User talk:Cirt

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Nominations: Lucid (Aṣa album) (talk | history | start review) • Slowcore (talk | history | start review) • Chapel Hart (talk | history | start review) • Mating of yeast (talk | history | start review) • Honey Revenge (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

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 Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Other neat portal ideas for longer term

• 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)

Note to self - tools and templates

• 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

• User:Citation bot/use

• {{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

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)

US Supreme Court cases

Category:United States free speech case law - note to self, some articles to research and improve in quality ratings, for a longer term project. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Related WikiProjects - reach out for collaborative editing and review

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Law
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government

-- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality rated articles - use as models for improvement

1. Category:FA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
2. Category:GA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles

-- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea for new portal

1. Portal:Supreme Court of the United States.
2. Use GA and FA content.
3. Will help me gain familiarity with coverage of articles on the topic on Wikipedia.
4. Involve editors/WikiProjects in help with key sections of the portal. :)

-- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Landmark_decisions_in_the_United_States#Freedom_of_Speech_and_of_the_Press. -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Time, Inc. v. Hill = project with FA writer = Wehwalt (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikisource: s:Time, Inc. v. Hill. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Follow-up ideas after that one: New York Times Co. v. United States and United States v. Nixon. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart = was going to be the project with Wehwalt (talk · contribs), but we'll do Time, Inc. v. Hill for the first one. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. = interesting case about parody. — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}. — Cirt (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement on my Wikipedia editing

I've given my editing some significant thought, and I'm going to shift my focus for an extended period: both in (1) Articles chosen to edit, and (2) Activity level.

1. I'm going to reduce my activity level significantly, as I've done now for the past few days.
2. I'm going to focus primarily on getting prior articles I had already improved in quality - up to FA quality.
3. And I'm going to shift efforts in new areas of interest - to primarily editing and improving the quality of articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases (as mentioned above diff).
4. I'm going to try to seek out collaborative help from other respected editors, and WikiProjects, in all of the above endeavors.
5. I remain committed to not editing DYK again in the future.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Further comment

See diff. -- Cirt (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Time v. Hill

Apparently the Nixon Library does have some stuff, but the finding aid is outdated. The newer one will hopefully be emailed to me soon. I've asked them to tentatively reserve me some time to look at the materials next week, fortunately I will be in the LA area. I'm sure there will be clippings if nothing else. Nixon saved everything when it came to documents.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just gotten the finding aid by email. Nixon saved his research, memos to fellow lawyers ... very extensive. Of course, we can use only some of it, but I'll go through it at the Nixon Library on Monday.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, I'll get going on creating a page with some secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there will be much by way of images that we can use but perhaps I can scan the cover of the brief, which was certainly not copyrighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been spending some time this afternoon reading through some of Nixon's file in the Hill case. Most interesting indeed. The case eventually settled after the NY Ct of Appeals was reversed by the nine, and there's a memorandum about how much the plaintiffs got, which was not publicly announced, I scanned that for our use (around $60K each, which was probably the equivalent of a half mil today). Not much by the way of images, but as I said, the brief covers can be used. They were published pre 1978 without copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thought I had something interesting, a letter from Stanley Reed to Nixon congratulating him on his argument, on SCOTUS stationary. But Reed was retired, so it wasn't improper (there was a letter from Nixon which prompted it).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Still working on a draft page to create, got three good sources for some initial background. Just gotta flesh it out a bit more. Also working on the infobox formatting, which is unique for Supreme Court of the United States cases. Will post it soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent WP:AfD needs Salting

Hi Cirt. You recently deleted a page I'd listed at Afd - WP:Articles for deletion/Craig Strong. Anyway, I'm cleaning out my watchlist and, checking out what had happen to this one, noticed that this was the fourth time this article has been deleted and then recreated - see [[1]]. Added to which it was pure WP:Spam for a guy with one IMDb credit and a real-estate business to push, I thought salting might be in order. Up to you, anyway. Thanks, Plutonium27 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, with that slow rate of creation (particularly with no recreation after an AfD), and when the editor who created the last three versions, AngelicVirgo (talk · contribs), has been inactive for two years, I wouldn't waste good salt. But Cirt's views may differ. Bencherlite^Talk 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to the wise judgment of Bencherlite (talk · contribs) here. — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC outcome of Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

I contacted you a month ago about an AfD outcome since you were the closing administrator. Recently, the RfC I requested per your suggestion has expired after the 30 days given and I believe that there is a clear consensus to merge and redirect as I proposed. I would like to know what should I do in order to close the discussion and proceed to merge the content and redirect the article. As I am the one that proposed the merge in the first place, I feel that it might not be appropriate for me to close the discussion and I do not want to proceed until I'm sure that the process has been properly followed. So, should I proceed immediately with the merge and redirect or should I wait for some other process? Jfgslo (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest requesting an uninvolved admin closer at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, per WP:Merging#Proposing a merger, box IV. See User:Shooterwalker's request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#need neutral admin to close discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion by Flatscan (talk · contribs), good idea. — Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to both of you for your quick replies. Jfgslo (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A2Billing Reference

We note you have made reference to A2Billing at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trixbox#A2Billing.

However, we note that the A2Billing link does not link anywhere. As the page maintainer, may we assist you to write some more information on A2Billing. Your help would be appreciated.

Joe Roper, A2Billing. Foxcote20 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing with talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, and trying to find some neutral previously uninvolved editors to discuss this with on talk pages. — Cirt (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hex Girls

What's up? I've recreated the The Hex Girls article that you deleted. I've added 5 sources to it. Hope that helps. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't really look significantly different/improved enough yet. I'd suggest working on it in userspace, I could provide you a copy of that if you want. — Cirt (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Delete voters said things like "everything lacks verifiability with no references" so I would think adding 5 reliable sources like mainstream newspapers would be a significant improvement over zero references. You don't think so? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Improved, yes. Not really enough though. I'd suggest working on a userfied version, and I'd be more than happy to provide that for you. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, well I'm not really familiar or comfortable with that. So, I guess if you as an admin think it is best to delete that article with 5 sources because people said there are zero sources, than who am I to suggest we waste any further time arguing with that kind of logic. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've provided it for you as a draft version for you to work on in your userspace, at User:Sharksaredangerous/The Hex Girls. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not interested in further wasting my time. If my adding the New York Times, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, etc. isn't an improvement and doesn't counter the argument that there are "no references" than I really have no clue what I'm doing here. Go ahead and delete that one, too. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'll leave it up there for a while in case you change your mind and wish to improve it further. — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, just delete it please. I'm not wasting any more time on it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to let me know if you want to work on it further as a userspace draft version, I'll be glad to restore it. — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You've been very helpful. Here's another idea: Could you maybe add a note beyond just "The result was delete" to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hex Girls that maybe explains why you think adding 5 sources doesn't overcome the arguments for deletion? That would reallly help give me and other editors some useful guidance before we think about wasting all day doing periodical searches at the library in the future. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is now  Done. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been a great help. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Disguise (Law & Order)

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Disguise (Law & Order), you said there was no consensus. Could you please explain how there was no consensus? I'm not sure I understand how an article with no references, which is non-notable, and has no reliable veriable sources can have "no consensus." Isn't there consensus that it is not verifiable and therefore not encyclopedic? --Rajah (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, between those advocating for keep, merge, redirect, etc, there really was not much consensus there. But I'd encourage you to take further merge discussion, to the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Kimberly Proctor and Kruse Wellwood articles

I notice that a few hours ago you closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Proctor as delete; however, that AfD had two articles nominated. It also included discussion for deletion of Kruse Wellwood. I see that the AfD template is still on the Kruse Wellwood article. I assume you concluded that both articles should be deleted. Cheers, Agent 86 (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — Cirt (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ActionTrip Wiki Page Inquiry

Hello,

This is the first time I am writing to you directly. I'd like to say that I see no reason why you would remove the wiki page for ActionTrip.com. The terms some of your admins/editors used to describe ActionTrip.com were "completely unreferenced" and "Just some website with no independent reliable sources." There's clearly some unfounded doubt about credibility here. In response to this, I've offered some of examples of our long history - numerous quotes, links to features, and such, just to give you a rough idea of what the site is about.

- A news excerpt from BioWare's official site for Mass Effect 3! Here's the URL - http://www.bioware.com/archive/mass-effect-3

   Quote:
   02.14.2011
   Mass Effect 3 is Most Wanted by Action Trip
   The fans over at Action Trip were asked to name the games they are most excited for in 2011. The game that came in first? Mass Effect 3!
   Here's the URL to our voting poll - http://www.actiontrip.com/polls.phtml?showpoll=133

- Next, a quote on Bethesda's official web site for Fallout 3 - ActionTrip: "Molding together the retro-style tactical mechanics from Fallout and action-oriented gameplay is no easy task. For now, it all works rather well." - the is from our 2008 E3 Coverage (http://www.actiontrip.com/features/e32008fallout3.phtml).

- Two quotes on BioWare's official web site for Dragon Age Origins here's the URL - http://dragonage.bioware.com/dao/home/accolades/

  Action Trip - 2009 Reader's Choice Game of the Year
  "With a well-written storyline, great atmosphere and old-school RPG gameplay, this title justifies every penny of its $60 price tag."

  Action Trip - 2009 Reader's Choice Game of the Year
  "The game has all the elements you need to immerse yourself in an interesting new fantasy setting."

ActionTrip's comics garnerned tremendous attention, on various topics. Here are some of our successful comics.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/14/weekly-webcomic-wrapup-is-mourning-cathy/ http://wow.joystiq.com/tag/action-trip/

These are just a few examples. Comics were generally a great success and now have a history on AT. We've been posting them for over seven years. Our Warcraft-related comics were also acknowledged both by Blizzard and WoW fans. Here's another example of a successful AT Comic, which was drawn for a competition for Alienware - http://www.futuremark.com/community/competitions/comicstripcompetition/

ActionTrip comics are also featured regularly on MMORPG.com (in the comics section - http://www.mmorpg.com/comics.cfm). In addition, Kotaku.com - one of the most popular video game blogs today - includes our comics in their Sunday Comics update - http://kotaku.com/sunday-comics. Here's an older update, just so you know we've been included in their comics section for a long time - http://kotaku.com/5317186/sunday-comics

On wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV - Play.tm has given the game its "Action game of the Year" award for 2008.

                                               - Action Trip has given the game its "Action game of the Year" award for 2008.
                                               - MTV Game Awards has given the game its "Game of the Year" award for 2008.

References in the world of warcraft wiki page:

^ a b c Matt Leyendecker (2004-12-01). "World of Warcraft Review". ActionTrip. Retrieved 2008-06-25. - World of Warcraft wiki page linking to our review of World of Warcraft.

ActionTrip reviews have been included and quoted on prominent sites such as Gamerankings.com and Metacritic.com We've also been known to appear in Kotaku's Frankereview - http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/09/frankenreview-halo-3-o-d-s-t/ Gamespot also lists us on their web site - http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/haloreach/review.html?mode=web

ActionTrip has also covered major events such as the E3 and Games Convetion in Leipzig (now in Koln), Germany. And has recievied plenty of media coverage from other various publications; quotes from industry veterans such as Gabe Newell were taken from AT - http://www.actiontrip.com/features/gc2007gabenewellinterview.phtml

Similar features on AT include talking to influential people in the industr such as the creator of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed - http://www.actiontrip.com/previews/360/star-wars-the-force-unleashed_i.phtml

One of the most important things you should be aware of is that ActionTrip.com has been a part of the gaming community for over 10 years. We have a solid fan base and respectable traffic. Our success has been acknowledged in 2005, when we were purchased by one of the larger US-based ad sales rep firms, Gorilla Nation (now Evolve Media). The site eventually grew into a multi-million monthly page view operation. The regularly updated ActionTrip Facebook page has 3,420 "likes" at present.

To cut I long story short, the deleted Wiki page for ActionTrip.com was submitted by a devoted fan and we quite liked it. Even so, I respectfully ask you to reconsider and allow me to submit a brand new Wiki Page for ActionTrip. Note that this message is just to give you an idea of what we've done over the years. So, once again, I ask you to allow me to submit a new Wiki page for AT.

Best regards, Ure "Vader" Paul Senior Editor, ActionTrip.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ure Vader Paul (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActionTrip. I think the best course of action now, would be to place a userfied copy in a subpage of your userspace, so you can work on it, as a proposed draft version, in order to attempt to satisfy WP:NOTE. I'm perfectly happy to do that for you, if you so request it. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Cirt. Yes, that sounds good. Let's set up this page and I'd very much appreciate it if you do that. Just so, we're clear on this, this means that you'll copy the old AT Wiki Page and then allow me to edited it on my user page. Is that correct? Ure Vader Paul (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Ure Vader Paul/ActionTrip. — Cirt (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft Page - The Futuristics

Hi Cirt,

I was hoping you could review the recent source addition I made to my draft page below. The article I added is a reliable source that references The Futuristics so I'm hoping I can make it a public article. Please let me know if this is OK. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DerekAC7/The_Futuristics

New source: http://www.djbooth.net/index/tracks/review/game-pot-of-gold/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekAC7 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, does not really look yet like enough secondary source coverage. Also, it'd be easier to analyze if the references were formatted. Try reading WP:CITE and using WP:CIT templates. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok will do thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

Cirt, I do think it needs a little protection, seeing the slow vandalism that's been going on. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested it, at WP:RFPP. We'll see. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello. Would you be able to unlock the page Just Kait, so a redirect can be created for Kaitlyn DiBenedetto? thanks. Tinton5 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Best to request at WP:RFPP. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article question

Hey Cirt. I was referred to you by User:Drmies. I have a quick question about good articles. I had two good articles up for good article nomination, which were Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). They were failed by User:Mattchewbaca in bad faith as you can see at: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mattchewbaca. Do you think I should renominate both of these articles for a second good article nomination or have it as a first nomination since the review by Mattchewbaca was in bad faith? Thanks. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest posting this question to a new section at WT:GAN. — Cirt (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why delete Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine

Why did you delete the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine page? Please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.219.133 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted through WP:AFD process, discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Immunome Research

Perhaps it does have OTRS permission, but it is still an advert no? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's for the normal Wikipedia community processes to determine. Feel free to take appropriate further steps. — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Regarding User:Fastily's comment, I have restored the CSD tag that the author removed. I left a note on the author's talk page, recommending that he follow the process and not delete CSD tags from his own article.
• Regarding the article itself, my inclination with a new article is generally to do what I can to clean it up to meet minimal standards, e.g., James H. Lincoln. When an article, such as Immunome Research has so many strikes against it, I am hard pressed to know where to start other than delete it and recreate a stub from scratch (assuming it meets the appropriate notability guidelines):

1. Promotional in tone and content
2. Essentially a copy/paste from the website
3. Written by someone with an admitted conflict of interest: [2] "s the author is associated with the journal being discussed ... as the first scientific journal in the field of Immunomics, it seems relevant to include the journal in the encyclopedia"
4. I'm not sure it even merits inclusion in WP:JOURNALS - it is not peer reviewed (so far as I can see), and doesn't have any paper distribution (admittedly, not a sole factor for exclusion).

If CSD is declined, I'll nominate it at WP:AFD. Either it is worthy of someone spending time to cleanup (I don't think so, at this point), or it is not.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking a little deeper, the following makes me think the Journal in question is notable. It is just that the current article is a promotional piece, as written: [3].

Copied the foregoing to Talk:Immunome Research#Keep or delete this article, as this seems a better place to continue this discussion about the article. I hope this is OK. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The above plan sounds appropriate, no objections. — Cirt (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Immunome Research

Howdy. Which ticket can I reference for this? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh it's this one [4]. — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

From time to time... I miss the obvious. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

re: barnstar

Thanks a lot! It's great to see work appreciated :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group

Dear Cirt Could you please restore the content of the above page in my user space? I intend to provide reliable sources regarding the significance of this group in creating a peace movement on the island of Cyprus. I also intend to merge its content with another article on Wikipedia, which discussed a major activity of this group. Maryafrika (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Maryafrika/Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group. — Cirt (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mondlango

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mondlango. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwaxia (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notice. — Cirt (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FPoC London Transport

Dear Cirt, I'm not sure why you need help closing FPo discussions and carrying out the promotion steps - you are, after all, a FPo director and the list of closing instructions is quite clear. In fact, you left your message more than 24 hours after I last edited, and more than 48 hours have passed since then, which is hardly an ideal situation. From my watchlist, I see that the portal's nominator has made a start on finishing your half-started job, which is good of him but not something that he should have to do. I would have thought that it would have been sensible either to ask me first whether I wanted to help do your job for you, or do the job yourself once you realised that I hadn't edited for some time after your message. However, as I note that you're not online at the moment (perhaps because of July 4, I know not) I'll see what steps still need doing and finish off for you. Perhaps next time you might want to ask your fellow FPo director to assist if I'm not online. I'm not annoyed, by the way, just slightly puzzled. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, DavidCane had done all the steps required. I'll let you leave him a note of congratulations/thanks in due course. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification about this. I'd seen in the past that you were quite happy for me or other featured portal directors to perform some steps, and for you to carry out others. Your view appears to have changed. As far as timing, don't see it as a urgent process, or an emergency, or a crisis, for some steps to not be done for a short period of time. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, OhanaUnited has never asked me to clerk his closures for him - only you have done, and there are no other FPo Directors. I don't mind helping every so often, and I have done a good deal of tidying up of pages connected to the FPo processes without being asked, but asking me to finish your to-do list seemingly every time you promote a portal is perhaps unusual behaviour for a FxC director. (Also you're increasing the number of steps you leave for me e.g. in February it was only the last step you wanted me to do because you found it "annoying", this time it was nearly everything.) I think that it's the closer's responsibility to take the necessary steps, whether at FPoC or elsewhere (and, for the record, I have closed discussions at FPoC and FSC, and FLC a long time ago, so I speak from experience: all of them have a number of annoying aspects!)

As for whether or not it's urgent to take all the necessary steps, obviously urgent/emergency/crisis are all relative terms (and are all your words, not mine) but if you don't leave a note on the nomination that it has been closed as successful, and don't complete all the other steps, people may be confused as to what is going on until the bot processes the close and adds the star - see this question from Tony1 after I had left a message for the Signpost team about this portal's promotion. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideally it would be best for a bot to perform all steps except for the first 2. — Cirt (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, there's a fair amount of tedious stuff there... Would User:GimmeBot be able to add any to its "to-do" list? Incidentally, I'll be quite happy to take all the steps necessary when I close P:SCOTUS as successful, as I anticipate being in a position to do in due course after you nominate it... no need for you to promote it yourself if I'm around! Bencherlite^Talk 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Will ask. And thanks! — Cirt (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Arif Khan Page

Why did you delete the following page: Arif_Khan_(politician) ???

He's the upcoming candidate for an Alberta riding in the next provincial election, and the public needs to know this information. I included three external references, what more do you need?

Thanks, -- Jasen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasenator (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Was deleted through WP:AFD process, after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Khan (politician). — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Security Now drv

I was going to start a drv for this article but I noticed first line is to discuss with deleting admin. Two issues with this deletion, one is that I believe it to be notable, however that is up for debate if I had a chance to comment. I have this article on my watch list however no changes had made other that deletion in the recent period. I suspect therefore the article did NOT have an AFD tag on it, and thus there was no AFD discussion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Restored. Relisted. Back at AFD. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

my apology. I see it was tagged for AFD on June 27th. So I guessed I missed that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheri Fink (children's author)

Hi

I think you may have missed The Little Rose when you closed this one. Mtking (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done! — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Holla atcha!

How are you doing Cirt? Hey can you give me a list of the Savage books, for which I haven't given you the Book sales? Sorry for being late. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not editing those articles anymore. — Cirt (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. — Cirt (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hex Girls again

What's up? As you might recall we had a previous discussion about your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hex Girls as delete. To reiterate, I thought that in light of the sources I'd found and added to the article, that concerns about lack of sources had been met and "the most drastic action needed here is at most maybe a merge to another Scooby-Doo related article, but certainly not complete deletion." However, other editors and yourself disagreed and thought deletion was the best outcome and you deleted it. But I see today that some other editor(s) has merged Hex Girls information into List of Scooby-Doo characters.[5] My first instinct after seeing this was to turn the The Hex Girls article you deleted into a redirect to List_of_Scooby-Doo_characters#The_Hex_Girls and then improve upon the section there, however I can see how that could be seen as disregarding the AFD consensus since this recommendation was rejected there, and I can see how this could turn into another gigantic waste of my time after it all gets deleted again. So, I thought I'd come here first and ask: Do you have a problem with me turning The Hex Girls into a redirect of List_of_Scooby-Doo_characters#The_Hex_Girls and improving that section? That is, can I now go ahead and work on my recommendation to "merge to another Scooby-Doo related article" even though that suggestion was rejected? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start a new section at the talk page of List_of_Scooby-Doo_characters to address that. — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to address my question there? My question is pretty specific to you: Do you have a problem with this? Are you going to delete that redirect if I create it? Are you going to delete work I'm considering putting into List_of_Scooby-Doo_characters#The_Hex_Girls? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)