User talk:Cirt - Wikipedia

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

• Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:

1. Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion, United States; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
2. Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
3. Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
4. Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
5. If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.

   Also take some time to check out style/formatting at Portal:Indiana Cirt (talk)

independent reliable secondary sources

• User:Citation bot/use

• {{findsources}}

Citation model

The Simpsons (season 3)

Body text in-cite

<ref name="REFNAME">[[#LASTNAME|LASTNAME]], p. PAGENUMBER</ref>

References section

(reference template from WP:CIT)

*<cite id=LASTNAME>REFERENCE</cite>

Different model

• Template:Citation
• Template:Harvnb
• Example: <ref name="REFNAME">{{Harvnb|LAST|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>

See models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.

More info. Cirt (talk)

More at Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples.

And Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets.

Cirt (talk)

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

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

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

Will mull this over and most likely draft something up. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2108 (UTC)Reply

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

Cirt (talk)

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

Much of the music Morrison released throughout the 1980s continued to focus on the themes of spirituality and faith. His 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart was "a move towards creating music for meditation" with synthesisers, uilleann pipes and flute sounds and four of the tracks were instrumentals.^[1] Van Morrison is a former Scientologist;^[2][3][4] during the 1980s he dedicated an album to the organization's founder L. Ron Hubbard.^[5] Van Morrison was recruited into Scientology by Scientologist and musician Nicky Hopkins.^[6] Friends of Van Morrison's within his musical circle that were also into Scientology included Mark Isham and Robin Williamson.^[7] Van Morrison's album Beautiful Vision was influenced by Scientology,^[8] and his next album Inarticulate Speech of the Heart (1983) included a "special thanks" credit given to L. Ron Hubbard.^[9][8] After Scientology, Van Morrison moved on to "a broadly Christian faith".^[10] He titled his 1986 album No Guru No Method as an attempt to distance himself from Scientology.^[11][12] In a review of Van Morrison's musical work in The Times, journalist Pete Paphides described his album No Guru, No Method, No Teacher as "the 1986 album that found Morrison adrift from God, wounded by his dalliance with Scientology, wrestling the mother of spiritual hangovers and deciding that only the compass of memory could help a lost soul to redemption".^[13] Van Morrison's exploration of spirituality, including Jehovah's Witness, Christianity, mysticism, and Scientology, served as an influence for his works including Astral Weeks, "Kingdom Hall", Enlightenment and "Whenever God Shines His Light".^[14] In 1991, Van Morrison explained his period of spirituality and self-reflection, commenting: "I'm into all of it, orthodox or otherwise. I don't accept or reject any of it. I'm not searching for anything in particular, I'm just groping in the dark for a bit more light."^[9] In 1995, when asked by the University of Ulster to list his favorite philosophers, Van Morrison included Aristotle, Socrates, Sartre, Steiner – as well as L. Ron Hubbard.^[15] In 2009, the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper St. Petersburg Times listed Van Morrison among "Former Scientologists".^[16]

Cirt (talk)

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

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

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

Thanks for your help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Cirt,

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

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

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

Does Wikipedia consensus prefer footers to sidebars?

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

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

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

I am withdrawing my objection to this change. It looks like Severa, the person who originally created and maintained the sidebars, has retired from Wikipedia.[1] So the sidebars would no longer be maintained without your change.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

SoWhy 19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple.

Policy says no personal attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope you guys keep working well together.

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

I checked Download.com to check its notability, and the software was given five stars by the editors in 2008, see [2]. That can ensure the software's notability, so please restore the article and find reliable secondary sources (Download.com, CNet, etc.) to broaden its scope.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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