This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 23 November 2010 (→Deletion of Inter2Geo: re.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:31, 23 November 2010 by Cirt (talk | contribs) (→Deletion of Inter2Geo: re.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is Cirt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. | |
|
|
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit |
Centralized discussion
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. |
|
AFD/T • T-7 • T-8 • T-2 • Relisted • AFDO • AFD tool links • WP:DRV • WP:MFD • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • RSN • BLPN • FTN • GAN Topic lists • Google Search
|
Other neat portal ideas for longer term
- Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:
- 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.
- Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
- Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
- 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.
- 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)
Note to self
- MakeRef
- Reflinks
- Citation tool for Google Books
- Citation tool for DOIs
- Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size
- User:Edward/Find link
independent reliable secondary sources
- {{findsources}}
- Refs inside scroll box
<div class="reflist4" style="height: 200px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #ababab">{{reflist|2}}</div>
- Cite templates
<ref>{{cite book| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | year = | location = | page = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite news| last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | language = | publisher = | page = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last =| first=| authorlink=| coauthors=|title=|journal=|volume=|issue=|page=|publisher=|location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite web| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>
- Citation model
- Body text in-cite
<ref name="REFNAME">], 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 at Misplaced Pages:Harvard citation template examples.
Dispatch
Cirt, Awadewit suggested that you might be interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch article on Featured portals (the only area of featured content we haven't covered). Sample previous articles are at {{FCDW}}. We've covered:
- Featured content overview
- Peer review
- Did you know
- Featured lists
- Good articles
- Featured sounds
- Featured topics
- Images
- TFA
- And Featured articles many times: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches
None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will mull this over and most likely draft something up. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2108 (UTC)
Razzies progress
- 15th Golden Raspberry Awards through 29th Golden Raspberry Awards = reformatting process done.
- Note: Going to have to go back and model these after the modifications made subsequently to 29th Golden Raspberry Awards.
- 29th Golden Raspberry Awards - so far only one expanded with sourcing research. (WP:FL)
- Razzie Award for Worst New Star = reformatting process done, next to use Talk:Razzie Award for Worst Picture as model to reformat other pages in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards by category (with subsection breaks by decade)
Hooray
For removal of unsourced articles from the main page. The chattering classes at Talk:Main Page are pretty ridiculous; calling for a decrease in compliance with core policies eg WP:V by replacing FAs with random unsourced articles, instead of bothering to look for an article that is actually sourced. lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. ;) Hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of reasonably important FA/GAs out there but they only moan and talk on main page crap all day. The old OTD sentry told me that unsourced start-class articles crept in because they weren't tagged. So I had to do the obvious and tag everything I substituted off for any kind of a sourced article, because a 95% unsourced article is "quality" because it has no tag. lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good points. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of reasonably important FA/GAs out there but they only moan and talk on main page crap all day. The old OTD sentry told me that unsourced start-class articles crept in because they weren't tagged. So I had to do the obvious and tag everything I substituted off for any kind of a sourced article, because a 95% unsourced article is "quality" because it has no tag. lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Alito RFPP request
I hear what you're saying, but I can't help but think that's a little premature given James' lack of direct involvement in the other articles. I'll keep my eyes on it (and SPI in mind), but for now I think the benefit of the doubt is appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
GAN
Hey Cirt, I don't know if I should ask you since you and have shared some bacon together in the past, but I was wondering if you could have a look at the two articles I have listed at GAN--Guillaume de Dole and The Land of Green Plums. I know you've reviewed a lot of books and I think you're an equal opportunity offender; I have faith in your objectivity. As an aside, I had a look at The Book of est, and I think it looks great, but it made me realize that there's a lot I need to learn here to help reviewing GANs--give me some time and I'll come to help the project there. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cirt, I know that you are up to your elbows in bacon, but if you have a few minutes, it might be nice to complete to review of Chandra Levy and to address the remaining issue in Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I will strive to get to that soon. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! Cirt! Since I see you're not busy, can you take care of this also? And walk my dogs? Thanks--you're great! Drmies (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look?
I was alerted to TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) by YellowMonkey on my talk page. I just went by to check the contribs and saw that you had already researched something and posted on the related ANI discussion and warned him on his talk page. There are now subsequent edit summaries like "undo random, blanking of sourced material for no stated reason by YellowMonkey, who has privately told me he intends to vandalize this article because he hates Kissinger the evil war criminal", "ditto; outlandish and absurd conspiracy theories from far-left propagandists and chomsky cultists should not be obsessively regurgitated in a barely literate fashion on Misplaced Pages, you poor adolescent" etc. I've got to step out now and don't have the time to investigate, but since you've already had a look-in could you relook at this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
John W. Flores
I believe that you are an admin. Can you please look at the talk page of the John W. Flores article. There is a name and phone number given, as well as an e-mail address of an unconfirmed user. It seems to me that this kind of info can't be verified and should be removed. I'd do it myself, but I am uncertain about deleting the content of other people's comments...as well as how to delete it from the history. Your attention would be appreciated. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion despite meeting Misplaced Pages requirements for notability
Hello Cirt,
Why was the Artificial Peace page deleted despite meeting FOUR Misplaced Pages requirements for notability for musicians and ensembles? Please note that the rules state a band must only meet ONE such rule to be deemed notable.
Below are the criteria listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29 that Artificial Peace satisfies:
1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
Artificial Peace has been the subject of at least THREE books:
ONE: Andersen, Mark & Jenkins, Mark (2001), Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capitol, New York, NY: Akashic Books, ISBN 1-888451-44-0.
TWO: Connolly, Cynthia; Clague, Leslie & Cheslow, Sharon (1988), Banned in DC: Photos and Anecdotes From the DC Punk Underground 1979-85, Washington, DC: Sun Dog Propaganda, ISBN 978-0-9620944-0-8 .
THREE: Blush, Steven & Petros, George (2001) American, George Hardcore: a Tribal History Feral House, ISBN-10: 0922915717
5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
- In addition to the multiple Artificial Peace vinyl records released in the 1980s on Dischord and other labels (and later reissued on CD), Dischord Records just released the entire Artificial Peace 1981 sessions. Dischord, has demonstrated that, even to this day, the band has merit by releasing this music after 29 years in the vault.
6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
- Members of Artificial Peace went on to form Marginal Man as well as become a member of Government Issue. Two other notable bands from the Washington D.C. music scene and have Misplaced Pages pages.
7) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Misplaced Pages standards, including verifiability.
- Of Artificial Peace, Ian MacKaye has written, "their effect on the DC scene was significant and played a sure role in the evolution of the music." Please note that the Misplaced Pages page on the DC scene begins with the following sentence: "Washington, D.C. has had one of the first and most influential hardcore punk scenes in the United States since the early 1980s."
Only one of the four above criteria is needed to satisfy the requirements for notability for musicians and ensembles.
Please restore the Artificial Page page or explain why it has been deleted despite meeting the criteria for notability.
Thank you.
RM
67.189.13.84 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you register an account on Misplaced Pages. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cirt,
Thank you for your suggestion. Is that standard operating procedure for such a situation? I've already spent a considerable amount of time building and formatting the page, as well as searching for and then citing multiple 3rd party references. And then I've spent even more time defend something that already meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability. I don't mean to seem cynical, but why should I believe I'll be treated any differently if I follow your suggestion? Please advise.
Thank you.
RM
67.189.13.84 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure you, once you register an account on Misplaced Pages, I will provide you with a copy of the deleted page to work on as a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cirt,
I have registered an account as Orange_28. Does it take time for the account to become active? The page comes up as red linked/does not exist.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.84 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done, now at User:Orange 28/Artificial Peace. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Allthing
Cirt, You recently deleted Allthing per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allthing. Could you re-create the page as a redirect to Althing, the Icelandic Parliament? Several users suggested doing this, and this is a highly likely misspelling which should be redirected. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No objections to you doing so yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Grenfell College Student Union
Hi Cirt,
Recently, you deleted the Grenfell College Student Union page as per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grenfell College Student Union. I feel, again, quite disheartened by the fact that Wikipedians were given only eight days from when it was previously restored from Speedy Deletion to fix up the article. Furthermore, the note of one user on the discussion towards the deletion notes there only being a few sources directly integrated into page which mentions the Union in passing... while another user had posted several valid sources in the deletion discussion as examples of what was to be integrated. As we have only had a single day over a week to do so, we've not been successful in integrating all of the sources that I and a few other interested users have found to integrate into the page. I'd ask if you could restore said page so that we can have a real shot at getting those things properly formatted and having a legitimate article herein. I'm interested in trying to improve all of the pages related to Memorial University of Newfoundland and this is a just another part in doing so -- as all articles tied to it are fairly weak.
All the best, Brad Evoy (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish, I could make a copy available to you as a subpage within your userpage space, so you could work on a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That'd be great, as I really think I and other interested folks can polish this one up to standard. Thanks! -- Brad Evoy (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
my user page
any way to get the data that was there, i don't want to recreate the page but i do want the data. Vlame (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)vlame
- I am sorry, but it was deleted via community consensus after discussion at WP:MFD. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum
On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the curator of the Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum in Washington studied ballet under Russian prima ballerina Alexandra Danilova? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't finish the review
Send Don't Forget the Bacon! back to the GAN page. I'm being "investigated" for "too close paraphrasing". :) Brother, what next? I guess I'm expected to rewrite about a hundred articles. I can't do that. Anyway, check your article through for "too close paraphrasing" of the sources, revise if necessary, and resubmit. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
BS
The Original Barnstar | ||
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Misplaced Pages, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you, very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your assistance please
I saw your suggestion at User talk:Cunard that an {{rfc}} be initiated on my conduct.
I replied there. The short version of my response is:
- I am fully prepared to fix all genuine policy lapses in the material I have contributed, whether it is in article space, or userspace.
- As I understand it, before an {{rfcu}} is initiated, the individual(s) initiating that {{rfcu}} have an obligation to make a collegial attempt to explain their concern first. That hasn't happened.
- It seems to me that there are differing interpretations of the policies those expressing the concerns have tied to their concerns.
- I am fully prepared to fix all genuine policy lapses in the material I have contributed, but due to the complications and ambiguities around these concerns I think it is particularly important that those who have a concern make a genuine collegial attempt to discuss those concerns.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Commented at User talk:Cunard. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden
Please will you give the reasons why you deleted this article? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
- Consensus from the community after discussion at AFD page of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden, was to be for deletion. However, I would be most happy to provide you with a copy within a subpage of your userspace - so you can work on improving a proposed draft version. I will do so, if you wish it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Three deletes, two keeps. That is not community consensus. It is at best a no consensus. It is clear also that some of the deletes did not understand WP:Prof policy.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
- Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do not find the reasons you give to be satisfactory, I ask for the AfD to be relisted for further debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
- No, it already had been relisted and had plenty of time for discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do not find the reasons you give to be satisfactory, I ask for the AfD to be relisted for further debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
- Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Three deletes, two keeps. That is not community consensus. It is at best a no consensus. It is clear also that some of the deletes did not understand WP:Prof policy.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Cirt, I was also very surprised at your conclusion that the result of that discussion was "delete". I would have called it "no consensus" since opinions were pretty much evenly split, with possibly stronger arguments in favor of "keep". (Also note that the original nomination was by an anonymous SPA, submitted to AfD by a neutral third party.) Could you take another look at the discussion there, and see if you still think the consensus was "delete"? Thanks --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- MelanieN (talk · contribs), perhaps you would wish to put some efforts into improving the page further, as a proposed draft version within a subpage of your userspace? -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cirt, I already did. I expanded it and added references, as I said in the AfD discussion. I wish you would respond to the question of why you interpreted the discussion as resulting in "delete" rather than "no consensus". --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Cirt, I too am rather surprised by the deletion of this page - I didn't contribute to the Afd debate on the grounds of being busy and that I had thought that Afd was not a vote and that Mel Krajden's h-index and citation scores already indicated so clearly met the WP:prof that is was not needed. If you want to put it on someones user page - you can put it on mine. I can then ask for it to be restored as the existing refs at the end of the Afd process already seemed to me to be sufficient or add some more if you require it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- Done, now at User:Msrasnw/Mel Krajden. Feel free to improve upon the quality of the page, there. I note that there are basically unformatted bare links put forth as inadequate citations for a BLP page. Might be a place to start work on, utilizing WP:CIT templates to fill out info on those sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ready for restoration (?): Dear Cirt, I have tidied it up and added another ref and further evidence of notability. I think it is OK for restoration but if you have any more suggestions or possibly another Afd. Thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- It looks much better. However, the 3rd cite violates WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not clear that it was original research as I was just reporting what WoS indicates - i.e. what is in their database - but I have removed the 3rd cite and put the info on the talk page. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- Can you please properly format the cites using WP:CIT? -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- Not done = the "title" fields are missing in the cites. The "date" fields are missing in the cites. Still improperly formatted, please fix this. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- Can you please properly format the cites using WP:CIT? -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not clear that it was original research as I was just reporting what WoS indicates - i.e. what is in their database - but I have removed the 3rd cite and put the info on the talk page. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- It looks much better. However, the 3rd cite violates WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ready for restoration (?): Dear Cirt, I have tidied it up and added another ref and further evidence of notability. I think it is OK for restoration but if you have any more suggestions or possibly another Afd. Thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
- Done, now at User:Msrasnw/Mel Krajden. Feel free to improve upon the quality of the page, there. I note that there are basically unformatted bare links put forth as inadequate citations for a BLP page. Might be a place to start work on, utilizing WP:CIT templates to fill out info on those sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear - I cannot see what you mean by the titles being missing - but I think I have fixed the dates. I was not aware of this new policy and cannot see it on WP:cit but thank you anyway I hope it is OK now. Is it? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
- Ah, I changed it to {{Cite news}}. The "work" field is missing. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does {{Cite news}} have a "work" field - I can't see it on the little list? What information do you want adding and where? (I won't ask why?) This all seems a bit odd to me. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
- You can see all the fields listed for it, at WP:CIT page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does {{Cite news}} have a "work" field - I can't see it on the little list? What information do you want adding and where? (I won't ask why?) This all seems a bit odd to me. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
- It seems to list these below and not "work" - What information do you want adding? (Msrasnw (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
- Ah, I changed it to {{Cite news}}. The "work" field is missing. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cite news | title = | author = | first = | last = | authorlink = | authorlink2 = | author2 = | author3 = | author4 = | author5 = | author6 = | author7 = | url = | format = | agency = | newspaper = | publisher = | location = | isbn = | issn = | oclc = | pmid = | pmd = | bibcode = | doi = | id = | date = | page = | pages = | at = | accessdate = | language = | trans_title = | quote = | archiveurl = | archivedate = | ref = }}
- WP:CIT page. For "cite news", 3rd example over, lists "work" field. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - I have now put "work" in the last two - but the first two I have used Cit web. I hope it is OK now. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
Done, moved it back into article mainspace, and nominated for AFD as procedural nom for community reassessment of the changed page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your kind assistance in this matter(Msrasnw (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
List of Russian supercentenarians
It looks clear that the article has been deleted after a false argument that there are only 26 verified supercentenarians ever while there are more then 1000 of them and 85 are currently living. The community consensus was to Keep the article.--217.67.189.2 (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest your register an account, then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Article
Hi want to to start a a new page about Harry Opie Winston, a character from Sons of Anarchy. I was told by[REDACTED] to contact you first. signed, SOA fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOA fan (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest you first work on it at User:SOA fan/Sandbox. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Caesary Page
The Caesary page was being considered for deletion but was being updated and changed to meet requirements of Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately the page was drastically altered and spammed until it was no longer fit for being hosted on Misplaced Pages and was deleted. I would ask that you return the page to the last version by myself or shortly after so that we may continue to work on it and make it presentable.
--Jeirhart (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would be more than happy to provide a userfied version for you to work on as a proposed draft article, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would you be able to provide me a copy of the page as it was after my last edit or shortly thereafter?--Jeirhart (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Restarted talk page you deleted - see Lyraka
Hi, Cirt. Just to let you know, restarted a talk page you deleted a few months ago. Article is up and running again. You may well have A7-d the article itself as well, but of course I can't see that in the page history. Article tagged for notability.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted and salted. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- There were blue-linked people in the deleted article. Could we possibly follow up on them too?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why deletion of Voluntary Content Rating
You deleted the article Voluntary_Content_Rating based on one vote (which incorrectly stated spam, because spam is only valid when there is no relevant content) and the request as non-notable.
The Article was very useful, though, because it lists the only simple alternative to the ICRA labels (Internet_Content_Rating_Association). ICRA labels impose restrictions on the content which are incompatible with free content¹, and PIC is quite complicated, so VCR is the only useful alternative for small website owners. And ICRA is dead… → http://icra.org
¹: http://draketo.de/licht/ich/meine-seite-ist-ab-18#fn:VCR (german)
So it was not non-notable and spam was assessed incorrectly (at least for the version I read a few years ago). And there was just one vote to kill an article which had useful content and had been around for at least one and a half years².
²: 1,5 years, because that was when I linked to it on http://draketo.de/schatten
Please undo the deletion. The content is very useful to webmasters, especially in germany where we now have to mark all pages.Draketo (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you like, I could make such a version available to you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t want to create a hidden new draft when there’s no reason to do so. The old version was useful and should never have been deleted as “spam” or “non-notable”. Please just undo the deletion. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t want to create a hidden new draft when there’s no reason to do so. The old version was useful and should never have been deleted as “spam” or “non-notable”. Please just undo the deletion. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash
Re this, can you explain why in your closing statement you appear to have side-stepped the fact that the reason for deletion was for failing WP:NOT, WP:EVENT and WP:AIRCRASH (both the current essay and proposed guideline), not for simply failing the WP:GNG (to which even the arguments on that score were weak to the point of simple assertion, for an article that is still only sourced to news articles of one 24 hours news cycle). If you see a consensus in there actually dealing with the whole rationale, and not just the GNG, then maybe you can give one or two examples here of the sort of comments you think supported a determination of a "strong consensus" outcome on that score. Otherwise, I think you've made a very basic mistake in policy here, which requires review. No single Afd has the power to elevate the GNG to the status of the sole criteria for inclusion at Misplaced Pages, not even under IAR, even the GNG itself is clear on that score, under the presumption clause. I am also pretty concerned that by examining your contribs, you appear to have spent less than four minutes reviewing that rather large discussion before closure, which does not seem enough time to give it anything other than a cursory look. This seems to be confirmed by the fact you chose not to comment on several of the points I made specifcally for the benefit of the closer, such as the piggybacking on Lugnut's flawed GNG based rationale (which he repeatedly chose not to defend in any way at all). MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry but the closing rationale explained itself pretty much and is sufficient. Consensus was to retain the page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Jay Hudson Deletion
I see that you were the first person to recently delete the Jay Hudson article. I would like to know the specific reasons for this. It seems that his status as a local celebrity would more than qualify him for a page.
I'd like to note that many other Detroit area radio shows have pages, Drew and Mike for instance, have a page and have for a while.
I look forward to working with you. Mick (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish it, I could make a version available to you within a subpage of your userspace, so you could improve the quality of the page as a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great. Is there a list of things that need to be included to make sure the article is accepted this go-round? -- Mick (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done, now at User:Mickilus/Jay Hudson. As for improvements, I suggest you take time to read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:CIT, and WP:Article development. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great. Is there a list of things that need to be included to make sure the article is accepted this go-round? -- Mick (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ouch....
Saw the ICSA source you added to James R. Lewis' Scientology article. You being one of the Primary contributors to Xenu thats gotta be a slap in the face. Are You going to be planning a rewrite of the Xenu article after reading that? I personally tend to agree Rothstein's opinion more. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really going to change the article Xenu, as in that article the writings are attributed directly to the contributor in question. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- hmm Right didnt think of it that way ;-) cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Leo Ryan article
Feel free to reorganize the paragraph for wording. I thought that the fact that Layton had been found not guilty by another court and could not be tried in the US for the obvious charge was significant so I added it. But I didn't do much to make sure that the article flowed well.
Roadrunner (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started a sect for discussion about it, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Note to self - possible book articles to create
- est: 60 Hours that Transform your Life, by Adelaide Bry, New York: Harper & Row, 1976.
- est: The Movement and the Man, by Pat R. Marks, Playboy Press 1976.
- est: Making Life Work, by Robert A. Hargrove, New York: Dell Publishing, 1976.
- est: Four Days to Make Your Life Work, by William Greene, Pocketbooks, 1976.
- The est Experience, by James Kettle, Zebra Books, 1976.
- The est Experience, by Donald Porter and Diane Taxson, Award Books, 1976.
- Christianity and est, by Max B. Skousen. Marina del Ray, California: DeVorss & Company, 1978.
So far, research indicates the first two may have the most amount of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm, WorldCat does indeed seem to show multiple different books with title The est Experience, see link, will have to research this further to find out if those have sufficient secondary source coverage for article(s). -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- est: 60 Hours that Transform your Life, by Adelaide Bry = looks like this one is the best option to start researching = seems to have most availability of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Reviews
Cirt, I know that you are extremely busy, but any progress on reviewing Chandra Levy or adding the missing paragraph to Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard would be appreciated. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, I will have that done within one day. -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am still here on both Jack Slee and Chandra Levy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- So sorry, have had some in-real-life issues lately, will get to it soon, primary on my list. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are doing so much for Misplaced Pages. I understand completely. Racepacket (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- So sorry, have had some in-real-life issues lately, will get to it soon, primary on my list. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am still here on both Jack Slee and Chandra Levy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Problems with AfD closes
If your concern is that Misplaced Pages should be more bureaucratic, please raise that at WT:NOT. If your concern is that somebody is making bad AfD closes, please take that up with the editor in question, taking it through dispute resolution until a satisfactory consensus is reached on perceived conduct problems. If your concern is with the circumstances of one particular close, take it through deletion review.
I closed the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard because it seems to be misplaced. Since you think that it's important to observe established procedures, please do follow the very well established procedures in this case. --TS 10:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with this comment about this, by admin DGG (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Truth in Numbers?
On 18 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Truth in Numbers?, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one reviewer of Truth in Numbers? noted that "the Misplaced Pages article for the film itself was under threat of being deleted"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page
Please see my comment replying to you. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Landmark Education logo2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Landmark Education logo2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics
Hi. You closed this as delete but, as nominator, I request you to change your close to Redirect to Douglas Youvan#Christian Apologetics. I had agreed that as a compromise with the article author, and invited two others who had !voted delete to agree. You will see in the debate that they both did, and there was only one last-minute !voter who came in as delete. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to make a redirect, post the AFD itself, as an editorial decision made after the AFD. I have no objections to that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Apriso
Hi Cirt,
I went to create a Wiki page for a company called "Apriso" and saw that the previous page had been deleted and - from the sounds of it - included marketing language and not enough references to establish notability back in February or so.
I don't know exactly what the previous article looked like - I'm sure there must be a way to look at the previous versions, but I did want to invite you to take a look at the draft I have on my talk page and add any input or discussion.
King4057 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This version also seems quite promotional and POV in nature, not to mention poorly sourced to mostly primary sources, and sources that markedly fail WP:RS, including "Waepedia", etc. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yah fair enough - need to find better references than Wapedia. They had such a great treasure trove of information, but I don't really know where they got it from.
Can you elaborate where it is promotional or PoV? I certainly don't have a point-of-view on the company, so I don't know what point of view I've unknowingly incorporated into the article.
King4057 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just found lots of sources in manufacturing publications, but still digging for something more biographical about their history for that section... King4057 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep me updated on the improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/tool test
RE: Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/tool test to User:Adamtheclown/tool test
Can you please undelete and move this article into a subpage of my user page? It was created in that location because an editor told this new editor to create it there. Thank you. Adamtheclown (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Inter2Geo
Hi, it looks like you judged from the deletion discussion of Inter2Geo that the article should be deleted. When looking at the comments made then there are statements like "no secondary sources" in the pro-deletion comments which are clearly (!) countered by citing independent secondary sources in the no-deletion-comments. So I do not really understand your decision - can you explain or maybe revise your decision ? --Kortenkamp (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would you like to give your reasons for the decision to delete? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
- User:Cirt. I ask you once again for your reasons for deleting this article. I note the policy ruling here:
- 7) Due to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC).
- Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), I request that you stop the impatience. I am allowed to not check my Misplaced Pages user talk page for a span of one or two days without being threatened and cited arbcom cases in such a manner for not responding to a query of a type that I routinely get on my user talk page and answer readily without complaint. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- User:Cirt If you had given your reasons for the closure of the AfD in the first place this would not have arisen. I notice that you did not give reasons in several other of the AfD debates that you have closed. It would be helpful if you would do so except when the debate is so clear-cut as to not need them as, for example, here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
- Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), that fails to respond to your inappropriate method of response and lack of patience through attempts at intimidation by immediately jumping to threatening users who do not quickly respond to you with citations of arbcom cases. This is not conducive to a constructive back-and-forth dialog. I hope you will modify your behavior patterns going forward in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- We are all of us subject to policy. This AfD was closed with 1 keep and 2 delete votes. The article which it was about contained material of a complex technical nature. User:Kortenkamp was entitled to ask for the reasons for its deletion. After three days, the reasons have not emerged. It is quite possible that your reasons are sound but, not knowing what they are, we don't know. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
- It is most unfortunate that the two of us could have both been more receptive to constructive criticism and had a more productive and polite dialog — had your tone been different in the choice of wording in your above responses. -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you feel threatened by policy. The issue here is that you failed, after several requests, to give a reason for your ruling on the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
- I am sorry that you have been unable to adjust your tone in this communication so as to have a positive polite and productive dialog. The issue here is that you failed, after several requests, to conduct an amiable approach, with respect to this discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you feel threatened by policy. The issue here is that you failed, after several requests, to give a reason for your ruling on the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
- It is most unfortunate that the two of us could have both been more receptive to constructive criticism and had a more productive and polite dialog — had your tone been different in the choice of wording in your above responses. -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- We are all of us subject to policy. This AfD was closed with 1 keep and 2 delete votes. The article which it was about contained material of a complex technical nature. User:Kortenkamp was entitled to ask for the reasons for its deletion. After three days, the reasons have not emerged. It is quite possible that your reasons are sound but, not knowing what they are, we don't know. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
- Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), that fails to respond to your inappropriate method of response and lack of patience through attempts at intimidation by immediately jumping to threatening users who do not quickly respond to you with citations of arbcom cases. This is not conducive to a constructive back-and-forth dialog. I hope you will modify your behavior patterns going forward in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- User:Cirt If you had given your reasons for the closure of the AfD in the first place this would not have arisen. I notice that you did not give reasons in several other of the AfD debates that you have closed. It would be helpful if you would do so except when the debate is so clear-cut as to not need them as, for example, here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Deletion of Yuri Rutman
A "Ron Ritzman" claims you ok'd the reposting of the entry of spam artist Yuri Rutman. "He" claims that the Yuri Rutman spam artist and the Yuri Rutman who wrote his own entry in Misplaced Pages are not the same person (quite a postmodern invention!). I am deeply suspicious of this "Ron Ritzman" (isn't Ritzman just a bit too close to Rutman for comfort?) I have stated on "his" discussion board, as I will state here, that inclusion of Yuri Rutman in Misplaced Pages compromises Misplaced Pages's integrity. Yuri Rutman is absolutely insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truebobjohnson (talk • contribs)
- No objections if you wish to nominate that page for WP:AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Roger Waters FAC
FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I will look it over again. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
discussion about deletion of article
Hi there,
This article http://en.wikipedia.org/Paula_O%27Rourke was deleted on grounds of lack of notability of the artist. Reading up on how to go about proposing to restore the article, it says that I should "take it up with the deleting admin". Is that you?
Pabandorra (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was deleted after this discussion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paula O'Rourke. If you like, I would be most happy to provide a version of that page prior to deletion within a subpage of your userspace, so you could work on it as a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be lovely, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabandorra (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done, now at User:Pabandorra/Paula O'Rourke. -- Cirt (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Paid Editing
I have come across a Paid Editor Sigma0 1 (talk · contribs) who works for Bluebike Terminologies who has creating articles which fails WP:N ,WP:ORG etc for IdeaConnection and and Do I report the editor to WP:SPAM or to WP:COIN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest going with WP:COIN. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback (Delsort tool ?)
Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Okay thanks, will try that. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Further to 'Request for Apology'
I mistakenly edited the archive yesterday. Anyway, copying that material to here, now :
It is clear you will not engage or acknowledge anything I put to you. I'll be going to dispute resolution, but it will take some time to familiarise myself with policies and put my arguments together. I'll keep you informed of progress in this regard.JohnAugust (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I already responded to this. diff link -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Request assistance in cleanup of possible essay
User:John Carter/Wikipedia:The Next Generation is a rough essay I have written about a few ideas which might help reduce the amount of time and effort spent in certain areas around here. The disadvantage, of course, is that, as a work, it is disastrously poorly written and organized. If, and I know this is a big if, you were to want to read it, and if you thought it of any value, please feel free to do any of the editing it so clearly needs to help make it a bit more presentable prior to a possible move to main[REDACTED] space. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Will try to take a look, thanks for the notice and for thinking of me. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
- Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Book of est
The article The Book of est 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:The Book of est for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Jack Slee v. Erhard
I have made a suggestion on coverage of the trial at the bottom of the GA review. The ultimate decision is yours to make. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations. It is very hard to write about a legal process in an understandable way. Racepacket (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations. It is very hard to write about a legal process in an understandable way. Racepacket (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Woops
Sorry about mucking up your links, it was user:js/urldecoder.js acting on too much of the page. –xeno 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Apology accepted. :) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
AfD
I have found sources relevant to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catherine McQueen and ask you to revisit your !vote/nom. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you could format the sources using WP:CIT templates and fill in the relevant fields, that would make it much easier to analyze. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're going to have to look at the source anyway, so I don't see the point. If consensus shows the article is on a notable subject I will happily do the work to improve it. Bigger digger (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would be most helpful to do as I suggested, above, and it would most likely facilitate ease of analysis of the references by other users, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're going to have to look at the source anyway, so I don't see the point. If consensus shows the article is on a notable subject I will happily do the work to improve it. Bigger digger (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Keiko Fujimori
He's at it again, the same edits, over and over and over. Please consider a longer block. I assumed good faith the first time, but WP:competence and disruptive editing come into play. Or can we lock it down until a neutral, actual English version is written incorporating whatever may be useful?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protection
I'm wondering if you would consider reducing the length of the semi-protection at Deaths in 2010. The entry you were concerned was not reliably sourced was replaced with a reliable source, and three months seems a long time for such a relatively minor matter. I left a note at WP:BLPN#Britton Chance, as has another long time editor of the Deaths in 2010 page, but I'm not sure if you've had a chance to review it. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would rather not, there are still serious WP:BLP issues on that problematic page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, nothing lost by asking. Is there something you find particularly worrisome at the moment? I try to keep a pretty close eye on that page, so I'd be happy to help if there is a specific issue you believe needs addressing. From my experience it's not IPs vandalism that is the most problematic issue with the page as the drive by vandalism is reverted quite quickly, and unsourced edits are removed immediately; it's poor referencing that is more of an issue there, and this is not generally added by IPs, so the semi-prot may not be as effective as anticipated. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- First off, most or all of the entries are just bare links. In order to better determine what is or is not WP:RS to satisfy WP:BLP, those should be formatted as references, using WP:CIT templates, with all of the relevant fields filled out, so that they show up in a References subsection on the page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- There have been discussions regarding using references instead of bare urls for this list page, and concensus has been to stick with the bare urls. This is listed in the edit box when you click 'edit this page', and there is also notification on the talk page in the form of an infobox. In order to meet BLP requirements, the entries must be reliably sourced - I'm not sure where it states in WP:BLP that the references must display in a specific format to be considered reliable? All editors to the page add the sources in this format per the instructions and concensus, semi-protecting the page won't change that. --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but bare links are extremely inappropriate and woefully inadequate. What if the links change? What if the links go dead? What if someone wants to cite something to, I dunno, something like a book, a newspaper, a magazine article? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- There have been discussions regarding using references instead of bare urls for this list page, and concensus has been to stick with the bare urls. This is listed in the edit box when you click 'edit this page', and there is also notification on the talk page in the form of an infobox. In order to meet BLP requirements, the entries must be reliably sourced - I'm not sure where it states in WP:BLP that the references must display in a specific format to be considered reliable? All editors to the page add the sources in this format per the instructions and concensus, semi-protecting the page won't change that. --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- First off, most or all of the entries are just bare links. In order to better determine what is or is not WP:RS to satisfy WP:BLP, those should be formatted as references, using WP:CIT templates, with all of the relevant fields filled out, so that they show up in a References subsection on the page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, nothing lost by asking. Is there something you find particularly worrisome at the moment? I try to keep a pretty close eye on that page, so I'd be happy to help if there is a specific issue you believe needs addressing. From my experience it's not IPs vandalism that is the most problematic issue with the page as the drive by vandalism is reverted quite quickly, and unsourced edits are removed immediately; it's poor referencing that is more of an issue there, and this is not generally added by IPs, so the semi-prot may not be as effective as anticipated. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured portal review/Portugal
Nudge? No rush, but... it's been six weeks since you said you'd pop back in a couple of weeks to close it. Regards, Bencherlite 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, will revisit it. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Slim da Mobster userfy
Hey Cirt could you userfy for me the Slim da Mobster article that was deleted? I have found more info on him and plan to make it better and will not introduce it into article space until ready. STATic message me! 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)