curiosity, is there technical reason or policy reason that a deleted page can not be restored? Because I would rather like to edit the original page. If working on a proposed draft version is the only way to go, I would like to have the original source of that page, if possible of course, how do I get that? Just a general suggestion, when a page is deleted, it might be much more convenient to have a link somewhere to get the original source of the deleted article. Phoolimin (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Phoolimin/Dao (programming language). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientologists

Hello, sorry if this is not the place to discuss this I am new to Wikipedia. I have the impression that you keep reverting an edit I have made to the list of scientologists, adding comedian Andrés López. The second time I added him I wrote that the Wikipedia article has all the references, and the third time I directly put the references that prove his involvement with scientology. However, the last message from you states that I am making edits without citing sources and that my IP might be blocked. How is that so? I used the ref tag correctly, and the references could be seen. I don't understand what are you refering to. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.124.9.215 (talk • contribs)

Citing another Wikipedia article is circular-reasoning, and fails WP:RS. Citing primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology has been determined to be unreliable, and the best thing to do, is to cite independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 201.124.9.215 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw you-know-who day

Cirt,

As you can see from the EDMD talk page, your apology made an impression others; not just me. All is certainly forgiven and I look forward to working collaboratively with you on EDMD. Feel free to contact me any way you please if you need assistance to arrive at a consensus (or proving one already exists). Greg L (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I really feel bad about some of my conduct there, and am glad we can try to move forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breath mints

Would you be kind enough to reconsider your AfD close deleting this article, and restore and relist it? Thanks! Reasons for doing so:

• It really wasn't much of a discussion. There were only two comments. It probably should have been relisted rather than closed.
• Of the two comments, only one was a clear "delete" !vote. The other was just a comment, and the person said "I'll hold off on saying delete..." This does not constitute any kind of clear consensus in my view.
• You didn't give any rationale for your deletion.
• If I had been aware of this AfD, which I missed somehow, I would have chimed in with the cogent (I believe) point that this does something a category can't do, namely show the redlinks of existing products that don't yet have articles. This is helpful to those of us who are trying to build a complete reference on this subject.
• For what it's worth, I kind of doubt that this was really a good-faith nomination. The person proposing deletion has apparently taken a dislike to be for some reason (we were engaged in an ArbCom action at the time this AfD was made), and I think he looked through my stuff, found this, and decided to try to "get me" by deleting stuff I was involved with. I cannot prove this, of course.

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And I just punched it keep. I probably wouldn't have closed it if I knew about this. My first thought was that it was an AFD cirt found orphaned in limbo. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Southampton Stags deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Southampton_Stags

When searching for the stags you find at least four other uk american football teams so I do not see why the stags page was deleted. Especially considering Birmingham Lions and Southampton Stags have dominated the league through out history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.8.54 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you first register and create an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Patty Crash article

I would like to know why the "Patty Crash" article was deleted when it was properly cited.If I can't get the page back on here could you send it to me in an email? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajthemusical (talk • contribs)

 Done, now at User:Ajthemusical/Patty Crash. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: MRQE Conflict of Interest

Yes, I know. That article was a one-sentence page on Wikipedia subject for deletion prior to me editing it. I added some information, and then it got marked as having a conflict of interest. From that point, I stopped editing it and haven't touched the article since March of 2009. There have been other editors that fixed the article. This is all before I knew the ins and outs of Wikipedia and the importance of the Talk pages. I hope this clarifies things. Thanks for the links you provided and pleasure to meet you! mliss4816 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Doven

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Zacks Investment Research

Hi Cirt,

You deleted my page for Zacks Investment Research. I am still a novice when it comes to creating wiki articles and I tried to follow the guidelines the best I could. I rewrote the article and if you can offer some of your expertise for this new one, I would greatly appreciate it.

I have created a temporary page for Zacks Investment Research on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rexjoec/Zacks_Investment_Research and I was wondering if you could offer some feedback about this one before I move it to the article space?

I followed the same format and used similar wording as related wiki pages such as TheStreet.com wiki page and The Motley Fool wiki page. If you think it is in jeopardy of being deleted, then I would like to know what is wrong and if it is any different that TheStreet.com or The Motley Fool where their pages were accepted.

Please let me know if this new version of Zacks Investment Research is good enough to become accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexjoec (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not move it into article space, it reads like WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, and it uses mostly primary sources and sources affiliated with the article subject. It appears to be mainly a form of promotion, possibly also conflict of interest advertising. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics

You deleted the page I made for the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics because it was self-promoting and a conflict of interest. Another administrator said that I could re-create the page using a personal user name and if I take out the majority of the external links. Would this make the page follow all the policies? Thanks. Arejmcnamara (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was this discussion with the other administrator? I only see one contribution so far from this particular account. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It was on my previous account, giannini. I made a new account to remake the page so I wasn't self promoting.Arejmcnamara (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Link? -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giannini Arejmcnamara (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could contribute in a different topic area where you do not have a conflict of interest. It is also unclear as to whether this new account violates WP:Role account, or indeed is operated by more than one person from the group. -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So I cannot remake the page even though I have a different username and would remove all the "spamming" external links?Arejmcnamara (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate that an account previously blocked for spamming and WP:Role account violations, returns with only a singular interest of again promoting the same organization. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would it still be promoting if I remove all the external links? I am just trying to create an informational page for an academic foundation, I don't understand what is separating it from every other foundation page besides the links. I'm sorry I keep asking questions, I just don't seem to understand. Arejmcnamara (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you are associated with the group, and want to write about the self-same group. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Undeletion of page "Chris Hartman"

I am entirely new to the Wiki game, but the aforementioned "Chris Hartman" page was brought to my attention a couple of months ago as it was about me. I see now the page has been deleted, owing largely to the lack of a "Fairness Campaign" page and the confusion surrounding if the "Christopher Hartman" cited as having worked for Congressman John Yarmuth's campaign was the "Chris Hartman" of the Fairness Campaign. ("And are we sure that the Christopher Hartman who worked for John Yarmuth is the same Chris Hartman that heads the Fairness Campaign? The source cited attributes the information to a blog, which no longer exists. Are there any sources that mention Hartman in the context of both? I couldn't find any, and it struck me as odd that the Hartman associated with the Fairness Campaign was almost always spelled 'Chris', while the one associated with the Yarmuth was almost always spelled 'Christopher'. I was only able to find 4 results that mentioned a Hartman in the context of Yarmuth, so I'm not sure how notable that is either.") While I used "Christopher" during the Yarmuth campaign, I began using "Chris" when i took the position with Fairness. This PDF of the Fairness Campaign's newsletter, found on the Fairness Campaign's website (http://www.fairness.org/Portals/19/Newsletters/Feb09.pdf) references both positions and the same person. WIthin the next couple of months, we will have submitted a "Fairness Campaign" wiki page. CLH2030 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a welcome message and conflict of interest message at the user talk page, there is a good deal of helpful info to go through there. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle

Cirt, I'm in agreement with you that it is best to keep in straight chronological order, however I did substantial reorganization of that topic. I probably removed three or more paragraphs (mostly redundant or irrelevant) and there are still three paragraphs left. This section can probably be easily compiled to a single paragraph or less, then reinserted chronographically. Additionally, since the actual event, and the controversy happened in two time periods with other events in-between, perhaps it makes sense to have a seperate section. Dougieb (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The info should be presented chronologically, in a straight format based on order of dates, and not pushed down into a "controversy" section. See the article's talk page. Please engage in discussion there. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of deaths related to Scientology

BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your CU request

Hi Cirt, regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71 that last diff was actually something I was looking for but somehow missed. I've now blocked under WP:DUCK. However something still confuses me. Why didn't you do the block yourself, and what is the reason for a checkuser request? This could be done without requesting checkuser, so before I switch to decline, I wanted to know if I'm missing something. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The checkuser request is to find underlying information for a possible rangeblock. I did not do the block myself, as I avoid performing such admin actions when the vandalism occurs on the topic of Scientology, due to my WP:FA and WP:GA quality content improvement work within the topic. -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pic names

Can you please rename File:IAGubCounties.png to File:2006 Iowa Governor Election Results.png and File:2002IAgov.png to File:2002 Iowa Governor Election Results.png possibly move to commons? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to do that yourself, please see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

12-point list

Hi. I added points #9 and #10 to Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. Do you support the 12-point list as revised? Greg L (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think those 2 points are really necessary or needed. I agree with everything else on that page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see some agitation for including only pictures from vaunted secondary sources. Granted, that seems rather unrealistic of a wish since it would require that Wikipedia abandon our bedrock principles regarding copyrights. The agitating for images originating from secondary sources seems to be borne out of a view that images that are contributions from wikipedians somehow constitutes original research. The point, really, of #9 is to A) establish that wikipedian-created images are not O.R. so long as B) they pass a mighty straightforward litmus test. Since all user-contributed images must comply with WP:OI (original images), we might as well pull out the ol’ Bat Mirror and use the requirement to our advantage. Point #10 simply says that just because an editor dredges up something from secondary sources (like an image of Mohammed screwing goats), it can’t be featured in the gallery. Greg L (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But there are currently no Wikipedian-created images in the gallery. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. That is a bit of a gray area. Flicker isn’t a notable R.S., so in this context, where we have wikipedians taking free-use images and putting them on Commons, I think we can consider the images to be wikipedians-by-proxy. Greg L (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians have not taken any of the free-use images used in the Gallery, they have been from individual Flicr users. -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PUSRD FPOC

Hello, I noticed that the Portal:U.S. Roads FPOC has been archived as failed; however, the discussion was never formally closed and the FPOC template was never removed from the portal's talk page. Was this intentional, i.e. allowing discussion to resume at a later date, or was it just an oversight? I'm not familiar with how FPOC works, so I figured it'd be better to ask than assume one way or the other. TIA. – TMF 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the instructions for closing, you will see that a bot will be by soon, to archive/close the discussion pages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FPR

Excuse me Cirt. Can you close Mar's portal review? No one has edited the portal since March and there hasn't been a lot of comments in the review as well. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified two users that contributed to it in the past. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Cirt. Nice work. [6].(olive (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

recreation of Accupos by sockpuppet of user:Accupospos

Hey, I tried to submit this at sockpuppetry investigations, but I got confused with the new-user unfriendly template. So instead I decided to post here as you handled the case last time.

Evidence seems obvious to me, as user:Accupospos requested a name change to ThayerD, while the page was recreated by user:Thayerdemay and the new user has only created this page. Yoenit (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest both WP:AFD and WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

EDMD page

I haven't seen this serious amount of posturing on many pages and they almost always are religious. Jimmy himself is watching. Alatari (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us please keep discussion to the talk page itself, at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It would also be appreciated if your comments are more focused on a discussion of suggested independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This comment was personal and had nothing to do with enhancing the page. I have cited secondary sources but you appear focused on my initial primary sources. I have nothing against you but you seem to be making this personal. This is a controversial subject and injections of humor to each other to keep us distant from the material I find is handy. Alatari (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments suggesting secondary sources use them to advance your theories, (WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR violations), and not in the appropriate manner, which would be to use analysis already made in the secondary sources themselves. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would invite you to review my last comments about moving the first Pakistan block on FB to the Jylland controversy and agreed with you that there is no direct connection between the two drawing events. You swayed my mind so I will credit you on the page too. There are secondary source reprinted several times (AP wire and then to Yahoo, then elsewhere about the guy who was making a killing making flags for sale.) stating this Pakistani event is reminiscent of the earlier controversy where dozens died. As for Draw Muhammed Week, well unless some secondary source pics them up in the future they will go down forgotten. Alatari (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I will be disengaging from the article, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I helped to do some research and add a bunch of sources which was fun, but it was taking up a bit of time and focus, and now it will be interesting to see what direction it takes subsequent to the event. Hope you are doing well. Feel free to keep me informed if you wish. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You did a job I couldn't compare to. Hope to meet you again on another article. Alatari (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Amorth

Hi

I'm really confused to why the page: Amorth band is going to be deleted. It is a real band, signed to a label, they have albus out on hmv, play amazon etc. Also, a band that is on the same label has a wiki page, so its not very fair that this one should be deleted.

http://www.mothershouldknowrecords.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=64

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/simpleMultiSearch.do?searchUID=&pGroupID=0&adultFlag=false&primaryID=0&simpleSearchString=amorth+await+me+now&btnSubmitSearch.x=0&btnSubmitSearch.y=0

here are a couple of links that prove what I am saying.

thanks

Oli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olihunt123 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest first working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Riordan

Hello, My page on Stuart Riordan was recently deleted because one of the reviewers felt there wasn't enough "significant coverage." I have posted the sources I used below. I agree that I needed to supply the dates of publication on 3 of these articles; however, I disagree with the notion that these articles do not constitute "significant coverage." One of the reviewers said he could only locate references to Riordan in calendars and that there were no articles about her or featuring interviewers with her. He is wrong. He simply googled Riordan. The articles I used were written by third parties about Riordan and some featured interviewes with her. However, they have not been digitized and so are not available online. I got them the old fashioned way: off microfilm. Riordan's partial list of exhibitions lists 36 shows--hardly insignificant. I spent a great deal of time working on this article and I'm frustrated that it was pulled. I am a professional writer (see http://www.amazon.com/Lu-Vickers/e/B001JS6SS0/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 ) and do not take my work lightly. Please let me know what I can do repost my article.

Clifford, Dorothy. “Stuart Riordan is as complex as she is talented.” Tallahassee Democrat. April 11, 1995. stuartriordan.com Rubenstein, Betty. “Riordan’s art shows feminine sensibility.” Tallahassee Democrat. Van Horn, Virginia. “Exhibit offers unique feminist view.” The Daily Break. Hinson, Mark. “No blood spilled for LeMoyne ‘Update.” Tallahassee Democrat. Osborn, David. “Judge rejects complaints about PCC photos.” The Lakeland Ledger. 09/17/1987. "Southern landscapes and nudes on exhibit at Seaside" - Walton Sun Hollis, Cynthia. “Stuart Riordan, Selected Works, 1988-2006. Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science. Bannon, Anthony. “Contemporary exhibit prize winners inspire.” The Chautauquan Daily. Chautauqua, New York. July 8. 2009. Vickersl (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to do some research with those and other additional sources, and then draft a proposed version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Netzer Olami

Hi.

Should the page for user:Netzer Olami be blanked? It's being used as an advert for the etgar program. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For yucks & giggles

Cirt, I know you retired from EDMD, but I thought you would be amused with my 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC) post here on the talk page. Greg L (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR violation. Cute. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted CozyCot articles

Hi Cirt. If it's not too much to ask, would it be possible to have a copy of each previously created version of CozyCot just after they were created, as well as the name of the user that created them (or a copy and paste of each version's history list just before it was deleted)? I'm interested in comparing the previous created versions with the current one. I've asked you as you were the last person to delete the article but if I should be asking someone else just let me know and I will. Thanks in advance for any help. Regards. Brumski (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored the page history, and talk page history. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Portals

À propos of an appropriate venue to discuss the nature of portal blurbs, I've been meaning to ask you for a while if you have any ideas for increasing the active reviewer pool at portal peer review & featured portal applications. Neither has received much in the way of reviews for a long while now, and it's a shame, imo, that several featured applicants were recently turned away mainly because there wasn't enough interest among reviewers. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, and with varying levels of desperation...

• Review every (non-self) nomination yourself, as featured portal (co-)director -- as I recall, OhanaUnited used to do that fairly regularly.
• Has OhanaUnited permanently retired from portal work, by the way? If so, perhaps consideration should be given to electing one or more new co-directors, which might galvanise things a bit.
• Post to the other featured processes & the GA mob, to ask if they have any advice, though I fear the trend of reduced reviewing is project wide.
• Get a note onto the "Project pages seeking contributors" bit of Wikipedia:Community portal.
• Write a news item for Signpost about the stagnation of the portal processes for lack of participation.
• Change the featured portal application rules such that candidates have to give, say, 3 detailed reviews for every portal they're allowed to propose.
• Write a newsletter about portals to post to anyone who's ever reviewed or proposed a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure -- with the caveat that I'm not that familiar with how to get things into Signpost & the Community Portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it would be best to start by asking if Ohana's retired from portal work, both to avoid stepping on their toes & to avoid hitting forums twice if you need to organise an election for another portal co-director. (By the way, casting about for potential contacts I noticed that the failed log doesn't seem to have been working for 2010.) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at OhanaUnited's talk page he's obviously not retired from work on portals, so I've dropped him a note asking if he's ok with me actioning some of these points. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working at Environment Canada, which explains why I can go on Wikipedia but can't spend a lot of time on reviews. Plus I'm still around doing featured portals stuff.[7][8][9]OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

re Kenneth Dickson

Oops sorry, did not see that -- can't keep up with all these templates and stuff! Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ip blocked by cert

I would like to contribute but my Ip is blocked yet I have never used Wiki before and have just purchased my internet connection last month (g3)

Can you please unblock my IP so I can register?

Regards

Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.70 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked, and I have not previously blocked this particular IP. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to join

Hey Cirt. I'm reviving WikiProject Futurama. And since you made Hell is Other Robots into a Featured Article, I'm asking if you would like to join the Wikiproject. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Just add your name here. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you...

...for saving the article. It was doomed without your expansion. J04n(talk page) 04:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome! :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Stamford Connecticut

Thanks for the protection of Stamford, Connecticut and the blocking of that editor for evasion. Is there anything I'm not already doing to deal with this guy? It seems to me to be a no-way-out: he's got some personal beef with Boston/New England and just won't let it go. I'm out of ideas. Thanks again, Markvs88 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably next, could go to WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for extending the temporary lock on the page. I really don't think the guy can be reasoned with, given he's been at this for such a long time. I'll check it out. Thanks again! Markvs88 (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of quidco

Hi,

I am the person who originally created the article on quidco, I have also contributed heavily to the reward website article. I don't believe you have given a proper reason for deleting the article. The article you linked me to seems to suggest that you think I am in someway involved in quidco. Nothing could be futher from the truth and you have no evidence that I am. So could you please give a valid reason for deleting the article, one that is grounded in evidence. Thank you

I'd like you to also answer the following question. Why does wikipedia allow articles on cashback websites operated by large corporations like Microsoft (see: (Bing Cashback and not these 'more notable' smaller ones like quidco? That is bias! I tried to explain the reasons why this should not be allowed to happen on wikipedia and I don't believe the rules allow this disparity to exist. I made the following comment in the last AfD.

" Quidco, were the first cashback website to introduce 100% cashback, most cashback websites at the time offered 50%. On purchases such as mobile phones1 this was a considerable saving. This created a trend, as rivals, most notably, rpoints tried to compete by offering a 'Highest Cashback Promise, and FreeFivers who created a new website, The Cashback Junction. The effect quidco had is also reflected in Alexa rankings, who now report quidco as recieving more traffic [2] than rpoints. So even without the biased media on the company, it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations"

Supposed (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama revival

Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Already  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sanka Dineth

I've noticed that this article has been deleted after a deletion review. But i know this person is very a notable musician in Sri Lanka and meets Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. I don't know the person for the deletion of previous article. But I'm creating a new article with enough references. Please discuss if you got any obligations. thank you Nidahasa (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Back for another evaluation at AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your welcome !--Sammyday (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Werner Erhard

Thanks for the comment. I had inserted three quotes. The first two were transcripts from a Movie. The words were spoken by Werner himself. Can those stay?

The third was from a web site who, I believe, is not a verifiable source. Those too were Werner's words but I'll see if I can find a verifiable source for those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdtoellner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

Dear Cirt, not a problem. Good work and people like you should always be appreciated. About the article, I like the work you have done, but there were some important changes that needed to be done to make it comply with MOS and WP:GAGA. Also, there was no need to install Miszabot, as the page is really a low traffic one, and any archiving can be done manually. Hence I believe we can delete Talk:Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop/Archive 1. But other than that, its on good track to be a future GA candidate. Do you wanna collaborate for it? Regards --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt, it doesnot say anywhere that yyyy-mm-dd is the preferred format, however the articles under WP:GAGA all use this format, hence I edited it accordingly. If you disagree its fine, but I am also trying to improve the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the old version with the reception at the lead was basically repeating word by word of what was present in the reception section, hence I generalized it. If you can create a precee of the reception, it will be better. That way we don't need to cite it and it will be complying with WP:LEAD. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You actually pretty much reverted every citation change that I did, introducing wrong publishers, deleting the issn numbers and other things which were done to better the article. I'm sorry but this does not look good and clearly the citation, as well as the LEAD is wrong. What I did was to make the article comply with GA standards, but you blindly reverted. Have it your way then. I'm done. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You even deleted the Alt text, usage of en-dash and the better wordings which I introduced. Do you really believe lines and words like "celebrities.." are encyclopedic? You could have asked me to restore the dates, I would have happily obliged. I was thinking of collaborating and helping you out with the article as I was impressed with your work. But I donot find good faith in what you did. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Hi there. Just to let you know that the Wikipedia Signpost interview is due to go up online soon, and I'm the only person who has answered it. I was wondering if you want to answer it as well. ISD (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I like what you've written. I think you answered it better than me. ISD (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Aqua military training camp (2nd nomination). I request userification of the article, its full revision history and it talk page to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Al Aqua military training camp.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Kim Ki Whang

I have no clue why this article was removed. I provided lots of references. If you will restore it and look through the history, early versions (I am the original writer) will contain lots of references and links to supporting sites.

Please leave me messages on my talk page. Thardman22 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Relisted. Back at AFD. To determine community consensus after additional comments are given there. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki Whang. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kaja Bordevich Ballo

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk: John Vanburgh

Am I being unreasonable removing the last 3 paragraphs? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Me again

Cirt, can Portal:Mars's FAR be closed now? There's still no responses since yours in May. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will do it. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I think I got it this time. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Former Featured Portals

Not that it's something that you need to do that often, fortunately, but there's another step in the defeaturing routine I think: updating Wikipedia:Former featured portals. I've added Disasters and Mars for you. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Accidental deletion

Hi Cirt!

You seem to have accidentally deleted User talk:Otherlleft in the process of cleaning up after an AfD. You may want to restore that. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Arusiyyah-Qadiriyyah"

Hi, I'm the creator of the abovenamed article. I've been travelling for the past 2 weeks and so wasn't able to participate in the "deletion discussion" that the article had generated.

I find it regrettable that the article has been deleted. What I find really strange are the comments of the two folks who suggested and encouraged deletion.

I went to great lengths to read up past encyclopedia articles (such as "Encyclopedia of Islam" and "Britannica") on Sufi orders and their branches to ensure that my article did not come across as a partisan attempt at recruitment. Besides, Wikipedia is not the place to "set up shop" for recruitment to a Sufi order as user “Guy” states! The accusation of "half-translated from Arabic" by user "MelanieN" is completely baseless. Apart from the litany of the order, nothing else was translated from the Arabic.

What I find totally puzzling are use of the phrases “barely comprehensible” and “basically unreadable” to describe the article by the users “MelanieN” and “Guy”. Not understanding the terminology being used in a subject matter should not give one the license to spew phrases such as these. Please correct me if I’m wrong in saying this.

I made an effort to ensure that I followed the guidelines set out by Wiki with regards to new articles. I did my research, made sure my sources were in tact and credible, and penned the article.

As the person who deleted the article, I would appreciate from your goodself a bit more information on why the article was eventually deleted. I’m only requesting this as unlike many article creators who simply pop up and write rubbish articles, I made a conscientious effort to read-up the subject matter and tried to write an objective article on a social/spiritual group that deserves more research in the academic realm.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to revive this article as I feel that an important aspect of South Indian, Sri Lankan and Far Eastern Islamic spirituality landscape is being ignored. It is an important subject NOT because I say so. I’ve personally visited Sri Lanka where I’ve seen the role that this particular Sufi order has been playing in that society for over a hundred years. And I believe Wikipedia is an avenue to record this.

I apologise for the length of this post.

With Kind Regards,

Idris Kamal 07:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idriskamal (talk • contribs)

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arusiyyah-Qadiriyyah. I would suggest working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you

Please care to explain why you reverted this edit and constituted it as duplicacy? What is duplicate in that? One in teh dykdate and the other is teh dyk entry. Why are you removing the dyk entry may I know? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Way to Happiness

It's good that you are bold in contributing to Wikipedia! Patrolling edits are a useful contribution to the community, and I'm glad to see it done.

However, you may wish to exercise some care when doing so. While removing objectionable and unverifiable material is important, think about the advice offered in Citing sources:

If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the {{fact}} tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

The list of precepts that I added is in no way harmful. With Scientology's history of litigation I understand if you are worried that Wikipedia may be sued, but it seems unthinkable that they would sue over a short, factual summary of TWTH's beliefs. The {{fact}} tag is quite simple (and common!) to use, see the template page for instructions.

You are mistaken that the list is non-notable: if the organization itself is notable enough to have an article, then certainly their core beliefs would warrant inclusion. Anyway, notability does not directly limit article content; see Wikipedia:Notability for more on this. You may, of course, suggest that the article as a whole be deleted, but I think the organization has generated sufficient controversy to be notable; this would be an uphill battle for you.

Your claim that it is unencyclopedic is a bit nebulous. The list is relevant, concise knowledge about the subject. It's not worded as advertising and doesn't break any other of the guidelines at WP:ENC. If you disagree about this or the above point, feel free to argue your case. I will post a version of the two points on the article talk page.
—Leif Arne Storset 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us please not add completely unsourced info to pages, and not rely on primary sources, but instead stick to secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have further views on Wikipedia policy regarding this article, please note them on the talk page. If I don't hear anything I'll assume it's OK to re-add the information.
—Leif Arne Storset 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reversion to 'List of Scientologists'

It is clearly untrue that I gave no explanation for my reversion - I wrote a careful explanation on the Talk page, and referred to it in the edit comment. DaveApter (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Hansen

Is is possible to get back a decent version of the page? What's there now is completely unacceptable. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, by another editor. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Cirt's Day!

User:Cirt has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Cirt's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Cirt! Peace, Rlevse 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting entire pages about annual events

Why would you delete a page about an annual event that involves hundreds of people? It either takes place or it doesn't. It's been written about in the newspaper — including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle — and covered on NPR. Those organizations weren't simply promoting themselves (as you accuse us of doing), or the event. So if you felt our edits to the page represented a conflict of interest, you could have 1) deleted the edits, or any information that you felt was too self-promotional, and/or 2) blocked our account. But why delete an entire page about an event that hundreds of people attend every year, and that other Wikipedia users would want to know about? That makes no sense. There are dozens of other film festival pages in Wikipedia. If they deserve pages that are spared deletion by people like you, why doesn't ours? If you can explain what the criteria for having a film festival page on Wikipedia are, we can meet them. But if you summarily delete the page without such criteria, then you are just being arbitrary, capricious, and overly zealous. You're not hurting us as much as Wikipedia users who might have wanted to know of the existence of our film festival, and now won't. And that's good exactly why ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.192.186 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We had an account on Wikipedia, and you blocked it. It's a little disingenuous to tell us to register yet again. We'd happily use the old account if it weren't blocked. And we had a page up there that represented a "draft" of sorts, in that it was a basic page that we were adding to, and that others were allowed to add to and otherwise edit. You took it down. Now you want us to start from scratch? That seems a little backwards. If you thought the existing page needed editing, you could/should have edited it. Do you really think that what would go in a "proposed draft version" would be significantly different from what was up there? If it still exists in some form that you can see it, go look and figure out what part(s) of it were "wrong", and how we could describe the Anti-Corporate Film Festival without including them. THAT'S what you should have done the first time around. Sending everyone back to the drawing board just so we can replicate the basic facts about the festival — when it started, who started it, how long it lasts, where it happens, who can participate, etc — is pointless: There's simply not that much variation in the basic information. If you truly are looking for something that amounts to an encyclopedia entry, the basic information doesn't vary all that much. We included no superlatives, comparatives, calls to action, etc. It was just the facts. Apparently that wasn't good enough. Again, if you can explain why that page had to be deleted while dozens of other film festival pages are allowed to exist unmolested (by you, anyway), we'd be grateful — and frankly, a bit surprised. We don't think you can do it, and assume you just have a personal bias against anti-corporate views. If we're wrong about that, you should be able to explain how we can create a page to allow Wikipedia users to learn objective information about a significant event. Just telling us to start over again doesn't really tell us anything, now does it ...? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.192.186 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, Howdy! I am John, and I have been tasked with the assignment of creating a Wikipedia page for Trekease. It is for my final capstone course. I was on Wikipedia and I came across Wikipedia pages for The Scooter Store, Home Depot, Trek, and so many other companies. My aim is more so to cite the research done by UT and Rutgers students regarding the physics that underlies the development of the exercise contraption they have been developing. Furthermore, my aim is to promote the health benefits of exercise and fitness for wheelchair users, like myself. What is the best way for me to do this without violating the rules of Wikipedia? (Surly85 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Are you connected or associated with the individual(s) / organization(s) that posted above to me? -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no response, though you seem to have time to engage with other people (see below). If you delete someone's page, the least you could do is respond to their requests for clarification. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.192.186 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confused as to whether this is two people, an organization, a group of individuals, who I am communicating with. Please see WP:NOSHARE, and WP:Role account. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're an editor on this site?! He obviously SIGNED his post, whereas we have not, since you disabled our account. Can you skip over the window-dressing and respond to the substance of our complaint please ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.192.186 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but would rather not converse with a group/individual/organization whatever that refers to itself as "we". -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your threats are actionable

In this edit you made threats on my talk page, where you appear to have no authority.[10] I am questioning the FA process itself. Your involvement, and attempt to suppress comment are exactly what I am challenging. That you have no authority. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this was related to this. -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not identify yourself as an administrator. You did not specify the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, practices, or anything else about your statement to me. You threatened an account block with no justification. You are out of line. You do not have dictatorial control over editors without accountability. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be getting a good explanation, from Dana boomer. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_around_East_Asian_calligraphy_as_an_art

Hello, With 4 delete, and 3 keep, the game was close. But when we see that none of the users on the delete side (WikiDany61, 137.122.49.102, Savonneux, or SnottyWong) seems to speak Chinese. On the other side, all Keep users (Benlisquare (李博杰), Asoer, and myself (Yug)) are Chinese speakers, at least fluent, and involve in the Chinese communities/countries. The 2 wikipedia experts on the field of East Asian calligraphy, Stroke order, CJK stroke: me and Asoer support the keep. I think the expertise is clearly on the keep side. The deletion process is NOT a purely quantitative vote, that's a debate, where expertise have its place. Delete this article is a very "English/western centered" position.

The minimum is to userfy the page in user:Asoer space, to let him, the author of this page, complete calmly his work. --Yug (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Asoer/Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, efficient & time saving reaction. thanks! Yug (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (seriously, as of 2010 on wikipedia : that's nice to solve opposition that fast.... ! so thanks !)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to (formally) notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You undid my protection here. I've been noticing this a lot recently. Are you using Twinkle? It seems not to be alerting people if the page has just been protected. I've raised it on WT:RfPP and at the Twinkle talk page to see if they can fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it appears our protections just stepped over each other. Mine was for longer. But if you feel you wish to change it, please do so. No objections. :P Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind about the length of time, so that's fine. I was just wondering whether it was Twinkle causing it again. I didn't know protections could clash without it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not use twinkle for the actual protecting itself, just the talk page tagging and the stuff at the main WP:RFPP page, so it would not have been twinkle. Just a random case of two admins with the same window open at the same time. Again, in these cases, I do not mind if other admins change a protection after I made one. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind that either. The reason it bothers me (and not in this case, so don't take what I'm saying to refer to our protection conflict) is that it's sometimes important to take time to look at what's happening. Not all requests for semi-protection are simple: sometimes they're edit disputes, sometimes the IPs are right. If you spend the time to make a considered decision, it's annoying to return to RfPP to make a note of it, only to get an edit clash and find your protection has been undone. Not annoying in the sense of having the protection times changed; but annoying to have wasted time looking at the case. That didn't happen with us, so I'm speaking only in general terms here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nod, I agree. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I did it to you here. Sorry! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

One week or three days, either way is fine, it was the first time protection for that particular page. Once again, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Time magazine articles

Category:Time magazine articles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Time magazine people

Category:Time magazine people, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Time magazine people

Category:Time magazine people, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Tinkernut article?

I saw that you deleted the article. Why? Was the AfD over? Or did it not fit Wikipedia?Zaz986 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest if you wish to advocate for its existence as an article, you would work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you wish, I could userfy a copy of the deleted article for you there. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you copy the source code of the article to a subpage of my userspace? I would really appreciate it. But if I do start to work on it there, and then when I think it is good enough should I then restart the article? And I was wondering, could you copy over the last 5 to 10 edits done on the article because I changed a few things around before it was deleted and I wanted compare some of the different stuff on there. Thanks! :)Zaz986 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the subpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaz986/Tinkernut Zaz986 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very muchZaz986 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

No worries, those are just a few of the many articles listed for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight cleanup listing. I'm trying to get back in making sure WP:FILM has spotlight articles that enforce the criteria for FA/GAs as well as meet MOSFILM requirements. If you are interested/willing, feel free to take on a few films (so far there has been little participation, and this will get done faster with more contributors helping out). Keep up the good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yuriko Kikuchi

Hi, notwithstanding the delete of Yuriko Kikuchi, I've recreated it as a redirect to Rinko Kikuchi. That's how it stood before someone removed the redirect to create the now-deleted article. See my comment in WP:Articles for deletion/Yuriko Kikuchi. TJRC (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kenneth Dickson

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 (2nd nomination). 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. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello Cirt. As you know, I'm trying to revive the Futurama Wikiproject (I feel like a broken record). So, I thought that it would be nice if "List of Futurama cast members" would be made. Can you help me with it? See here. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I got too many other things goin on. :( -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize. I did not think that. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Canberra FAR

Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vaticanus

It was mistake. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Half-Life 2's FAR

While I didn't work on the article, mainly due to me asking for it to be demoted, I'm here to ask if your decision on delisting Half-Life 2 still stands as that the review can close. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

dyk notice

Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep Offshore oil spill prevention and response

Thank you -- I don't know how this AfD process works in detail, but I appreciate your involvement and concern. A lot of good input was factored into article and talk. Given the Keep consensus on the rewrite, would you please remove the AfD template? Thanks again -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Jeff G., hereby award Cirt with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

False positive

Same user, false positive.[11] [12] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've adjusted the edit filter. The relevant phrase is only used on user talk pages anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi Cirt - I was hoping that you may be interested in taking part in the July 2010 Copyediting Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, there were about 30 editors that helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1,175 articles. However, we still have a backlog of over 7,500 articles that extends back two and a half years into early 2008; we're hoping that you'd like to particpate in reducing the backlog of articles that require copyediting! Any and all help in the drive is greatly appreciated, as we need all the help we can get to reduce the number of tagged articles. Copyediting just a couple of articles can qualify you for a barnstar, and more prestigious awards are available for those who extensively copyedit. Thanks for your consideration! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer, not interested in participating at this point in time, perhaps at a later point in the future. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Faye Marsh

I am requesting the undeletion of Faye Marsh. Could you at least restore it to my userspace so I can add further evidence and establish notability? Thanks Eliteimp (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Eliteimp/Faye Marsh. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MiddleMenPoster.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Emmanuel (Spirit) page?

Hi! I was wondering why did you delete the "Emmanuel(spirit)" page. It's a genuine article about a belief, just like the articles about Saints and about Biblical figures. Can I put it back? I don't see why it was deleted.It was a translation of an article in portuguese. Emmanuel is the author of dozens of books on Spiritism, so his literary existence can be proven.

Emmanuel has written dozens of books in portuguese and is a famous figure in Brazil, not only in literature but also in news programs. His authorship of dozens of books has been accepted by the Brazilian Writers Association, even though he presents himself as a spirit. The article that was deleted is a direct translation from the article in the portuguese wikipedia, and it wasn't erased there because there is ample proof of the existence of Emmanuel in Brazil. It is accepted as truth. So, I don't see why an article about Emmanuel would be erased if no one erases articles about unprooven Biblical passages.

The explanation for the deletion, as I read it, was that there was no proof of Emmanuel except for a few spanish terms. I don't get it. Spanish has nothing to do with this. Most articles about him are in portuguese. Hundreds of articles. Emmanuel is a brazilian figure, a character, that some believe exists, others don't. But the article states that very clearly. And there is ample reference to him, his books and his existence, in the brazilian media. And it's exactly because you won't find this character in english that I wrote the article. So that people will be informed about him. I can't see why it would be deleted, if the article only adds more information to the english internet. Is it a wikipedia policy to censor articles about things americans don't know about? Just research Emmanuel in portuguese, and you'll find a lot of information.

I hope you reconsider it...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata Ventura (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work on a propose draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. That way you might be able to demonstrate the possibility of significant coverage in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz deletion.

Cirt, I saw that you deleted wiki page regarding an actor by the name of Jonathan Keltz because he had a few acting roles. However, he is a major character on Entourage this season, and I believe his career is going to explode to the upside. If possible, I would appreciate it if you can un-delete his wiki page. Thank you, - Andy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Keltz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.11.74 (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you first register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

inre deletion of James Paisley

May I inquire as to why it was deleted? Refining seraches using his middle initial, the fellow does seem to be sourcable,[13][14][15] and with his name being just unique enough for there to not be too many false positives in a search, I'm wondering if he is the same James A. Paisley who worked in television from 1949 through 1968.[16] Can you clue me as to the why? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, I would be more than happy to userfy a version for you to work on within your userspace, in order to research if there has been significant coverage in secondary sources. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD question

I'm posting this to you since you frequently are the administrator at martial arts AfD discussions. I was wondering why nothing has happed to the AfD discussion for Greg "Ranger" Stott. Nothing has been posted to that discussion since June 10 and there's no comment saying that we're still trying to reach a consensus. It seems clear-cut to me, but I'm still a bit of a newbie. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Sorry, thought it would autoaccept my edit. HalfShadow 03:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Knight and Day film wiki

Hi,

I checked into the Knight and Day wiki page.

I would like to know why there are no positive reviews being put up in that page.Ever since the premiere of the movie happened and the reviews started pouring in the web, only negative reviews are posted here.

I accept that there are negative reviews for the same. Iam requesting from a movie fan point of view, that please include the positive reviews of the film including the famous critic Roger Ebert.

And there are other famous critic than those which you had listed under the critical reception.

Also, in the starting phase of the page, please modify the contents to make it look neutral for all people worldwide alike.

Sorry if i had spoken anything wrong.

I felt it is not fair to comment on a movie purely on negative traits by putting the comments , if there are positive reviews for the same

Please reply for the above. I would like to ask your permission to unprotect this page for editing and making this a good page to make the contents look neutral, as it is the policy of wikipedia too and they support it.

Thanks

coolguy85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguychn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope Cirt doesn't mind me responding...but per WP:Neutral there should definitely be positive reviews. If you can find any WP:Reliable reviews, feel free to post them here (hope that is ok, Cirt), or on my talk page, and one of us will add them. CTJF83 pride 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re - Knight and Day wiki

Hi

Thanks for your reply

Can you give permission for me to edit the reviews section (critical reception) and also for the page if possible.. so that i will do the edit and show it you to approve.

Thanks so much

These are the details. If u can add , it is great

Chicago Sun times critic Roger Ebert rates the movie 3 stars out of 4 and says "Knight and Day" aspires to the light charm of a romantic action comedy like “Charade” or “Romancing the Stone,” but would come closer if it dialed down the relentless action. The romance part goes without saying after a Meet Cute contrived in an airport, and the comedy seems to generate naturally between Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. But why do so many summer movies find it obligatory to inflict us with CGI overkill? I'd sorta rather see Diaz and Cruise in action scenes on a human scale, rather than have it rubbed in that for long stretches, they're essentially replaced by animation.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100621/REVIEWS/100629998

Christy Lemire

Cruise's presence also helps keep things light, breezy and watchable when the action -- and the story itself -- spin ridiculously out of control.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/21/entertainment/e155649D95.DTL

Bill Goodykoontz

Arizona Republic

http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/movies/articles/2010/06/21/20100621knight-day.html#ixzz0rat5sWFu

Ty Burr - The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2010/06/22/cruise_adds_spark_of_anarchy_to_stylish_and_fun_action_adventure_film_knight_and_day/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguychn (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

coolguychn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguychn (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the links. I will work on adding these. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion CheFEM page

Dear Cirt, CheFEM is a FEM based simulation program for chemical interaction driven FEM simulation of polymer based nano, micro and macro materials. It is a similar program like Abaqus, NASTRAN and Ansys, a program you may be more familiar with. It is quite new (an end-user version has just been released) so this might also be reason why it is not known very well. Hence, I would like to invite you to undelete the delete action for the CheFEM page. On the short term, several scientists will add more information on CheFEM to enhance the quality of the page. Please contact me if you need more information. Kind Regards, Dr. Kate Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate P Stuart (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, I would be happy to move a copy of the page into a subpage of your userspace. That way, you could work on a proposed draft version of the article there, in order to assess whether or not the subject matter has received a significant amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not busy...

Can you move the 6 images I just tagged to Commons, otherwise when I get home later tonight, I can (attempt) to do it, thanks, CTJF83 pride 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be best for you to try to gain familiarity with WP:Move to commons. :) Good luck! -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, thanks buddy.... CTJF83 pride 05:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

I emailed you, but the IM did not work for me. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Was wondering if you knew of some good sources for analysis of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - in the process of doing some research on the U.S. Supreme Court case. -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Matix Group Article un-deletion request

I have provided necessary citations & reference sources post deletion. Request to UN-delete the june 22nd version & have a review for additional improvements. Bhanukaran (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)bhanukaran

Where? -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CheFEM page

Cirt, Could you move the CheFEM page to the suggested subspace for further implementation of the suggested improvements. We do not know how to do this. Thanks, Kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate P Stuart (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shon Brooks

Hello,

I have listened to everones objections and have addressed these concerns. I have rewrote the entire article on my userdraft space and have added credible sources. Please bring this article so we can add it to the main page. Thank you for your time and patience on learning your system.

FYI: Hershey Chocolate failed 7 times prior to making it to the empire it is.

Habeebah (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Habeebah

Where is the draft page, please provide a link to it? -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re : Knight and day page permission

Hi,

Thanks for adding those positive reviews.

Could you please consider my request to give me permission to edit this page.

I would have to add few more reviews and make it a little justified one..

Waiting for your reply..

Thanks.

coolguychn

Might be a good idea to build up a bit more experience first, before taking that step. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Junko Sakurada

I got mixed up. Reverted it because it looked like gooblegook, then wondered if I was misunderstanding language representation, so unreverted and got all confused. I left a message on the editor's page. Compared to other types of vandalism, if this is one it is trivial. Time for a break. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree and agree. Maybe not vandalism, but BLPs need very solid sources. Now I begin to wonder if I am tough enough on the ones I start and watch. Probably not... Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To further educate ...

I have added "no wuckers" to the no worries definition. You needed further edamucation. ;-) billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, um, you added a source, that fails WP:RS. :P I brought it up, on the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And now  Done. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted InTopSens page

Hi Cirt,

I am somewhat frustrated and dismayed to have been alerted to the InTopSens page having been deleted. I was not even aware that its continuation was being debated. I wish to contest this deletion, and address the comments of the debate:

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [edit] InTopSens

   InTopSens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • AfD statistics)
   (Find sources: "InTopSens" – news · books · scholar · images)

Previously speedy deleted page, that even though has had a lot of work on it fails WP:GNG.

The ref's given are as follows :

   * GRACE Related Projects: InTopSens - is at least part written by the article's creator and member of the project.

No, that is un unfair and untrue assumption. I have nothing to do with Grace.

   * Quadriga Newsletter - the project is mentioned only in one 5 line section in a 7 page newsletter.

Thats because there is a lot of work going on in many projects, 1000s, but each are taken up with 10's or 100s of thousads of hour of work.

   * Blood poisoning bacteria identified faster has the feel of a press release.

   * Farfield to Join New Research Consortium called "INTOPSENS" also has the feel of a press release.

I was asked to cite references of InTopSens.

As such feel that the coverage does not meet the WP:GNG, with regard to being both significant and independent. Codf1977 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is significant and independent as a piece of work currently being undertaken. If or when the technology works it will be commericalised after the project and will lead to savings of 100s of thousands of lives per year just in Europe. But by then it will be called something else and be lef by someone else.

   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete - fails WP:GNG as per nom, despite the hard work on the part of the nom and the author to make this article work. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete. This is part of a long-running spam project aimed at inserting promotional articles on European research projects. A typical such article will be loaded with unhelpful jargon and vaguely described in terms of their "forward looking" aims, rather than actual achievements, as is this one: The consortium aims to develop a compact polymer and silicon-based CMOS-compatible Lab on a Chip sensor platform which is based on two label-free biomolecular recognition optical sensor technologies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not SPAM. This is a European Commission funded project! We have cut the jargon back as far as we can without it losing scientific credibility. Of course its 'forward looking' as its a RESEARCH project, its not the result of work! If you want we can put the achievements to date, the project is now half way through and we have partial results already. We can put: "The consortium has developed a compact polymer and silicon based CMOS compatible biosenor chip for a Lab on a chip platform...."

   * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this research project. Joe Chill (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Find me some that do?

   * Delete It is insignificant and hasn't given anything for the biomedical sector. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, and it wont have until its finished.

Dannyhill (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to provide a copy as a subpage of your userspace page. That way, you could work on a proposed draft version, in order to research whether or not there has been significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do so, what sort of secondary sources can you suggest where details of 80% of the work are secretative? Cheers, 147.156.100.201 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read the page WP:NOTE, as well as these links: independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Matix Group Article un-deletion Request

Bhanukaran (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)bhanukaran

Talk:Matix GroupBhanukaran (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)bhanukaran We have provided necessary citations & references.

Since june 22nd version cannot be un-deleted w/o your approval, we have created a dummy sandbox test link that would enable you to check & verify the changes incorporated.

Request to un-delete the june 22nd version which can reflect these changes with necessary citations & source references.

Matix Group Article un-deletion Request

Talk:Matix Group Bhanukaran (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)bhanukaran We have provided necessary citations & references. Request to un-delete the june 22nd version which can reflect these changes with necessary citations & source references.

Link to the article draft please? -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully I will have something to contribute. Lyncs (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See, that is what I love about Wikipedia. There is always something to click on and you learn something new! Thanks again, and cheerio. Lyncs (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Matix Group Article un-deletion request

Talk:Matix Group Bhanukaran (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Bhanukaran

I have provided necessary citations & reference sources post deletion. Request to UN-delete the article & have a review for additional improvements.

Link to the article draft for review as requested. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=369529428

"we have created a dummy sandbox test ..." -- Question: Who is this "we" you referred to, above? -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help advise this editor?

Not my day. First an IP is calling me a thug/vandal/criminal/spook/disinformation agent, and now another editor is telling me we can't call some characters from the Trojan War mythical without a direct confrontation with Nennius. Could you possibly look at Talk:Trojan genealogy of Nennius and explain things to the editor? I'm asking you because you denied, correctly, his request for protection of the article. (And there aren't that many editors around right now). I'm in 2 content disputes with editors who don't understand or like the way we work and it's getting irritating. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Eichel

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stacy Deletion

Hello,

What was needed to prevent the article from being deleted? I am Stacy Rugely and had a biographer do my article which had links, proof, my IMDB and other listings, pages etc. I'm not used to this wiki so much, as far as editing it etc. Stacy Rugely, Oplexicon (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplexicon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"had a biographer do my article ..." — are you saying there is more than one individual in control of the Oplexicon (talk · contribs) Wikipedia account? Please see WP:NOSHARE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Recall RFA

Though this is a somewhat late reply, thank you for the barnstar endorsement. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re : Knight and Day Page

Hi.

It seems someone has updated the wrong value of rotten tomatoes rating in critical reception section.

Currently its 53 % in rotten tomatoes website. But its updated in the wiki page as 47 %.

For reference:

http://beta.rottentomatoes.com/m/knight_and_day/

So can you please look into it and do the needful

Thanks

Sriram —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.13.211 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Grk1011 made that change, you would have to ask him, at: User talk:Grk1011. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Still need a pro review...

Pl_ease? :L ResMar 02:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article "StingRay Manufacturing"

Hello Cirt,

I am hoping that you can help me. I would like to recover the deleted StingRay Manufacturing article for my own use. I do not wish to put it back on Wikipedia but only want my work for my own benefit. Can you please Email me the article content? Thank you for your help.Grupler (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Grupler/StingRay Manufacturing. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!Grupler (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighted images under false licenses

Hi Cirt. I was wondering if you could help (or send me to an admin that can) with a user uploading images and giving them a [false] license of public domain or either CC-by-SA-3.0. I've already CSD three (there are many more). See here, here, here and here is their upload log. This one I don't even understand. They have been warned on their page... but apparently is not willing to engage in any discussion or desist in fallaciously uploading copyrighted work. Thanks. :) Mike Allen 02:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like Fastily has already delete the three images above. Do I have to go through all of their other uploaded images and find the image on the web they copied? Or should all the remaining images be deleted now? Mike Allen 02:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask Fastily? -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield

Any chance of getting this page back up? She's definitely notable in the EV community today appearing on the Discovery site (http://news.discovery.com/tech/five-things-electric-vehicles-need-to-do.html) and the Bridgestone Rally (http://www.eco-rally.org/nikki-gordon-bloomfield-eco-transport-broadcaster. --Steve Radford (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft proposed version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you like, I could userfy a version of the deleted article for you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:AfD

I noticed that you closed and deleted this article. I also saw that it was speedy re-nominated, after being closed via non admin. However, when it was closed, it should have been no consensus, not speedy re-nominate. Also, when it was re-nominated, it only received 1 !vote. (Which was the same as the first discussion.) I think you should take another look at that article and possibly restore it. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, restored it, and relisted it, back at AFD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard

Hi Cirt,

I edited the Wikipedia Mary Sue Hubbard entry. Her DOB is stated repeatedly to be June 17th 1931, but there is a sentence which is clearly inaccurate "She became involved in Hubbard's Dianetics in 1952 at the age of 19". Unless she spent at least one year of her life in a state of suspended animation, this is obviously not true (people age at the same rate as the planet, 20.5 years had elapsed by Jan 1952, she really couldn't have been under 20!). I have twice tried to amend this obvious error, but you keep undoing my good work. A little overzealous, perhaps? The sentence I am changing is not a quote, but a statement and one that clearly conflicts with the rest of the encyclopedia entry. The message "Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed." must be taken subjectively - I must have mislead you in the appearance of my edits, they were in no way supposed to constitute vandalism, but good intentioned correction of an obvious mistake. I might say that "your editorial efforts appear to constitute weak thinking, or incompetence', but again I am sure this is subjective and not what you meant. If this is purely because I haven't logged in, maybe you could do some sums, demonstrate to yourself that the sentence I want to edit is in conflict with the rest of the article and then amend it using your holier-than-thou login?

64.128.200.86 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)wan

Please discuss at the article's talk page, instead of here, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't provide messages like: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mary Sue Hubbard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)" which direct me to respond to you at this page unless that's what you actually want, thanks. 64.128.200.86 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)wan

Discussion of the article goes at the article's talk page. Your edits made unsourced changes with no explanation as to why. The article's talk page is the best place to discuss and explain your edits, as well as using an edit summary in your edits. As for the info in question, I have removed it - I hope that is satisfactory now to you. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cirt. I guess I was just frustrated at having a sensible edit undone twice by the same person. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and apologise if I am 'doing it wrong' (I'm new & don't even have an account, that's why I didn't log in). It must be a huge task trying to protect a site like this from wanton vandalism and I appreciate your efforts have positive intent. Who knows, I might even get an account on here, I LOVE telling people what to think... ;) -- 64.128.200.86 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)wan

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamali Fine Art

Mystical Expressionism should have been deleted and was not, Jamali Fine Art should not have been but was. Please review. extransit (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, deleted the first, userfied the 2nd, now at: User:Extransit/Jamali Fine Art. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:174.3.101.230

Hey, 174.3.101.230 AKA 100110100 is now using his talk page to engage in some outing. While I know it is not oversightable, can his edits be rev del? He also is trying to trick folks into giving permission for him to edit after the block expires by removing any attempt I make to remind him that he is community banned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest WP:AIV again for that, or WP:ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Scientologists

Cirt- In the Celebrity Scientologist page, Jada Pinkett Smith is listed among those in the template. However, she has not been confirmed as a Scientologist, and I consider the information to be inaccurate. I contacted her PR office to make sure, and they agreed the information is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passomouse (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is both a violation of WP:NOR, and most certainly not a reason to blank out an entire subsection of information cited to multiple WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Add handling of no parameter to Template:Twitter

I saw you were the last admin to update Template:Twitter. Since it's locked to non-admins, I was wondering if you could add handling of no parameters? See Template talk:Twitter#Add handling of no parameter?. I posted the code you need there too. Thanks!! --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Try {{edit protected}} ? -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of TM and Cult Mania

The article TM and Cult Mania you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:TM and Cult Mania for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to undelete Ken Buck

Hi,

Deleted by you, I think a month ago, was the article for Ken Buck. Since then he is now beating his primary opponent Jane Norton and the two Democrats in polling for the Colorado race. I am a newbie and only got into this because after attempting to research him I thought it ridiculous that he would not have a Wikipedia page and decided to take the lead in trying to put one together. I had voiced my complaints at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ken_Buck and am now trying this channel (which I now know I should have pursued first). I wrote a short article this morning at Ken buck (lower case last name) on accident and think it would serve as a good starter for the real article if deletion is reversed.

Littlecruiser (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on it first as a proposed draft version, at User:Littlecruiser/Ken Buck. -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could do that if that was the only way. It wouldn't make more sense however just to make it a stub page so that it could benefit from multiple editors? Either way, if I was to expand this article, are there any guidelines I could follow as to what would be 'good enough' to get up there, at least as a stub. I believe that I had established something that followed WP:Politician in regards to notoriety (I had 4 independent referenced sources). Is there a minimum number? Would I need a picture and the right side biography box? Neutrality also seems to be covered in that I mentioned both positive polling and the controversy. Forgive my questions, I am just not yet familiar with the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecruiser (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTE has some helpful info on that. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

request for advice

re: roland nicholson, jr. i am in the process of re-writing my contribution and i wonder if you can offer me any advice. thank you Columbia Student (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You could work on a draft version, at User:Columbia Student/Roland Nicholson, Jr.. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Undelete of JeffreyGreenberg page

• Jeffrey Greenberg

Greetings, I missed out on the critique of my page and claims, and it's been deleted in early June. Since then I've scanned in and accumulated a bunch of information that i'd like to supplement my page with (with respect to my claim (fact) that I created the first drag-and-interface for Windows in 1989. In addition, my page had information related to other matters of public record related to performance art, an international performance art journal, and the works of Allan Kaprow, Fluxus and other artists...

So I'd appreciate if the page could be reinstated/undeleted so that I can add supporting information. It could then be re-subject to whatever review is appropriate.

Thanks, Jeffrey Greenberg Jeffreygreenberg (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC) http://www.jeffrey-greenberg.com http://www.tweettronics.com http://www.inventivity.com http://www.inventivity.com/PP/index.html

You could work on a draft at User:Jeffreygreenberg/Jeffrey Greenberg. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstarred!

I must say, I enjoyed this edit and this edit. It's good to see such... evident enthusiasm! in an editor.

Oh well, I got de-adminned, but I got 8 barnstars, so that's a wash. I'm not sure what I'd rather have - 8 barnstars is a lot.

Oh and sorry about your article there. I myself have lost an article that I worked on and liked, so I know it's not a fun feeling. Nothing personal, just business. Anyway, since I have 8 barnstars to give away (I generally give one for each one I get), I'd like the first to be in commiseration on the loss of the article that you worked on. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		To Cirt, the Purple Star, for losing an article on which he expended much effort. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Chance Program

What with the fuss about Second Chance in Nevada, I thought it was about time we had an article on it ... see Second Chance Program for the results! -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Erika Christensen

Is this better? What did you find controversial about the info that you took out? I can understand the awards maybe but her filmography is hardly controversial or questionable. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. And the LA/McDonald's bit was mentioned in one of the cites that I added. Dismas|^(talk) 05:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Lee deletion

Hey Cirt, I'm curious about your deletion at the Jason Lee article (diff). From WP:BLP is the line "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The stuff you deleted you is almost entirely a listing of Jason Lee's acting career and not very likely to be challenged. There are a couple of lines that would benefit from a proper citation like the one about him turning down the My Name is Earl part twice but those could have just been deleted by themselves and not the entire section. Is there something I'm just not seeing here? Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work on the unsourced material in a subpage of your userspace, like at User:SQGibbon/Jason Lee, cite it to WP:RS sources, and then add it back. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. What I'm more interested in is which part of WP:BLP you applied to what aspects of the deleted material? I.e., what material were you challenging or did you think likely to be challenged? Much of what was deleted seems no different than what is in the filmography table which is likewise unsourced. SQGibbon (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It was wholly unreferenced material in a WP:BLP page, something that should always be avoided, combined with the way and manner in which it was presented. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I really apologize for belaboring this point but I'm still not sure what the specific issue is. Here's a line you deleted "He has had supporting roles in Vanilla Sky, Almost Famous as a rock star, Dreamcatcher, Big Trouble, The Ballad of Jack and Rose, and Mumford, as well as a minor role in Enemy of the State" (wikilinks removed), what about that exactly are you challenging or do you think is likely to be challenged? Or is there some other part of BLP you're applying here? I'm focusing on BLP since that's what you quoted in your edit summary but if there's some other policy or guideline you're applying then perhaps tagging the article would have been called for instead? I'm asking because it seems to me that all one would need to do is create one citation to Lee's IMDB filmography section (or some other filmography list if IMDB is seen as a unreliable source) and point each of these films to that one reference. Would that satisfy your criticisms or are there some other specific points you take issue with? Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are those particular roles significant? Who says they are "supporting roles"? Have they received significant discussion cited to secondary sources, to justify inclusion and weight in the body text of the article? These are hard questions to answer, while simultaneously lacking any secondary sources whatsoever for that information. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Short response: I see nothing in WP:BLP to suggest that your questions need to be answered. Long response: I take it then (and to couch this in terms of wp:BLP) you are challenging or you think it likely to be challenged that Jason Lee had a supporting role in those films (as opposed to a leading role?). If this is your position then would it suffice to remove the "supporting role" claim (and similar statements throughout the section) and otherwise revert it? If that's not your position then it's not a BLP issue. As for the weightiness, I don't mean to come across pointy but if that section had to go then definitely the sections on his personal life and skateboarding career must go as there is no way they should be given undue weight over his, now deleted, film career section (I'm not going to do that deletion as that would be overtly pointy). Given what I've said here and unless there is an actual BLP issue you can point to, then I believe the proper course of action is to revert your edit and begin a discussion on the talk page over what is a non-WP:BLP content issue. SQGibbon (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the proper way to go is for you to work on sourcing the unsourced material, and not to propose adding unsourced material to a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You should not have deleted the section in the first place as it did not violate WP:BLP (if it did you have not pointed out any such violations despite my repeated requests). And please respond to the points in my previous comment. I would like to fix the section but I still have no idea what would pass muster using your criteria. Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you work on the unsourced material at a subpage of your userspace, like at User:SQGibbon/Jason Lee, cite it to secondary WP:RS sources, and then, when cited appropriately, add it back. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your evasions are noted. SQGibbon (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted Culture War in Canada - something fishy

Hi, I can no longer see the history for Culture War in Canada, which you just deleted. I thought Wikipedia was required to retain histories for all pages, even those that are deleted? Have the rules changed recently? Let me know, if you know more about this than me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I could move a userfied version of it, into a subpage of your userspace. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want it... I was just trying to look at the page history to see who created that article, to see what else they'd been up to, and maybe check out its discussion page. But that's all gone now, and I was sure that page deletion doesn't delete page histories or discussion pages. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sun In My Pocket (album)

Hi, you closed the deletion discussion as delete but deleted only the redirect. Hekerui (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not template regulars

Please read Don't template the regulars especially the line "On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these rules. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to break) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the rule, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to 'did you know we had a rule against this' mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil." This in response to your edit here. Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the information imparted in that particular template to be similar to the way I would have phrased it in my own wording anyways. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please do not give warnings to editors when they have done nothing wrong as you did with User talk:216.228.12.3 here. The edit the user made here was not only factual but supported by at least two sources on that page. In fact the very same claim is made elsewhere on the page complete with a citation to a reliable source. In other words all the editor did was copy the content of the claim from one spot to another. Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Undelete TeeChart

Greetings,

I'm following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teechart and last status on the TeeChart draft proposal at User:Mmbcn. After my penultimate edit your comment was:
"Looks a little bit better, though there still appears to be lots of unsourced bits. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)"
I've made some edits to the page since then, removing comments that could be interpreted as subjective by nature and adding in additional references to substantiate content. Please consider whether the page now meets inclusion criteria.
Mmbcn (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Still seeing some unsourced bits, in the History subsection. As a side note, citations go after punctuation, not before. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Have added additional source reference for the history section and citations have been moved behind punctuations. Mmbcn (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. :) Citations look like they could still use some formatting, using WP:CIT. -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've toothcombed back through the references tidying up any inconsistencies and trying to match-up with WP:CIT. If there is any particular syntactical format that remains incorrect please let me know. Thanks. Mmbcn (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay looks a tad bit better. However, citations are missing info and some fields, like author, work, publisher, original date of publication. Some citations appear to still be just bare links. -- Cirt (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've checked through the references and filled-out information as available. Some weblinks don't have all of the field-info at source (work, publisher, etc) but I've put the maximum details available, at least surpassing Cite web's minimum url and title required parameters in most cases. Other reference types are now generally richer in content. Mmbcn (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little better, thanks. :) It is lacking a lede section, please see WP:LEAD. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, better with the lead; it made sense to get rid of the introduction to create it. I assume the lead section would be a good place to put an image if something relevant could be found, though rather than squeeze something not-quite-right in now, I'd prefer to go with the format as it is at present if that seems ok as it stands. Mmbcn (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks alright now. Nice work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ..and thanks very much for your feedback and guidance, the current page is very different to the one that started out! I imagine the original page request has expired, should I use the content as the basis to start out with a new page request? Mmbcn (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As a followup, now that the page is in better shape, do you consider acceptable that I use the contents to edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teechart&action=edit&redlink=1? Mmbcn (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mmbcn (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

For the details about just the actor being in the film, I don't think that we need a direct citation. Readers can visit DVDs or go to the movies to see that a person played a character in a film. If we want to state something to the effect that the actor received great praise/criticism for their role, then any comments related to that should definitely be sourced (especially for a BLP). The details of actor starring as x in x film are not really controversial (unless, for example it was a mainstream actor going off and starring in like a pornography, something that a reader might question). We wouldn't need to add a citation to wonder if Tom Cruise was in the Mission Impossible films, but we would need to cite that the film made x number of dollars or the type of critical reception he received. Again, we shouldn't use IMDB for citing details, as usually the same information is available in citations such as movie review, film journals, books on film history, etc. I think you have already addressed the more pressing issues of the uncited details of the two biographies, so the best thing to do is just replace any instances of IMDB with a better source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like you can link to my comments if you think they'll be helpful. Otherwise, I think the point has been made and I believe they're aware of IMDB not being considered a reliable source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians

Hi. Could you explain your rationale for relisting this debate ? There was a clear consensus to delete from my point of view, and no policy based arguments to keep. Many thanks. Claritas § 15:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick response. Claritas § 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing in Action (Band)

I see that you deleted this but it didn't appear to go through. Can you lookinto this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you look into.

Can you please look into the comments here at [[17]]. I've provided diffs and the user in question has a large history of disruptive editing and it really needs to stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

have you had a chance to review this or is this something you don't want on your plate. I won't bug if it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a form of dispute resolution at an article talk page relevant to the dispute, perhaps WP:3O or WP:RFC. -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised it didn't edit conflict. Actually the best words in my defense is his own page User:Hm2k/Hell In A Bucket I did on the talkpage, it's in the diffs he refused to acknowledge he was trying to enforce a essay and it wasn't policy. Then he accused me of personally attacking him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You raised an issue of removal of redlinks. That could be discussed on the article talk page format, using dispute resolution processes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this I've had a third opinion on this previously by User:SGGH, and on Ani, Other then RFC, I've used all the disputes. I'm open to that process if you can explain how that will help this situation. I'm more concerned over the removal of redlins and ocntent under a essay reasoning when those articles could be written and help give a focal point for organization for those interested. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On which article's talk page was the WP:3O? A WP:RFC would help to bring in comments from multiple editors previously uninvolved in the dispute. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't the official 3rd opinion that pag talks about. The editor was actually spoke to by User SGGH on his user page it wasn't the talk pages in question I believe. How would i start the RFC or 3o?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. I could set it up for you, if there is a particular article-talk-page where there is an ongoing conflict regarding the redlinks issue. -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield

If you could restore the page to my userspace so I can make edits I'd be very grateful. Sorry, I've been away :) --Steve Radford (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sergio Adrian Hernandez

Hello. Sergio Adrian Hernandez was deleted following an AFD, but there were some useful refs in there worth merging to United States Border Patrol. Could you please restore that to User:Empty Buffer/Sergio Adrian Hernandez? I can merge the referenced stuff, and then delete what's left. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! All done merging, can you please re-delete User:Empty Buffer/Sergio Adrian Hernandez? Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You da man. Or possibly da woman. Thanks. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns

You should consider restoring A Thousand Suns, the band officially announced it. Since you're the one who deleted it, I thought you should know. « Instinct » 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest if you want, you could work on a version as a proposed draft, in a subpage of your userspace. That way, you could demonstrate whether or not there has been significant coverage from independent secondary WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

and thanks especially for fixing my star! Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of list of people associated with Kanpur

G'day from Oz. The person who voted 'keep' in the deletion discussion moved the list to List of people from Kanpur, so all you have done is delete the redirect. Of course if that was your intention, then ignore this message :-) YSSYguy (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard J H Matthews

Dear Cirt,

please could I have a copy of Richard J H Matthews (and the talk page) to try to improve it. Thanks in advance and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the warm welcome Cirt – am still thinking about a user name :) 110.32.232.94 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

josh fernandez

why you have to delete the article? how to prevent from afd? --Pinoymusic10 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Page was deleted, after articles for deletion discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Fernandez. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Garner

The creator of this page is attempting to challenge your decision but doesn't appear to know how to use talk pages. (I had a hard time figuring it out when I was new). Perhaps you can jump in here or on his talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It appears the account(s) involved have a vested conflict of interest with regard to the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wiggle Diskette

Why did you delete the page for Wiggle Diskette demo tape by They Might Be Giants? I would think, by being their first official release, it deserves a page on Wikipedia. --DidgeGuy (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. That way, you could examine whether or not there has been significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientology BLPs

When I opined in that thread with you and Jimbo at WP:BLPN I didn't realize that you were apparently targetting the BLPs of reputed Scientologists. Although I think its ok to remove unsourced content from BLPs, we should make an effort to source it, not just remove. Also, I don't know if you read Wikipedia Review, but there are a couple of recent threads there about Wikipedia's treatment of Scientology that mention your involvement that might benefit from your input if you feel so inclined. Cla68 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, thanks for your input. :) I agree with you that such info should be sourced - but that sort of effort should take place in a userspace subpage or on the respective article's talk page - and meanwhile the unsourced info should not remain on the WP:BLP page itself. Especially for such a controversial topic as this one, unsourced info should not remain on WP:BLP pages prior to being properly sourced. No reason why not to have the sourcing efforts take place on the talk page of the article, and not main article space. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove the statement that Rain Man was a "hit movie?" Cla68 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that was in the midst of discussion with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), who claimed that IMDB was a reliable source for virtually everything in that article. It was determined that it was not. See WT:FILMS. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The diff. SQGibbon (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in restrospect it would have been more helpful for me to simultaneously move that info to the talk page, and make a note of it suggesting that others could add the blatantly unsourced info back, if/when properly cited to WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Helion Ventures page

Dear Cirt, i had created the helion ventures web page in April - am part of the Helion team. Appreciate your guidance on how we can modify the content to get the entry for helion ventures included in Wikipedia. If you require references to the company to help reassure you that this is a legitimate business, we will be happy to provide them - press articles or whatever is the format that you typically use for your research.

thank you. Agupta1b (login id on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupta1b (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice given regarding conflict of interest, also some helpful info via a welcome. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

have read thru the conflict of interest material - intent is not to create a marketing entry but an informational one (as have several other similar busineses on wikipedia). Happy to replicate the exact format of one of those. Does that work? Aguptaib —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupta1b (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a moment to read through WP:NOTE, and then assess whether the organization has received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorne

Regarding your message on my talk page, I did not vandalise the article Hawthorne (TV series). I simply added the Australian broadcast date to that article, I do not believe that can be considered vandalism, and it was not disruptive editing at all. Whats new? (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Rootooth deletion

Hi

The version 1.0 bot has started working again, although the article alert bot has not, and I have just found that there were some articles deleted after 7 days.

RooTooth which fell under the perdue of the Robotics project.

Is there any chance you can tell me if there was any content in there worth saving for inclusion to the setion on Roomba in the article ?

If so could you userify it for me please - there is a page ready at User:Chaosdruid/sandbox7 to collect any such material

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll merge it into RoboDynamics and liink from RoomBa and leave a redirect. Like the play on words though lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing copyright notice

This edit, removing a copyright notice with respect to the use of copyrighted material was inappropriate. You could remove the notice only if you delete the copyrighted material. Fred Talk 18:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect message. No copyright notice was removed. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The link required by the GFDL back to the source was removed creating a copyright violation. Fred Talk 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not removed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did some further checking. I had only removed a wikilink - take care to note that my edit (above diff) retained the hyperlink itself. A later edit, by yourself, actually, removed the entire copyright notice, see [18]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

FPOC query

At Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:U.S. Roads there is a need for an opinion on the usage of references in portals. The reviewer is asking for the FPOC director to add an opinion on the issue. Thanks in advance, Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but only because of your awesome username. :P -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

I'm curious: I had scrutinized this change pretty closely, and finally decided it was just rearrangement and wikilinking. What unsourced material did they sneak past me?—Kww(talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

references

Hi. refs should a) be readable, and b) migrated into the references section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Varian&action=edit&section=7
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oksana_Grigorieva&action=historysubmit&diff=373746672&oldid=373746451

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sveasoft Deletion

I'm concerned about the deletion of the Sveasoft entry. While it's true that use of the software might be illegal due to power issues, and that the one-man owner is perhaps not playing things straight, the fact is that if there's no article about Sveasoft on Wikipedia, people won't realize that. Information is power, and ignorance is dangerous.

I'm dismayed on a personal level because I actually paid Sveasoft to license their software last week, not realizing the sort of business they ran. I tried to research them on Wikipedia but found no article ... I guess it had been deleted a couple of days earlier. I'm a living example of the reason the article should exist -- not necessarily to defame Sveasoft, but to inform people of its nature and what's behind it. Deleting the entire article helps no one. Scott Johnson (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Was deleted after an WP:AFD deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sveasoft. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scott. While the original Sveasoft article may have no longer qualified for it's own page due to a lack of refererencable information, moving the content that was factual to a section of another article, then changing the redirects, might have made more sense. It's important to the historical record that there be some evidence of this company - many early Linux distributors still have wikipedia pages, even if their 16-year-old distributions aren't relevant to modern Linuxes of today. (Yggdrasil GNU/Linuxis just one example, I'm sure there are others. I would prefer that editor put the article in question on their talk pages for a time, so that they can be reviewed by people who didn't get involved until AFTER the deletion occurred. (Ideally, the wikimedia software would do this automatically, or notify anyone with a link to the now-dead article that the article was pending deletion, but that's a discussion for another day) rhyre (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be most happy to userfy a version of the deleted article for the original editor that made the request; users could work on a proposed draft version there, if they so desire. -- Cirt (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems as though that would be a move in the right direction. Scott Johnson (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Kd4dcy/Sveasoft. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the page for the Nimrod programming language

I decided I was going to make a page about a not really well-known programming language called Nimrod. Only when I started to go to the nonexistent page to create it, it says there was a previous creation that was deleted, accrediting the deletion to you. The history seemed a little vague... something like few references I think. May I ask why the page was deleted? I'm the co-admin on Nimrod's wiki.

PrincessSchala (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Was deleted after a deletion discussion from the WP:AFD process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language). Perhaps you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace, in order to assess whether or not the subject satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the original article did not cite any links, I can see why it would be deleted. However, if it needs more than a webpage link to satisfy notability, well... It just seems rather odd proof of existence of a language would require more than citing an actual compiler for it. Yes, Nimrod is in its infancy, but how popular it is or unpopular it is should not factor in to whether or not Wikipedia should have a page for it. As for me, I'm not good with how complex wikipedia articles are -- style info, templates, etc. so, I can't say whether or not I could do any better since I can't view a previous version of the deleted page.

PrincessSchala (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As you are new here you might want to scan through the five pillars to get a rough idea how Wikipedia operates. As anonymous (or more accurately pseudonymous) editors, our own opinions don't count for anything and our knowledge counts for very little. Readers must be able to assess the truth of something said by verification of the cited, published, reliable sources. Unless a reliable source has published a significant examination of a topic, we have no reason to treat it as notable. A quick survey of my favourite search engines comes up blank for such publications, but if you know of some, by all means cite them to establish notability. Then you'll have something to write from. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Schlumberger Business Consulting

Hello Cirt, I am contacting you regrading the Article for "Schlumberger Business Consulting". Some time ago it has been decided to merge this article with "Schlumberger " article. However, Schlumberger Business Consulting (SBC) wants to resurrect their article and make it separate. They have now their public website and several important energy-related media publications and would like to include references to these sources in their wiki article. Please let me know how we can re-instate SBC article back in wikipedia. I am the contact person for SBC and will be editing the article. Many thanks! Trirasa (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A proposed draft version could be worked on, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Block time on Partially730‎

Don't you think the block time should have been longer for User:Partially730‎ as he was blocked less than 10 days ago also. Once that week block is over he is not going to change, only continue to revert helpful changes and vandalize. I will be there to revert his vandalism like the last two times and he will be blocked again. Red Flag on the Right Side 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If that occurs, it is quite likely the next time the account will be blocked for a longer period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

False Warning..

Sorry I was not vandalizing, merely I was editing a copy of the Islam portal and ended up editing the actual article section see Portal:Qur'an.. I appreciate you reverting back to the previous version I myself was going to do it.. but I wish you did a little bit of investigation before you warned me as vandal.. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems at all my fault NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bacio Divino

Hi, I just noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacio Divino. The debate participants included the author (keep), and one other editor (delete). Does that constitute consensus, or should the debate be re-listed to generate more discussion?

While I couldn't find more than numerous casual mentions of this winery in various sources, there were many, so I had hoped someone would have found something to rescue it. At least, the article could be moved to the author's user space for further improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, relisted. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Vomitstains

I do not, but I would hope that such a person would be removed anyways as gay-bashers are never welcome IMO (along with other bigots). Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bug but can I get you to do me a favor? Soxwon (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Danke Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a clue, but I would guess a sock of User:Ron liebman b/c it was on Baseball Bug's page (see: here). But again, I have no real idea. Soxwon (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? There is no need for a Checkuser, I'm new and don't know what that means anyway. I forgot that Sox gets blocked when he uses his IP, I won't bring it up again. Shame about HalfShadow, I should have warned him that July 16th is not a good day to edit. That's 2 years in a row now. Please don't call me Ron, Don't worry about minor changes to Baseball statistics, Don't ask me about Portland, and don't ask me about page moves. I don't know anything about that, or skinheads, or modifing unprotected templates, or even about silly reference desk questions. I'm new here. Chaos N. Mayhem (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A new person who knew me before I got an account a year and a half ago... Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Chaos N. Mayhem (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this somewhere else. -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

misc.

I sent you an e-mail. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

even though the ruling didnt go in my favor, I want to thank you for the time you spend as a wiki editor. Frebel93 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Cardniale AfD

Could you elaborate on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Cardinale (2nd nomination), because I feel there is no obvious consensus based on the arguments provided. I feel this should have been closed as no consensus because two delete arguments were made before reliable sources were found and then after they were found none of the delete arguments said it did not pass WP:GNG even though there were multiple third-party reliable sources and none of these arguments addressed that the article passed criteria #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. At worst the article should have been redirected to American Idol (season 4) since there is another article that it could be redirected to. I would advise in the future you need to have a longer explanation of an AfD closure if there are votes on both sides thus making the closure not a clear cut closure. This would also avoid having editors coming to your talk page to need further explanation. Aspects (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, later commenters did say it failed WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the extent of the elaboration I asked for? Aspects (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that a sarcastic question? -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be either unable or unwilling to elaborate on how you found a delete consensus, I am going to take this to WP:DRV. I hope you take my advise about future redirects into of deleting and leaving longer explanations when you close AfD that are not clear cut closures and implement them in the future. I would also advise you to actually elaborate on your closure when an editor asks for it. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you wish to create a redirect at this point in time, please, feel free to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note I struck out "none of" from my first statement because I originally meant to say none of the delete arguments addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1 and then I decided to added the part about the delete arguments saying it did not pass WP:GNG enough though there were multiple reliable sources and I did not remove the "none of" from the first part of the sentence when I added it to the second part. I am sorry if that caused any confusion. Aspects (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lindsey Cardinale

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lindsey Cardinale. 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. Aspects (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Length of Featured Portal review process

Any thoughts on this bold change of mine? Bencherlite^Talk 10:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the merits of this change, but you need a way to prevent trolls rambling and keep the discussion on and on while beating a dead horse and then referring to this rule for immunity. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps 2 weeks, then? -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If the process is being trolled, surely one of the two of you would step in and close the discussion using your authority as directors? I was merely trying to reflect the reality of the process: the last three FPo reviews have each taken much longer than one week, even though no improvements have been taking place during the discussion period (5 months, 4 months and 1 month). Should the description reflect the reality, or should the reviews in future be closed in accordance with the short time scale envisaged by the instructions? As the FPoR process isn't exactly very busy, it doesn't seem to me to be vital to have a set time-limit for a FPoR, as long as the reviews are not left hanging unattended by reviewers or directors for weeks at a time, and as long as portals that are not being maintained are being delisted promptly as the criteria says they should be. How about this?

“ While there is no set time limit for the review, portals that fail the criteria (particularly those that have not been well-maintained for three months) will usually be defeatured after one or two weeks. If, however, improvements to the portal are actually being made within a reasonable length of time, and it seems useful to continue the process, the review is likely to be kept open beyond this. The final decision on the length of the review lies with a Featured Portals Director. ”

On a related note, I did suggest combining the promotion and review pages to get extra visibility for the reviews process (as happens at the featured lists / pictures / sounds / topics pages, but not articles, for reasons of page size) but this suggestion has not so far received much attention. Over to you two! Bencherlite^Talk 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposed wording sounds fine. The processes should remain as separate pages. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording is ok as long as it does not lead to further instruction creep. Perhaps we should keep them separate process (no preference on whether it should be on same or separate page) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently closed a bunch of parallel {{afd}} on Afghan training camps, including

• Abdullah Abu Masood camp
• Al Khair Camp
• Shamsad training camp
• Kara Karga training camp
• Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp)
• Al Ghanad training camp
• School for the Jihad
• Mehrez training camp
• Al Qaida artillery and preps camp

Yes, all but the last of these articles was nominated by a single individual.

FWIW, that individual was well aware of a proposal I made about the articles on these camps, several months ago, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?

I would appreciate you userifying these article to:

• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Abdullah Abu Masood camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Al Khair Camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Shamsad training camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Kara Karga training camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp)
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Al Ghanad training camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/School for the Jihad
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Mehrez training camp
• User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Al Qaida artillery and preps camp

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, please take care to remove the Article-space-templates from the tops of all of those pages. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the userification.

I was not familiar with the Userify choice in {{afd}}. A year or so ago I did request userification, more verbosely, in some {{afd}}, IIRC, some contributors found these requests a bit dodgy. No one mentioned a Userify convention then. Is it new? Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is actually "Userfy" (not "Userify") and it is certainly not a new option, it has been around for a few years. As an AfD outcome it is basically a functional equivalent of "delete", with a very slight difference: after deletion from mainspace, a copy of the deleted article is placed in the userspace of the article's creator (or sometimes of another user who asked for it). Technically, "Userfy" really means "Delete and userfy". The difference between "Userfy" and plain "Delete" is really slight because even after an AfD is closed as a plain "delete", it is possible to ask the closing admin for userfication (that is, for a copy of the deleted article to be placed in your userspace). Such requests are routinely granted, as was your request above. Nsk92 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Virtualology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Virtualology. 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. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Virtualology

deleted with one vote? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Two, Richard, if you count the nominator Purplebackpack89 06:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Inj3ct0r deletion

Respected sir,

I have been shock to see the deletion of Inj3ct0r page from the reputed free encyclopedia Wikipedia.com, which happen to be genuine and it's ascendant of the well known POC[Proof of Concept] Milw0rm, which is enrolled on Wikipedia.com [link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milw0rm]

I Wish to inform you that inj3ct0r is a well known exploit database and it's the ascendant of Milw0rm, There are about 13,000 POC in inj3ct0r making it the largest exploit database.. As the page is removed by you sir, i like to show up some of the proof to show that Inj3ct0r does prevail.

Inj3ct0r Website:

http://inj3ct0r.com/

Proof of Milw0rn ascendant is Inj3ct0r:

Milw0rm is dead, Inj3ct0r is Born http://seclists.org/pen-test/2009/Nov/16

With Regards, Viknesvaran Sittaramane --Vickydevil000 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an WP:AFD deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inj3ct0r. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Louise Porter

You closed the afd a couple of days ago as delete, but this is still there. Would you do the honours? Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Schlumberger Business Consulting

Hi Cirt,

I'm concerned about your decision to merge the Schlumberger Business Consulting article with the Schlumberger article. I was an intern at Schlumberger Business Consulting for the past 6 months, and I really think the two entities should be separate, as they don't have the same activity (one is consulting, the other engineering services), and Schlumberger Business Consulting is a separate business unit from Schlumberger, both in its management and in accounting. No conflicts of interest here: I was just an intern, I am now to go back to business school for another one year before I graduate. Furthermore, I've noticed that the French article for Schlumberger Business Consulting is independent from the French Schlumberger article. Hence, for matters of consistency, I have reestablished the independent Schlumberger Business Consulting article. Feel free to comment, so that we can discuss on how to improve this article and make it neutral and informative.

Sincerely,

Axblt58 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be possible multiple accounts going on here. Left COI note at user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohd Zaidi Napiah deletion

I'd like to query your deletion of Mohd Zaidi Napiah. I see the consensus was for deletion - but I feel this was contrary to policy.

The nominator seems to reason that the page be deleted purely because he or she doesn't know anything about the subject and can't find/hasn't looked for any sources. There is no question that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE since the single source describes him as one of a professional club's most important players. A cursory search of google throws up plenty of mentions on forums etc. of his exploits in the Malaysian league.

Although these are not reliable sources, it makes a nonsense of the speculative idea that he was registered to a series of leading clubs but never took to the field.

Would it not be better to restore the page, tag it and wait for an editor who actually knows something about the subject area? Eliteimp (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work on a proposed draft version, on a subpage within your userspace. That way, WP:NOTE could be assessed. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oksana Grigorieva

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD question

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahram Abdullah Zadeh with a result of delete. The article has been recreated: Shahram Abdullah Zadeh. I was wondering if you, as the closing admin, have access to the version of the page that was deleted and can determine if the current incarnation is any better than the deleted version, or if this is a WP:CSD#G4 candidate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In reference to deletion of article Danagog

Hi Cirt, I'm writing this in respect of an article I created, you happen to be the deleting administrator for that article, I have proper references now I was wondering if you still have access to the deleted article and if we can work together on this version..Thank you. Damilae (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Damilae/Danagog. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)