This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cirt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Actually I want it to say "1" with no link at all, there already is a Featured Topic userbox where you can put the names of the topics, I thought it was one were you could just but the number, like there is for lists and articles. Anyway, I'll think about the images to use, probably tomorrow as I'm trying to keep my German revision in my head right now and so can't really think much. Gran219:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I'll get on to it now. Incidentally, do you think that for bands, listing an image of the band as a whole or having images of the individual members, or both, is th best option? Gran221:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't hurt just to mock it up first, to see what it looks like and garner opinions. Anyway, I'll complete it up to season 8, but then I have to go for a bit. Any new image I add I'll specify the role and episode in the caption, but updating a majority of the others will take a while. Gran222:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cirt, thanks for your recent comment on the FAC Baltimore City College. I am trying to implement your suggestion and move the public domain images to the Commons. As a test, I have moved Image:City College2.jpg to the Commons. Could you check to make sure that I have followed the process correctly? Thank you, Golem88991 (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He, just noticed you've got the "good articles open tasks" template on your page! That brings me back to the days I was much more active... I made it (and surprisingly it has hardly changed since, just been updated!) mainly because it looked cool and vaguely useful, didn't realise anyone would actually use it other than myself - nice to see the effort's not been in vain. (Actually also to my surprise I've just noticed that people are updating WP:GAS as well...I wondered if WP:GA was dead in the water since User:Worldtraveller retired, but it seems to have become a very resilient wiki-meme!) TheGrappler (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I have another article listed at LOCE already, so I will list Cold Feet once that's gone through. Brad (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion! I figured that there was something off about that article, but I couldn't figure out what it was, even after I re-did the plot section. Cheers, CP16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
GAN
Hey Cirt, I saw your comments on the GAN page concerning Neuro-linguistic programming. You were completely right. Was there any reason you felt you couldn't take on the article yourself? Quick-fails are fairly straightforward, so if you want a tutorial I can give one. Happy editing, VanTuckytalk —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Thanks for reviewing the article as part of the GAN process. User:Alientraveller seems to have addressed most of the points that you raised on the talk page. The only remaining point is the use of citation templates - personally I find the things more hassle than they're worth and, so long as they remain optional, I'll probably avoid 'em in any other articles. Regardless, please feel free to take nother glance over to see if any issues remain unaddressed. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I very much enjoy ALL of your assistance...but it all looks minor, so i'll do a brief run through of what needs to be fixed, and then you could double check it when i'm done. Ctjf83talk20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i fixed most of the things, except "expand the lead" which i have no idea what else to put, and "better description of the murder house" i don't know what else he wants for that. I won't be offended if you change any of my work either. Ctjf83talk20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
a user took out the baby pic, and sax pic of Lisa, i readded the sax one, since it is a key component of her character...should we add a sax section, to show that the pic should be left in...i know how these anti-fair use people are now Ctjf83talk20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
is another one ok with you? "Come on, come on, we all have to pitch in and eat your father's share." i think that is funny, as no 4 people could eat his share, lol Ctjf83talk21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya, we'll see how it works out...I'm getting coaching from Mr.Z-man. It isn't going as fast as I'd like it to...but then again, I'm extremely impatiant. Well if you're feeling bored someday...I'm trying to get Davenport, Iowa and Iowa to GA status...I've done a major clean up on the Iowa page. So if you're bored and have tons of free time someday, can you look it over, and just do a quick run through and see what needs improving? Ctjf83talk22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I did a bit of work on the most recent articles. Let me know if that is what you are looking for or would rather see something else. Should I notify the nominators of those articles that fail to meet the basic criteria of the issue with their nom? spryde | talk16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. You and a couple of others are some of the regulars around DYK so I value your opinion. NPOV in my view means that if it is a bold claim (oldest, largest, evil, best, worst, etc) that the source is mainstream, reliable, and actually states that. Hence the Australia golf club hook with the "oldest" claim not being vetted. I left a note and a suggestion instead. My words are not final but I can help out the people selecting the hooks by doing the basic leg work for them. If they feel that a hook isn't NPOV, I would appreciate any feedback on that! spryde | talk16:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Great idea! I don't know of any people off hand, maybe ask at the Help Desk, or ask someone who's created a good vector image or something. Gran217:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's no commentary or production info relating to it. Its just the clip that aired on The Tonight Show as it was. Gran208:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would love to help. Just tell me what needs doing. I will warn you, my grammor and spelling are lacking, but I will do all I can so you don't have to go over my edits. are directors comentaries good sources?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Aw shucks, I hope we all just look good helping each other, we're doing a great job so far improving the quality of a great number of articles. Thanks so much! Cirt (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.
sounds good....i dunno what else he wants for a house description...unless u just put a Victorian mansion, or w/e it is Ctjf83talk18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
well, what else should i put for the house, i dont know what he wants!?, btw, i'll do it in 2 hrs after the new fox shows Ctjf83talk00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
do you wanna see if you can find more about Phil...that is more your specialty...i asked him what more he wants about the house, we'll see when he gets back to me Ctjf83talk01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
i added a "production" section, so if you wanna look it over, along with the plot. I couldn't find anything for a CR section though Ctjf83talk20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL that's cause I can't tell whose voice it is. I could rewatch it later, and try to figure it out, but I'm leaving in 15 mintues or so, and will be back in a few hours Ctjf83talk20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
numbers 2 and 3 are obvious, but i understand we still need a source....none of that is mentioned in commentary at all Ctjf83talk21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Impressive, I've seen The Simpsons on there before, but never the episode list. Anyway, I think I will do Phil's page, or at least try. It'd be a great tribute to him if his page was on the main page on the tenth anniversary of his death. So would you be interested in helping out? An FA biography will be hard work, but it should be fun. So what do you think? Gran218:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
so what exactly needs a ref? I mean some stuff is obvious to everyone, so does it still need a ref? I mean there is no ref to the video being modeled after that kid. Scorpion added it back, after I removed it last night. He never answered me questioning him adding what he wants, and removing what he wants. Anyway, what needs to be sourced, and what doesn't? Ctjf83talk21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
ya, i saw that, and know his edits weren't in good faith, frankly, i dont know what his problem is lately...but i'm not gonna get u in the middle Ctjf83talk23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll probably provide my input in the form of Comment, instead of Support. It would have been a different scenario if I had previously commented at a Peer Review, and then someone asked for my input on a Featured Discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
Reply
That's partially why I'm doing it, because I noticed that you left out some great quotes and some characters, so far I've added quotes from Scorpio and Frank Grimes. -- Scorpion042218:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried to have a mix of seasons, but it's hard because obviously there is a bit of a quality drop as the seasons go on. I don't think the number of quotes from seasons really matters, as long as you don't have more than one from a single episode and you have a variety of characters. There are about a dozen other characters that we should have quotes from, but I couldn't think of any good ones from them off the top of my head. -- Scorpion042219:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I've finished Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series. Its nothing really special, but have you got any suggestions as to how to improve it further? And, I don't know about you, but I really think we need a navigational template for all of the Primetime Emmy awards which have pages. Gran214:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll help you out. There already is one for the actual ceremonies, but its probably a better idea to create a whole new template for the categories, rather than adding it to the other one. Gran218:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How's this? I based it on the Academy Awards ones, and didn't include any award that doesn't have a page. Anyway, see if you can improve it, before I physically create it. Gran219:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I removed most of the references in the plot summary, and moved them to the hidden note I put at the top of the Plot section (read in "edit" mode). I don't think you need to repeat all the refs in the Plot summary, since the section is simply a summary of the show's script, and there are no statements of opinion or analysis. I think this makes it easier to read for the average Wikipedia reader, and also conforms it more to all the other plot summaries on Wikipedia. Let me know if you disagree. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, in general, I don't think there's any reason *not* to wikilink words that are part of quoted text, unless you wouldn't link the same words outside of a quote. Hope that's helpful. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It meets the basic critera: Sourced using WP:V and WP:RS; NPOV; Length. Hell, we could have had a hook for Richard Harris or Brandon Lee and it would have been right at one time. As an aside, I picked a hell of a time to start "clerking". I got handed three major projects at work that are due by the end of the year. spryde | talk02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You or scorpion or someone else wanna do something about this anti-image guy removing all of our pics from that page. There isn't many to begin with, and i know we can have some. I'm about to 3RR him Ctjf83talk05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping a quick note to say "thank you very much!" for supporting me in my successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support from those who participated, and will ensure that I use the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox(arf!)06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you perhaps wanna try to get this up to GAC? Fr4zer was working on it, but he doesn't have any contributions to wiki at all since December 3. I'll let you do this on your own if you want to do it, cause i really hate this episode...unless you really want my help Ctjf83talk07:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really interested in that article past working on the Reception section. Basically I was just having fun looking at the articles at WP:DOH/TOPIC that were not yet GAs, and touching up the Reception sections from whatever sources I could find. But at this point I'm just content to wait for the WP:GAC backlog to move along. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
Watchlist
I didn't wanna keep adding to that for my questions...how do u propose i get all these articles in ABC order....is it possible with AWB, r u even familiar with AWB? Ctjf83talk08:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
u wanna add the watchlist stuff to the project page, i'm trying, but can't get it...oh and add my user box, that i'm so proud of!! Ctjf83talk09:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure what could/should be added to make 1500 characters in paragraphs. Why doesn't the list text count? If it does, it's about 4000 characters of prose not including references. RB97208:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this article. I've attempted to address the issues you raised - replacing some more questionable sources with reliable secondary sources, merging some of the smaller subsections, doing a little re-wording, removing some of the fair-use images and updating the fair-use rationales on those remaining - and was hoping you might be willing to take another look at the article when you get the time. Thanks again! Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, Cirt. You may remember, but a few weeks ago, you performed a GA review of the above article (article talk page), I have addressed all of the concerns/issues raised, so if you wish to review it and make a second judgement on its GA fail/pass; please do so. If you would rather I went to WP:GAC, I will — however, I brought it here, just incase you wished to perform a GA review. Qst (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guru of Sex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).
Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless(speak)08:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spj logo.jpg
I didn't ask for it to be put on the portal page and I do not believe it fits a fair use for it. I will remove it from the portal. Please remove tags or evaluate if fair use is good for the SPJ article page. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand
Let me be clear: I agree with you that it should not be on the portal. I didn't add it, and I think it gotta go. However, I also do not want this to be dragged out to a big conversation. I will, however, fight that the FUR is correct for SPJ. I wish it was easier to differentiate invalid fair use claims, because I didn't even consider the use on the portal. However, re-tagging for deletion and pointing at something that we all agree doesn't belong is kinda frustrating. Is it possible that you could handle the issue with the portal and make sure they do not put the image in again, because I don't want to fight you retagging when the image itself is perfectly fine for SPJ. While the other use doesn't belong, I don't think the image should be deleted over it, just the invalid use on the other page. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
cropped photo
Society of Professional Journalists logo, cropped from a photo of a "welcome journalists" sign at the Region 10 SPJ conference, Kennewick, WA, March 2006 -- If this is the case, why not just upload the entire "welcome journalists" sign to WikiCommons instead, and just use the larger whole image in the SJP article? If, as you say, you are the author of that particular image, and the logo is only a small part of the larger image, it may be acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Cirt (talk)
True. But it still would serve the same purpose as taking a photo of a logo, and basically need a fair use rationale still. That's basically the key issue, is because it is a non-free logo. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
possibility of re-adding tag
Are you contesting the use on SPJ , or the use on that portal? The portal is no longer an issue, I removed the image someone else put in. So to get to the point, are you contesting the fair use for SPJ ? Guroadrunner (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
On what basis do you contest the use on SPJ ? Also, what suggestions do you have for improving things so things are satisfactory? Guroadrunner (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Dislike of image name
Your name of Image:SPJ logo 2 for cirt.jpg with "for cirt" at the end is inappropriate. I request that you tag the image for deletion with { {db-author} }, and re-upload it with a more appropriate name, like simply, "SPJ logo 2". Thanks.
Hi Cirt, I feel like you're badgering me at every turn on this. I uploaded it for you specifically, primarily. It's true I did it on the fly. I don't have time to be spending all this time on things like this. If this image becomes the main image for this article, I'll get a {{db-author}} for both of the named images and consider reuploading with a better name, if I really really want to and assuming I won't get badgered at every turn with regard to it. This conversation is going rather long for me. I know you have concerns about things but I dislike this sort of bureaucratic badgering, just so we're clear. As Wikipedia is GNU, you are free to make changes that you want, and that includes working with fair use rationales and going through the image name change process. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, if this keeps going and going and going, I may just need to {{db-author}} on both images to make everyone satisfied. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I like your solution
The best solution at this point in my opinion would be for you to tag both images with {{db-author}}, and use an image instead with a verifiable hyperlink from an external site, like [1], or [2]. If you want, after those two images are deleted I can even upload an image from one of those sites myself, and also add a good detailed fair use rationale. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your messages but I don't need to be taught how to use Wikipedia. We all make mistakes, but you are treating me like a newbie and I do NOT appreciate it. Thank you for understanding. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but hey, forgive and forget. I just happen to be sensitive to being treated like a newbie on multiple small issues when I have more than two years' experience at Wikipedia, and I do consider it patronization. When editing Wikipedia, I aim to move quickly, not code perfectly. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of those editors who manouevers around to try and get the coding right, creating a whole lot of diffs. Plus, I don't use sandboxes which causes more edits. Apologies for being harsh. I consider the matter closed, however, and I don't want to keep you any longer than necessary. Time is money! :-) Guroadrunner (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm taking over this episode for Gran2 because he doesn't think he can get to it any time soon. You wanna do the recep and CR for me? Or just clean up after I'm done? Ctjf83talk19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you would mind reviewing Hockey Hall of Fame for me. There is a huge backlog in the sports section of WP:GAC and I don't really feel like waiting two months for a review. Thanks, Scorpion042220:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That's actually what I'm doing. I'm in the process of reading Doping at the 2007 Tour de France, and a few days ago I reviewed a bunch from that section. I used to be a hardcore GAC reviewer (I think I reviewed 20 in one week at one point) but I kind of grew tired of it. -- Scorpion042220:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your suggestions for the Portal:Tennis featured portal candidate discussion. I appologise as I came off defensive at the start - I just didn't fully understand what you were suggesting, but in retrospect your ideas were excellent and have certainly made the portal better. I can safely say, I look forward to working with you again in the future, and might have to pop by for a quick review before I take any other portals to a featured discussion. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite14:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right about her looking like a Ferengi- not much of a fan of star trek myself - although I do enjoy science fiction. Beggars in Spain is a personal favourite.
You know that the "the name "Ferengi" is an Arabic name for European traders, or for Westerners in general"? - (according to the article)?
--Kiyarrllston00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion tagging of transcluded pages
When you tag a page which is/might be transcluded in an other page, please place the tag between a <noinclude> tag and a </noinclude> tag. This is in order to prevent the tags from showing up on other pages, which transclude the page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Trailblazers100 is trying to add CRs to Realty Bites and Talk:Lisa's Sax. I feel it is in good faith. On Realty he said the song is Luka, by who ever. I'm just rambling, why don't you read both talk pages, and you might be able to respond or help more, you're good at that. And please, for the love of whoever, respond on my talk page!! :) Ctjf83talk19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I mean is it good enough that someone knows the name of the song to list it? I mean all American's know if they sang the national anthem, so we don't need a source for that, I know that song is different, but it is still the point. Perhaps we need to start a CR discussion on the project page. Like I remember someone else saying recently, IGN, or BBC site don't know any more than we do, what the writers, producer, directors, etc were thinking when they put something in Ctjf83talk20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, since that user said it, it got me thinking. Why should we even put that IGN or BBC say it is a reference to "whatever". Realistically the only things we should list are things that come off the DVD commentary, or in an interview with a writer, director, producer did with a reliable source. But if we did it that way, most episodes after season 10 would have nothing. I dunno, it just seems like some double standard to me or something, you know what i mean Ctjf83talk20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with sourcing, but realistically IGN and BBC aren't really reliable on CR's, but I guess I'll still use them too. So is it good enough to list a song, if it is popular, and most people know what song it is. See that is where there is a fine line. I mean I've never heard of this Luka song, but that doesn't mean it isn't popular and well known Ctjf83talk20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Scorpion finally looked over Das Bus I submitted it, but you never looked it over, perhaps you would like to now? A user put 3 questions about it on the talk page, I fixed the second one, but asked him questions on his talk about the other 2, cause i was a bit confused. Ctjf83talk20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think I will register. I've been banned 2 times for merely refusing to bow to unfair. random, inconsistent and biased decisions of wikipedia's myriad legion of little tyrants, armed with a ban button and ability to lock articles. They act unilaterally, disregard logical and rational debate and act in a dictatorial fashion rather than the democratic model wiki purports to follow. Therefore, I edit where I see fit, how I see fit, and mostly work under their radar. Wikipedia has far too much power, via its command of search engine rankings, to disseminate information, and I consider it my duty to correct crappy and propagandistic information when I see it. Its easy enough to get a new IP when my current is banned by the fascist, micro-testicled cretins who remove my contributions. I'm quite patient, have much time on the internet, and obsessively bookmark and revisit the articles and I am usually successful in adding my very pertinent and important info in a lasting manner. Using tangential articles to get the facts out works well also.
So, as you are merely a representative of those controlling, censorial, power-addled, petty little bastards, I bid you a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.83 (talk • contribs)
Hi. You indicated on WP:GAN about ten days ago you were going to review it, but so far there hasn't been a review. Do you still intend to review it? (If so, don't fail for lack of reviews, as there aren't any I can find even on Google News) Will(talk)05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I did a clean up on it, do you wanna see if you can find another source for the reception, that is more your area, than mine Ctjf83talk06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a reminder that you tagged this article with the {{GAReview}} template on 12/22/2007, 11 days ago. Please complete your review, or remove the tag so that someone else may review it. If you are uncertain of whether the article is GA or not, you may also add the {{GA2ndopinion}} template to the nomination listing, asking another editor to provide an opinion. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, you are fast!!! I'm not even done reading through the article! I am really impressed with the article in general - I never would have imagined that someone could put together such a comprehensive and interesting article about a story in a magazine. You did a great job, and once I finish the article I'll be changing my FA vote :) Karanacs (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Wow, I'm so glad you did that bioterror item, and this point you raise regarding the Osho puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash
was nice to see because, yes, sorting this page out is going to be a lot of work, I'm keeping an eye on it, and I have reinstated the link to the bioterror item as it had been intentionally broken. Have also raised issues regarding the use of external links in the main body of text to OSHO videos on youtube, which are, for all intents and purposes, advertisements for their various trademarked mediation techniques, also, if the word OSHO is a registered trademark, this is effectively a trading company, I deal with this on the discussion page over there, plus other issues relating to POV and Notability (20 references are from books by Osho, and I would guess published by the OIF, and 2 are autobiographical). I have also added a link to a documentary I found on Youtube, but I don't know how long it will last, please watch if you have time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Ck8pLuyu0Semitransgenic (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with some of what you have said, but I've got other things on my plate right now and don't want to deal with the article on Osho at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Check this out
I just discovered that about a dozen English Wiki Simpsons articles were copied basically word for word into the Simple English Wikipedia. Homer Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Ned Flanders, The Simpsons shorts, List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, Marge Simpson and Lisa Simpson were all word for word copies of the English wiki articles (although some were much older versions, for example the Simpsons shorts article was done before it was made an FL). Several of the articles have been cleaned up now, but it's pretty funny to see the great lengths the user went to to make it not look like a copy and paste job because he waited weeks (sometimes months) between articles. On the Flanders article he pasted sections to the page bit by bit and even added a construction tag to it. The funny part is that he didn't even try to make the language simple and it contains words like nonsensical babbling, unbearable piousness, humorless fascists and cynicism and Homer Simpson actually made it to FA there with such simple words as intolerant, dysfunctional and Aristotelian. -- Scorpion042201:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm basically a rotten editor, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Kiva (organization) and help make it at least presentable. There's not much to cite besides news stories and the website. It's big references are a couple of pages in Bill Clinton's book, Giving, and other publicity from a Frontline story and being on the Oprah Show with Clinton. Interested? :-) RichardF (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to nominate an article for the main page, but I wasn't aware that the nomination for a day like, February 1st, could be so early. I was looking at the nomination page today, and I saw that someone had already took it. I wanted the page, as the article I am nominating is an album that came out on that day. So, could I nominate the article for the 2nd, and it show up during part of the 1st? Because in my time zone (GMT -5), I believe it would, but I may be thinking of the 31st of January instead. I'm too confused to tell which one it would be, so I figured you may know. xihix(talk) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Fix
can you go here and fix my number 10 reference? for some reason the date comes up red, and I formated it like every other date, so I dunno whats up Ctjf83talk21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand you've always been interested in improving that article. Tell me, do you have a specific structure/content organisation intended? Alientraveller (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It'd be difficult, but ideally each religion would have its own section. I just saw your comment at the WikiProject talk page, and I know about your FAs with the religion focused episodes. I happen to own The Gospel According to The Simpsons, so I could help out. Alientraveller (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
For The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, are there no more recourses other than the ones you gave me? I'm going to start making the cultural references, theme (no idea how I'll be able to achieve that), and reception. I also find it hard to believe that there is no mention in Planet Simpson! It's such a large book... xihix(talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Cirt. I wanted to tell you that I finished up the article and nominated it for WP:GA. I was wondering if you could take a look at it to fix any grammar issues you might see, or any fixes at all. If not, then it's cool. xihix(talk) 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I was in the middle of doing a review of the article when I unexpectedly had to run off for the evening. I'd like to eventually work Frank Sinatra Has a Cold into FA shape, and so I'm very interested in the work you've done there. Hopefully I'll have time to do a review this evening! --JayHenry (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, sorry I'm rather busy tonight... but will try to respond at the FAC later on or tomorrow. I personally am not a fan of "sticking points" and think they should only be used for really important things like, you know, POV or uncited improbable claims. My comments at the FAC are just questions and suggestions. I like to ask questions just to make sure they're asked. If the answer's not out there, it's not out there. No reason to oppose an FAC in my mind. But always good to ask, I think. That'd be my "vision" for how FAC should work, just a collegial discussion about different aspects of the article. No bolded opposes, no confrontations. Just kicking around ideas. That'd be nice... --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I recently haven't received some positive feedback, but I still enjoy reviewing articles. I may be more strict then some other reviewers, but I want articles to be the best they can be (at least from what I can see). It is unbearable to see the huge backlog at GAN, so I'm doing my best for the rest of my winter break to try and bring it down. I want to commend you for doing a good job on addressing all of the issues I raise so quickly, you do a great job with your articles. Keep up the good work, and if you can convince others to help review articles at any time, that'd be great. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look at it first thing when I get up tomorrow. I need to get to bed, I'm sure the sun will be coming up soon! It probably shouldn't take too long to complete the review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been in regular contact with you now, over at least two months, and I've become more accustomed, and more and more impressed with your contributions. Would you consider adminship? Of course, if you'd like to decline, that's up to you. Regards, Rudget.19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. I wish to stay in contact with you though, at least over at portals. And well done another GA. :) Best, Rudget.19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, I'm a little concerned my recent comment on the TfD page might seem out of step with what I said at Talk:WPOR, so I want to explain. You initially asked about reverting, but your nomination is for deletion. Deletion is a bigger step, and it doesn't seem to me that we're quite to the point where it's clear what should be deleted, and what kept. My preference would be to sort it out within WPOR, and then go to AfD if we have established a strong consensus…at which point, it ought to sail through. Let me know if there's something I'm missing. -Pete (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay but the thing is, there's really nothing wrong with making new stuff after consensus has been reached. Consensus is supposed to evolve as people come up with new ideas. The discussion you reference precedes Hubert's new ones, so it doesn't take them into account. I disagree that TfD is the right place for this discussion right now – or if it is, I think the nomination needs to give a more thorough background on the issue. Without that, I suspect that many editors, like me, won't be informed enough to weigh in intelligently. In my view, that's not a recipe for effective consensus assessment, regardless of what the guidelines around TfD nominations may be. I have seen much more productive collaboration take place, by and large, on WikiProject pages and article talk pages, than in the deletion debates. If strong consensus for deletion emerges outside of the WP space, then deletion is a quick and painless procedure, that doesn't get anybody's hackles up. -Pete (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff, we'll see where it goes! I would like to add that my own disagreement is only the most respectful sort as well ;) Hope you get into expanding History of Oregon as well, I think your expertise would be very helpful there. -Pete (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
GA review
You may notice that I have put The Last Temptation of Krust and Lisa's Sax under my wing, so to speak. But due to personal matters, could I delay the review until about Thursday/Friday? I may get a chance to do it before then, but I'll have to see it as it goes. I would also like to take this oppurtunity to say a very big thank you for your continued support over at FPOC. Your decision in the poll for FPOC directors, really did give me confidence. Yours, Rt.20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is almost ready for a GAC (in fact, all it needs is for the plot section to be rewritten), I'm just waiting for Zagalejo to listen to the commentaries and edit it, because we're trying to get it to FA. -- Scorpion042201:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget!
Dear Cirt, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this can be seen as soliciting a review. If that's discouraged, ignore this. The Preity Zinta article has recently been nominated for GA status by me. I did a bit to clean up the language on a draft userpage, and I think the editor who is primarily responsible for the article is reviewing those changes now. In any event, if when he's done you might be willing to review the admittedly long article, if it hasn't already been reviewed, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know such was possible. I like that idea a lot, particularly as it could help remove some of the stumbling blocks that might still exist. Thank you very much. And, if as you indicated, the formal reviews can take a while, no rush. Thanks again. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. A custom indentation string can be passed using the indent = parameter (which defaults to ** if not specified). Миша1318:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).
I had a severe internet connection problem last night right in the middle of my promotion process. I kept checking the connection for 2 hours straight and it still wasn't fixed when I get to bed. I'll go back and finish what I left off today. OhanaUnitedTalk page15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I currently have an article up as a FAC and so far only one person has given their view on it (and withdrawn their opinions at that). As it is part of WP:COMEDY, I was wondering if you could give your view on it. The article is Kevin and Kell. Here is the candidate page. Cheers! ISD (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. I will talk to Holbrook about the image after the nomination is over. ISD (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Tale of a Tub
Joel has made a note about not "voting" early. Many FARs have heated debate immediately after nomination. I generally just let these fizzle. The process is long and hopefully someone will pick up the page and work on it. Marskell (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the Preity Zinta discussion page. It's greatly appreciated. And just let me tell you that the reassessment was not fair (that's according to me). The article came with over 25 supports on the FAC, and all these guys who opposed its promotion, voted to delist it on the GAR. So it was delisted. Now, after substantial copyediting from User:Dwaipayanc and John Carter, it looks even better. Thanks for the comments. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
FAR
I have struck my vote, and responded to one of your concerns. I'm leaving this note here since you angrily said you were unwatching the page due (at least in part) to my vote. I am new to the FA game, so I apologize for not realizing what I had done was out-of-process. Regards, -- BellwetherBC20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I appreciate what you did, and that you recognize that it was out-of-process, but I've had enough with the general lack of process, people refusing to discuss specific points of WP:OR sentences and speak in generalizations about the article only, and lack of participation from an outside FAR reviewer - and I'm no longer involved with that. Thanks for dropping me the note though. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
Having abandoned the discussion -- and however you may feel about it, there was quality, good-faith discussion happening there -- is it appropriate for the nomination to stand? Again, being new to the FA process, I'm genuinely not sure of the procedures. If a nominator summarily withdraws from the discussion, shouldn't the nomination be withdrawn? -- BellwetherBC21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. You just accused Lar, myself, and multiple other good-faith editors of contributing in bad faith. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, as I've never been less than civil toward you, and I've attempted to explain my positions to you. Basically my positions are that no (or few) citations, does not mean an article should be delisted; and, a reviewer that wishes to nominate a work of literature for delisting based chiefly on OR (you also attacked the quality of writing in your nom, but have sinced focused on OR) should have at the very least read the book before nominating it based upon these grounds. It's frustrating to have my contributions referred to as "not good faith." -- BellwetherBC21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, I apologize, stricken. I do not, however, think that reading the book is a requirement, because that in and of itself would mean one would have to do Original Research. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
Correct me if I'm wrongly apprehending your meaning, but are you claiming that reading a book that you're writing an article about constitutes original research? -- BellwetherBC21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are using the book itself as a source (in any other section than a synopsis of the book), then yes, absolutely would be WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
(undent & EC) Wow. Your last post is truly illuminating, though, as it shows that you have greatly expanded the definition of what actually constitutes original research. If you actually believe what you posted there, I don't know how much more we have to discuss. Do you really believe that there are no aspects of a book that are so patently obvious that they wouldn't need to be sourced? (I had initially wondered in this post how anyone was supposed to write a plot summary, but apparently you realized the fallacy of at least that portion of the argument, so I removed that portion.) -- BellwetherBC21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
One last thing: are you contending that a person could write an entire article on a work of literature (save the plot summary) having never read the work. I'm sorry, but that seems silly on the face of it. -- BellwetherBC21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course that's not what I meant. Of course there may be some portions that are "patently obvious" - but this is getting into a very very generalized discussion, again something that I had had a problem with at the FAR. No one save for Haukurth (talk·contribs) responded to any of my specific points about specific sentences from the article. They only wanted to argue and overgeneralize about WP:OR in general about the entire article, as opposed to specific sentences within the article. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
One last thing: are you contending that a person could write an entire article on a work of literature (save the plot summary) having never read the work. I'm sorry, but that seems silly on the face of it. -- What? That is exactly the opposite of what I mean. Save for the plot summary/synopsis section, ideally to avoid WP:OReverything else in the article should be backed up to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
(Reply to EC) I think you misunderstood. That's what I thought you meant. You seemed to be saying you could (and perhaps even should) write the entire article without having read the book. ("Save the plot summary" meant "except for the plot summary.") That seems very odd to me.
(Last) I think the only thing that those who quickly sprang to the defense of this wonderful article were saying is that if you had read the book, you would realize that your concerns about OR were unfounded. To my mind, that is dealing with these concerns, albeit in a blanket fashion. You listed 20+ "problems" with one of the finer articles on a work of literature on the project. You also claimed the writing was in some way deficient. You should have expected some pushback, and perhaps (as Lar noted) approached it in a different way. I don't think it's out of line at all for people to question whether a person who noms such a fine article for delisting has read the work in question. As I noted in the discussion at FAR, I tested your hypothesis, and had two of my students read the article blind. Neither have read the work, nor will they be soon. I did not give them any background on it. Both enjoyed the article tremendously, and were not confused at all by the lack of inline cites. I think you're just wrong here. But I also think that you are acting in good-faith, fully believing that the article (as beautiful as many think it is) is riddled with OR and shoddy writing. Therefore, as we seem to be at loggerheads, perhaps now would be a good time to agree to disagree? -- BellwetherBC21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent, again) Bellwether BC (talk·contribs), I thank you for being so respectful and kind to me in your comments. Yes, I do think that if one has enough secondary sources, you could write an article about a subject matter without primary source material. Need one have directly experienced a historical event in order to write about it based on secondary sources? So, if we have to agree to disagree on this issue, that's unfortunate, but respectfully, acceptable. Thanks for acknowledging that my FAR nom was in good faith. As for my original assertion about lack of "brilliant" writing, this is backed up by the WP:OR points I made afterwards, for it is my belief that "brilliant" writing cannot take place if it is mostly all WP:OR. In any event, it is most interesting that even in this debate with you, right now, on my talk page, you have yet to bring up a single specific point that I mentioned from the top of my FAR nom. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
Refuting your premise (that the writing was less than brilliant, and riddled with OR) deals directly with your points, though not in the manner you wished to see happen. I don't grant the very premise of your nomination, which negates the need for me to proceed point-by-point through your list of 20+ examples of what you categorize as "OR." You have a distinctly different undestanding of what actually constitutes original research with regards to literature articles. That is fine, but I would contend that perhaps opening a true discussion--not a review, which has a higher probability of drama-- would have been a much better option. Regards, -- BellwetherBC21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to one of the specific points you raised on the FAR discussion page. I look forward to your response. Nandesuka (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Cirt, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do my best to revert vandalism, I guess this will make it easier to do so with more active things like Featured Articles on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article, with lots of anon-ip vandalism and the like. More importantly, however, there should be some sort of fast "rollback" function, which quickly reports these vandals to WP:AIV, and also places warnings on their talkpage in the appropriate manner. Is there something like that yet? Cirt (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
That would be WP:TWINKLE, which helps send fast reports to AIV and places warning templates on talk pages, but it may not work depending on which browser you use. The rollback feature is simply a rollback button to aid in reverting vandalism, but not to send reports to AIV or to warn users. Acalamari23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a drop-down menu on the side of screen to quickly type in a report, and it will send the report to AIV immediately; and with warnings, again, I think there's a drop-down menu where you can select a warning, and it sends it to the user you wish to warn. I don't know exactly, as I don't use Twinkle (doesn't work in my browser). You may want to ask someone who uses Twinkle, as they should be able to tell you how Twinkle works better than I can: all I know is that it does make AIV and warnings easier than manual reports to AIV or warnings. Acalamari23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will check it out, I seem to be doing more and more reverting vandalism and warning users lately, might as well start reporting more of them to WP:AIV as well. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
That's fine then, but remember that Twinkle doesn't work with Internet Explorer, and since I use IE, that's why I don't use Twinkle. Good luck with rollback. :) Acalamari23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, it looks like you have a really nice handle in that article. You've used a lot of print sources (I assume via a subscription-only database), so I don't know how much more you'll be able to find. I've looked at Film Index International, and I've put together a list of resources from there: User:Erik/Bowfinger. I don't know how much will be of use. There may be additional resources in film magazines, but these are the hardest to dig out. I'll try to check with the databases I can access to see if there's anything further. I may not get back to you so quickly as I have a busy weekend ahead of me. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that most films that have some kind of presence at the box office will have a fair amount of critical reaction. Even for a film like Surf Ninjas, there was a lot of critical reaction despite so little production information. It's possible that Bowfinger may not have much to it -- sometimes films are not explored for their production value. I only copied and pasted these citations quickly this morning. Now I've been able to dig up a few articles. They're at the subpage, commented out. Hope you can make good use of them! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at the A Tale of a Tub FAR was intense and vigorous on both sides. I wanted to drop you a line to let you know that for me, it's never personal, and that if we cross paths again in the project, I would look forward to working together productively with you. Best regards, -- BellwetherBC13:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you wouldn't mind giving the Duck Soup article a peer review, would you? The peer review process is nearing it's month-long limit date, so I'd appreciate one last submission of feedback before that review is archived. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review has recently been archived. Thanks for the consideration, though. If you still want to leave comments on how to improve the article, you are welcome to leave them on the talk page. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through this, do you think it has potential for FA? I'm going to make a couple of adjustments to it, but I think it does have that potential and could be ready shortly. What do you think? Qst16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean. The article is still GA class, so I assume you're saying you want another eval per the GA criteria, as if I was doing a sweep on it? I can if you want, shouldn't take long. VanTucky00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Unfortunately, I can't access any of the sources at the moment, but they are out there for anyone who's interested. Zagalejo^^^06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Public sphere
Cirt,
I am asking you and another editor to look at a project I am working on, and tell me if it makes sence so far.
I have been editing the Public Sphere for a little while now, and it is heading into a direction that I am happy with, I am about half way through with what I want to do. My problem is that it is a highly specialised page, and that I seem to be the only one editing it (outside of typo correction). It reads well for me, but then again I know the topic matter.
I was wondering if you would be able to look at what I have so far (through the Counterpublic section) and tell me if it makes sence. I am looking for someone who has no experience with public sphere theory, because if the page sounds like gobily gook to them...its a poorly writen page. if you have the time, look it over and tell me what makes sence, and what questions you have about public sphere theory. this would greatly help me in my future edits to the page. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the peer review has slowed down. Now, what do you suggest we do about the themes section? It doesn't seem like there is enough information out there for one to be made... I'm also getting anxious to nominate it for WP:FAC. xihix(talk) 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, could you add that new information that Maitch left on the FAC page? I'd add it, but I'm not sure how to fit it in the Reception section, as it would be too short for it's own paragraph, wouldn't really fit in the first one, and I can't add it in the second paragraph without making it sound awkward, since the two people that wrote it are the same. Thanks! xihix(talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion about the ultimate view of the community on these articles, but essentially all scientology-related deletions are controversial, so there is no point using prod unless the articles is so totally trivial you really don't think it will be defended. Anyone can just remove the tag. I've removed a few that Ive noticed. I very strongly urge you, that when you send them to AfD, as i expect you will, that you send them only a few at a time, and that you use an individually crafted deletion rationale for each of them, explaining what you consider to be wrong with the particular sources used. If they are going to be considered, aim for relatively straightforward discussions--these topics sometimes give problems, and it is best not to use short-cuts. 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I had explained my rationale in the prods, a great majority of them very obviously don't satisfy notability. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
As per your above suggestions, I have sent them individually and not listed them in a batch at AfD, and have also given "individual crafted rationale for each of them", explaining why notability is not established. Cirt (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Good, should be some interesting discussions. I will most likely deprod some others after i see how the AfDs proceed. DGG (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've scanned a couple of them, which looked like they were sub-article-topics pulled out of mega-article-topics (examples: Tone Scale, KRC/ARC, MEST), and in some cases, had any introduction, or references, or discussion that were critical or weren't official CoS canon pulled out of the articles, leaving them as hollow shells. Which would, of course, leave them looking exactly like, as you put it in one case, "Notability not established in secondary sources, all sources used are self-referential". Having kicked around this article space for a good long while now, I wish you happy editing and calm discussion, as all articles on Scientology-related topics are under probation[1]. Ronabop (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't follow the gist of your comment though, does that mean you agree with my assessment of the lack of notability of the articles? Cirt (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Well, notability to *who*, and *how* can be touchy. I think I saw you make a point (forget where, though) about other religions using their holy texts as the basis to form articles, and if the end result really belonged in their own wikipedia articles. Compare these relatively minor pieces of other belief systems, and their articles: [2], [3], [4], [5][6].... see the problem here? If a major *topic* is considered notable, often, the nooks and crannies of that topic are also thought of as notable. While you can make an argument that notability is not being *asserted* in many of the articles, some articles (especially religious ones) don't do such a thing, as a matter of course. For example, the first mention of notability in God refers to theologians, not God. ;) Ronabop (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your PRODs on the basis of your obvious ignorance of the subject. I don't question your good faith, I do however question your judgement - PRODding Tone scale indicates you haven't a clue about what's notable and what isn't in the area, a question which can't be resolved by the application of a box-checking exercise as you are claiming to have done - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded specifically regarding Tone Scale at that particular AfD. As for removing the PRODs - that is of course your choice as part of the deletion process on the project if you wish to. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
thx
I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?
I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).
Why are you removing my stuff from the 21st. Century Democrats article?
Please don't remove stuff from the article while I am working on it. I have added references for everything that I have put in since you pointed it out. If am doing something wrong tell me, but I don't think I am. Littlebutter (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you did. However it is obvious that I am working on the article right now. Please give me a little bit of time. I can't see what the big deal is? It is weird to me that you won't just let me work on the article. You keep making changes to the article almost as soon as I am done with it. Why are you paying such close attention to what I am doing? Littlebutter (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that the article is not one big pile of unsourced WP:OR violations, and whole swathes of sections sourced only to primary sources. But I'll leave you some time to add some secondary sources to the article - of which at present there is still only one secondary source. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll do all I can for this, but there are a couple which I will have to leave to you, as I don't have access to the DVD commentary fo the episode. I assume you have it, as you wrote a lot of it. Thanks, Qst19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientology musical
Hello again. I've done a minor update on the article to slim down some repetition, although I think the article is looking better and better. I notice that there are a number of places where two or three references are given for a single assertion. For casual wikipedia readers, the over-referencing makes the text look as if it is bristling with academia. Plus, if one reference is the most reliable/verifiable one, it is better to just show the best one. Would you kindly see if you think all of them are needed? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you in general, but I'm really referring to places where you have three sources for a relatively non-controversial statement, like "the show was produced in 2007 in Philadelphia." I don't plan to delete any of your references, but I really think you would improve readability and also make the best references easier to find by weeding out a few of the less needed ones, especially where they are weaker than another reference for the same assertion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
CTC Vandal
We have made a list of vandals that continually vandalizes Kill Gil: Vols. 1 & 2 by changing "Christmas" to "Crime", the list can be found here. If you revert the vandalism, i would give the warning {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}} which says this is the only warning they will receive. When reporting to vandalism noticeboard link to the list of vandals, and hopefully the IP will get blocked quicker, and for a longer period of time. Ctjf83talk21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
we were debating about that, i could try, put per my admin training, i'm not sure one vandal every day or two is enough to get it protected..i'll try right now though Ctjf83talk21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Cirt/Archive 2 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask!
hai2u Cirt...since you seem to be moar knowledgeable in wiki ways and are keeping an eye on said article, I has a question (or two): I have knowledge of certain IRL protests being planned by Anon at Scientology centres worldwide. Of course, they're hardly secret but only soarceable thru the *chans and ED which -even I know- won't stand up to wikipedia's sauce police. 2. I have a photoshooped .jpg I created for a planned protest in London on Feb 10. Given that I prolly can't include 'further actions' in the article til they happen and old media reports on it, is there any point in uploading it?
--Piepie (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the contributions you've made with the triple crown awards. I've been looking for an assistant to help with reviews. Would you have time to help? Please touch base if you do. Cheers, DurovaCharge!06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Nah, we nominated season 8 while one of the articles wasn't even a GAC and it also only had 2 FAs at the time. I discussed it with Xihix and we decided to go for it. -- Scorpion042201:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review this portal. The changes that were requested made sense, and have been attended to. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk02:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry...I was being lazy. I'm actually trying to find out if the OP and it's mirror are the same guy. The mirror just put up another Anon video. --Piepie (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you're Smee or not, and I do not want to know. But I do want to say that, in my eyes, it is a great compliment to be associated with that username. Smee was a great editor who did a lot of good, and was highly supportive of me on a difficult article. These bizarre cult subjects need attention to stop the POV pushers, and I am glad to see somebody has stepped up to the plate. Happy editing, Jeffpw (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not yet. It just came to my attention via the wiki who's name dare not be mentioned. I put out some comments in forums so I'm hoping to get a couple of bites.
I know digg isn't WP:RS/WP:V. Ima stay on it and hit you up with links etc. as and when found. Also, since wikinews did the original story on The Regime h4x, isn't a follow-up in order? I can break you off with g00ns info if you want an interview.
--Piepie (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cirt. My apologies for mentioning this again (that is if you have read what i wrote in the discussion section of Scientology page, but if not, well here it is..) the page on Xenu is a very comprehensive page (though apparently some people disagree with that) but the only reason I found the Xenu page was that I saw the related Southpark episode and wanted to verify its validity. i had looked up scientology page previously (I've always been very interested in the background of all cults and religions)but I am amazed that there is no mention of Xenu there and I think that even just a small line with a link would suffice to let the reader know about the science-fiction side of it as well, in particular when the article exists already in such details. I would have done it myself to be honest but i noticed it is not possible to edit (quite understandable I must admit). I would be grateful if you could act on the matter or let me know if it is not possible to do for any reason. Many thanks. Qorveh (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Though you did get a lot of support, there were also some concerns raised by many users. I had commented in the "neutral" section, sorry but I just couldn't make up my mind on this one, after reading through all the other comments. But at any rate, please continue to contribute content to the project, you have done some great work here, and I hope you will continue to do so. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Project Chanology
Glad to help. I find the topic kind of interesting, myself. Also, I have a somewhat sick and twisted (maybe?) goal of improving the article to GA or better. Ultimately, it benefits the project (Wikipedia, I mean), and in my own mind, it would be funny. Epic lulz, even. ;) LaMenta3 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it has then CoS logo in it? I made other shoops for the project that have no copyrighted logos if that's better.
--Piepie (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm a bit foggy on what flies around here and what doesn't. Tell me what you think the article needs exactly (and why the images I showed you don't cut it on TOW) and I'll shoop it.--Piepie (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW...I less than 3 you. I've not had a TOW regular talk to me liek a human being in my 2/3 years here.
Just wondering if you're up for some work on this. The article is already at quite a high standard, but its FAC is not going to well and it could do with some general copy-edit and other work. Are you up for it, as Xihix asked me if I could give a hand the other day on IRC, and, two heads are better than one. Qst (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, forgot to add it to GA nom page, got busy before....I would review it, but I really like the Simpsons and I wouldn't want to be biased about my review :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh, bring it up to the folks at Wikinews, or of course, feel free to create an account there and start writing stuff, we'd welcome new contributors! [[User: :-) There's quite a lot to be done ...Cirt|Cirt]] (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to say sorry for being such an arse on those AFDs last week. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I shall try to do better.
When I get a spare bl**dy second (stupidly busy at work and home), I do look forward to working with you on our Scientology articles!
I, Nehrams2020 (talk), hereby award Cirt the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to the Films WikiProject. Thank you for your dedicated work in helping Portal:Film to reach featured status, and bringing several film articles up to GA status. Keep up the good work and I hope you continue to improve film-related articles on Wikipedia!
Awarded 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! This comes at the perfect time to cheer me up and make me feel valued on this project. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and you definitely are a valued member! By the way, you're also the main story in this month's WP:FILMS newsletter, so all members will see that in a few days. If you want to add more information to it, you can see it here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Half the fun is the battle :-). And by the way Happy New Year and just think if you got paid for this :-). Shoessss | Chat 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Man, how did you get involved with that? Anything I can do, without dragging my name into it :-) let me know. Seriously, need help in anything, just drop a note. Shoessss | Chat 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
McPherson image
I'd be happy to move the image to commons, but I do not have an account there. I only rarely upload images (I borrowed a camera during my lunch), and am not very knowledgable about copyright, so Commons is a bit of foreign ground. However, if you were to upload the image there, I would be happy to translate the image info into several languages, that is one of my talents. Also, what specifically should I put on the image page? RyanGerbil10(Говорить!)05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been there at every stage
The Barnstar of Recovery
The Project Chanology page was a lost cause, and you have helped it along through every stage, from the original edits, through the RfD, through the personal attacks levied against you the article still seems to be coming along. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This particular choice of barnstar, coming from you, with the words you have chosen above, mean a lot to me. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You deserve it, even now you are working hard on the article (I know, you just did an edit)...I even spelled Levied right (but misspelled original...unfortunatly I just wouldn't be me otherwise).Coffeepusher (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if I'm replying in the right place here, but I wanted to thank the page owner too. I've taken a LONG break from contributing to Wiki just exactly for some of the foolishness that we see going on the Chanology page, namely: a determined group of editors with an agenda to push obfuscating entries. Thanks for the great effort, I could use about 3 more of you on the Nation of Gods and Earths and NOI pages. Thanks again.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesh...thank you Cirt. I admit to being active in the Project so I'm not strictly NPOV (I 'lost' someone special to the cult) but I try to be in reporting this. I'm an oldfag IRL activist from London (where you don't get sued for fighting back at protests) and I find this new Interntes 'hactivism' truly amazing; I wish we had it when we were fighting racist skinheads at Rock Against Racism. --Piepie (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, in relation to me putting a neutrality banner on the page, it seems to me the article's neutrality is already in question and is being discussed [here]. What else do you want me to do to justify it? Starcraftmazter (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I really hope you can reconsider to be one of the featured portal co-directors because Dihydrogen Monoxide was not doing much lately. OhanaUnitedTalk page23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a really fast reply! The reason why I'm looking for someone is because I will be busy with my exams throughout the February and I don't want a huge backlog sitting there waiting when I come back in March. Do you have any candidate suggestion? OhanaUnitedTalk page23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Triple crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work on California Gold Rush, and congrats on getting it as a WP:TFA back in February! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much - and thanks for picking this up for Durova! The California Gold Rush article was a lot of work and a lot of fun! Thanks again! NorCalHistory (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
If you have time would you mind taking a quick look at the COII've raised and offer an opinion, if you have one, or feel inclined to give one.CheersSemitransgenic (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
These logos are not being used to represent the organisation.
The Scientology symbol represents the Scientology belief on the KRC and ARC triangles. Being this a main Scientology belief and a important part of the article, it is needed to illustrate the relationship betwen the Scientology beliefs and it's symbols.
The Scientology cross represents the belief of the eight dynamics of life. Another important concept in Scientology.
The logos are being used in fair use for educational purposes.
I noticed that, but you shouldn't go into too much detail in the lead. I believe the current version does adequately summarise the article, and although it doesn't mention anything from the legecy section, that one is only two sentences long, so I think mentioning it gives it undue weight. -- Scorpion042215:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked through the peer review and I think everything that we wanted to address was addressed. A couple suggestions we decided to wait on, so I think we are good to go for FP. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I hadn't reviewed the article in any detail, just read through it and taken a glance at the sources. Articles that attract vandalism aren't forbidded from being good articles- point five of the criteria specifically says that it doesn't include vandalism reversion. If, however, you feel that the article is still growing at a good rate, then now would not be the time for GAC. As for the matter of me reviewing as a good article candidate- I've never done one before, and I wouldn't want my first to be a controversial topic I know nothing about, I'd rather it was something like an obscure band or album. However, I would be more than happy to peer review (something I definately do know about through my work with the heavy metal WikiProject, and various other articles) the article, so do let me know if you either nominate it (which is something I reccomend if you have not done so before) or if you just want an informal peer review. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Comedy Portal has been promoted to featured portal status. I guess you know the script by now, so I'll lay off with the stars :) Regards, Rudget.19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did my change get reverted
Hi, this is cid935. You reverted my change on the Project Chanology page. I understand why the first time, its true that I had cited no source. I'm less clear on the second time. If you look down the Project Chanology page to where they talk about the Anthrax Hoax, they say that the DDoS attacks were a short term attention getting measure, and if you look further down at current missions, they have DDoS, black faxes, and prank calls all in crossout font. In addition, I believe this is a reliable source, as the Chanology wiki is Project Chanology's main page. Please let me know where I am going wrong. Thank you, Cid935 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Though that message may have been automated, I appreciate it. Trying to get the gist of wikipedia and help out. I've actually been reading the Simpsons Season 8 drive for a long time, and have known you for a while. It's really that drive that inspired me to start editing. Haris145 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Your Chanology "nonviolence" comment
You say that one of my edits to the Chanology page was unnecessary due to it being repeated later on and their partyvan page not being a reliable source. IF the partyvan page cannot be viewed as reliable in that aspect, what about the code of conduct video posted on youtube by the same member who posted the call to action video. It clearly states a nonviolent approach in their methods. This is worth mentioning in the context of "guerrilla tactics" because it makes a big difference to the reader. Just my thoughts. Weedbag (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody pointed out the punctation and what I turned up on Google said it was wrong, never thought to read the MOS. BJTalk14:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This looks like it will be an Epic Win!, we will have alot of stuff to add to the article...I know the Dc protest alone is estimated to be over 500 people.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It will be interesting to see if this movement's energy carries; and if they have an effect on the organization. Needless to say, the 15th will be interesting. Daler (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism? I gave my reason for editing that Xenu article when I made the edits. Those pictures only add to the overal cynicism of that Xenu page. I'm simply trying to make the page more neutral. Those pictures aren't necessary. I remain by my decision to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boss Inc. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. You received this invitation because of your interest in Oregon and/or your edits to Oregon articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.
[7]
Cirt, you need to have citations in the intro AND in the body. Any fact that is not obvious (I.E. the world is round) MUST be cited and attributed. You need to explain who said what (In the intro and the body!) and where that comes from. You do not have to go in detail in the intro, but you still need to say who said it. You still need sources in the intro. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"in the lead section of non-controversial subjects" is the key word. Scientology is incredibly controversial, so that information has to be cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Stand Alone Complex
Hi. I mean no disrespect by my comments, I just wanted to give you my thought. I saw you didn't like my source for stand alone complex. I can't put it up for more than 2 seconds before someone goes and takes it down. Please, let wikipedia do its job of people finding sources. Everything on wikipedia doesn't have to be sourced perfectly the moment it goes up. Its a collaborative process.
Project Chanology is clearly a stand alone complex. Maybe it doesn't deserve its own section. But people are commenting on it being a stand alone complex. Notice I didn't say it was a stand alone complex in my post, but that at least one commentator has noted that it is. I put it in the reaction section. I think someone's reaction on a blog is a reaction.
ALSO. The reaction section quotes a guy named Nick Douglas of Gawker.com. Who is he? Why is he more deserving of a reaction than the blog I posted.
Hi. I posted a couple more sources. I could probably find more if I searched harder. The point isn't that this necessarily proves that it is a stand alone complex. The point is that people all over the web are reacting to it as if it is and understanding that it is. Michael.passman (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The article failed GA, and I find it completely unfair. Please see my comment on the talk page. I disagree with TonyTheTiger's review for the simple fact that I'm not forced to add any other reviews from Western critics, and it is not supported by any GIAFA criterion. And if you see, in the NYT site, there are no other reviews describing her film performances at all. She is an Indian, I can't see why we must add Western reviews when A) Western reviews cannot describe her better than Indian ones. B) There are not many Western reviews describing her film performances at all. In the NYT, there is only one review describing her performance in the film Salaam Namaste (which makes its presence on the article), and nothing else. I find this review completely unfair, and there is no basis to his claims. Please do something. This article is definitely a GA, and that was also your conclusion. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. His answer is unequivocal: "I would fail it without a few highly respected western refs"
I can't invent "well respected western reviews". This requirement is not supported by any WIAGA criterion, and is merely his personal view. All the refs are reliable (newspapers, leading websites), reviews are representative and represent the majority view, there is one NYT review (the only I could find. I have no other ones. What can I do?) and two Variety reviews; everything is well measured, well balanced and well sourced. I don't care who reads it (I mean, Westerners/Easterns etc.). She is an actor (BTW, not an American one), and we are here to present representative comments by critics on her performances, from well respected newspapers, regardless of what country they are published in. I still can't see the point. The Times of India, The Hindu, The Tribune, Rediff -- all of them are reliable and well respected, not less than American newspapers. It's unfair. Please tell me, what's your take? Shahid • Talk2me22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't you please review the article when you have time for it? It takes some really long time, without any reason, with claims which are not even based on WP:WIAGA. That's so unfair, and your review via GA criteria proved that the article was indeed a GA, and since this review of yours, the article has improved further. Shahid • Talk2me23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that because this very page says, "If the explanation given was unreasonable, none of the above apply, and you believe that the article does fulfill all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to reassess the article and/or the decision here" Shahid • Talk2me23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my bothering attitude. I only ask you, please, if you don't intend to review the article at all, please let me know. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate for me to pass the article as a GA, when TonyTheTiger (talk·contribs) has brought up some valid, albeit contentious, points in his GA review. The more appropriate venue would be WP:GAR, so that multiple people can review it. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeh I see. If I were you, I would do the same, that's really a complicated situation. Thank you for taking it to GAR. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts
You posted to WP:AE about a dustup with User:JustaHulk recently. You already know that I concluded no case for Arbitration Enforcement exists. As the complaint also archived off WP:AN/I with no additional comments, I've now closed out the WP:AE report. Please read the guidance on dispute resolution.
It is expected that both you and he, despite your strongly disagreeing points of view, are here to contribute to this as an encyclopedia. One of the foundational pillars is the WP:NPOV policy - all editors are expected to try to make articles neutral. Learning to work with others whose point of view you disagree with is important. It isn't always easy, but successful editors pull it off.
Also, as it says at WP:AE#Enforcement: "Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals." The remedy that JustaHulk is under is intended to provide a balanced editing environment, but "implies no judgement concerning Justanother's conduct". Many editors have their actions extensively discussed without a finding, and you need to treat this editor as being in good standing. GRBerry19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking now at your concurrent post to my talk page, I see two explanations for your post to AE. One is that you didn't realize your complaint was inappropriate, the other is that you were gaming the system. Either way you needed a civility comment. As I wrote the above post, I decided to start with an educational tone. GRBerry19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It isReddyb beyond reasonable doubt; reporting him on WP:AN/I would have resulted in an immediate block. I have a long history of run-ins with this particular user, having been involved in most of his reported cases. However, I'm realising that this is more of a case of attention-seeking rather than disruption as such, thus my reluctance at continuing to get this user blocked. Look at this edit (by himself) to see what I mean. Ayla (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, I'm really glad you joined us (officially) at Wikiproject Oregon! I wonder if you noticed the recent discussion on the project's talk page, which has led to this effort. Nutshell" the Oregon Historical Society bashed us a little in their announcement of http://oregonencyclopedia.org, and we're trying to use the opportunity to grab a little press for WP:ORE and spread the word that there's good stuff happening, and newcomers are welcome to join in. It would be great to have your mind in the mix as we sort this out. Take a look? -Pete (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Most "disambiguation"-style pages on Wikipedia are unsourced and no-one really complains (unless their content concerns a controversial topic). But in principle you're right, so feel free to leave it there. Ayla (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greetings once again to members of the best encyclopedia online about Oregon (aka WP:ORE)! Last week we improved Neil Goldschmidt to close to GA level, and moved the Wells Fargo Center from Stub to Start for the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’re clowning around with some bozo from Oregon, Pinto Colvig, and then in an attempt to garner another DYK, the rather stubby Cooper Spur. As always, any contribution is appreciated, and to opt out of these messages visit here.
As we have quite a few new members over the last six months, I’ll make another pitch for our various subprojects. Listed here, you will find a variety of groups focused on specific areas of Oregon from transportation to culture. Not only can you sign up and coordinate work there, but each often has useful sources and templates related to that topic. No pressure, just an introduction to those new to the project. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll stick check out the Collaboration of the Week from time to time, but I'm going to opt out of the notices. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.
To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."
Hi there...I'm confused. You tagged image Image:Bwsweep.jpg for CSD in the Mister Rogers Neighborhood article, but I don't quite understand why or how it's a speedy, and I can't see any info re: that issue on the image page nor on the article page...Could you explain what's going on there? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The image was being used in a List article without a fair use rationale for that article, and in any event would not be fair use in that article. I tagged as such and mentioned that article in the edit. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I actually didn't see the edit to the image, only to the Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood page (which is on my watchlist), and since the problem didn't lie with that article, I didn't know where to look to see where the problem WAS. So, thanks Nandesuka! Thanks, Cirt, for the explanation. (Clarify this, if you would: if an image is used correctly in one article, and has a correct rationale for that article, but is also used in another article where it does NOT have a correct rationale, the image--which is used correctly in at least one place--can be speedied???? Is that true?) Gladys J Cortez23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that is true. Obviously the easier fix would be to address the problem within the time allotted by the speedy tag. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Project Chanology template
If you have time, could you please give a quick look at the first seven entries in Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008 table and give your opinion about the new reference attachments? I tried to strike a compromise between your suggestion of removing the "N/A" notation and my suggestion of retaining attachment non-ambiguity. If you agree with the new style, I would proceed with changing the rest. Personally, I think I prefer the new style, but I would like to hear your view first. (You might prefer to reply on the template talk page.) Ayla (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Re autosummation question: I had incidentally posted that query two days ago at the help desk (current discussion, permanent link), and it seems that it cannot be done easily. I found no mention of it in Help:Table either. I later decided it might not be a good idea since it can be misleading – we are nowhere near the reported 7000 due to the press cautiously giving conservative estimates, not reporting the figures, or not covering some cities at all. Even the sum for the Max column stands below 4000. Ayla (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the citations being placed after the comma. I tried to avoid that style just for the pedantic sake of aesthetic consistency, since the last figure in each cell is not succeeded by a comma. Maybe we could replace the commas by a spaced separator, since in that case, the style guideline recommends that the citation precede the punctuation. Since the en dash (–) (Alt+0150) is already being used for expressing ranges, I guess we could use the centred period (•) (Alt+7) as the spaced separator instead. What's your opinion? Ayla (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Which information did I omit? I used {{Cite news}} for all the citations in that template. If you're referring to the amalgamation of the "first" and "last" parameters: I prefer using the single "author" parameter since it allows more flexibility in cases such as "Checkey Beckford (reporter), Melody Mendez (news anchor)". Or were you referring to some other data? Ayla (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the discussion regarding the image on the Chanology page, but I just forgot to sign in for that time. this is cs302b. I'll keep you updated on whether or not I get a notice back on that person allowing the use of their image. How does one go about that, by the way? Getting permission validated or whatever, to make sure its not false? 24.176.136.25 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for writing back with that info.. Sadly, though, I havn't heard back from the user yet. He may have just not logged in since the protest on the 10th. I may have to go hunt for a similar image. I'll get back to you on it when I have some news.Cs302b (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could share your view in this RFC. In particular there is a dispute over whether a couple of websites are user generated blogs. I think you are familiar with these two websites so your comment would be appreciated. RB97221:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I just realised this wasn't clear. The websites I was referring to was rickross.com and religiousnewsblog being used as sources for when the news articles are deleted from the original host. But if you've chosen to sit this one out feel free. RB97203:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If possible, would you please re-visit this Dispute? RB972 insists on including sources that are unverifiable. The reason I dispute these sources is because A) They appeared on a blog-styled sites, where people can self-publish, and B) He now has sourced them but provided no proof of their existence. His links point to nothing.
Why I believe this is dangerous: 1) I disputed the verifiability of the sources to begin with. Now they are even less verifiable. 2) This article's subject matter is involved in an on-going criminal investigation, so media are constantly visiting this article for information. In order to prevent sensational journalism, I believe it is necessary to provide accurate and verifiable sources.
Finally, this article falls under BLP policy. It should be scrutinized thoroughly by all editors, but it seems that my fellow editors are only too willing to source any bit of information so long as it is on the internet somewhere. This trend is troubling, especially so because I am the only person disputing it.
Question (not really sure who to ask, you seem knowledgable)
Whenever I browse to the Talk:Anonymous_(group) talk page, I get logged out. As far as I can tell, this is the only page where this happens. I'm not sure what is going on. My first hypothesis is that this is a bug, except then why is it only one page, and why isn't it affecting everyone? My second is that I have been blocked from the page for unknown reasons (is that what happens when one is blocked?), which is bothersome since all my edits have been in good faith, I have adhered to the WP rules as best I can, there is no explanation on my talk page, and no apparent recourse.
You seem like a level headed editor with a good understanding of Wiki internals. Can you help explain what is going on? Z00r (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know why that is happening, but I will try to find out a better place for you to ask about it. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a quick "congratulations" on your very well sourced, well written and engaging article on Project Chanology! (I'm still fairly new, so please bear with me if I've left this message in the wrong place but it otherwise doesn't really contribute to the topic so it didn't feel right putting it in the Chanology discussion page.)
It is a collaborative effort, couldn't have done it without the help of multiple skilled editors - but thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies - I didn't mean to undervalue the fine efforts of the other contributors (newbie mistake on my part I'm afraid)! Your combined efforts have resulted in a genuinely interesting and notable article. Thank you for the welcome message, too, by the way! I look forward to possibly collaborating with you guys on future articles. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Cirt, I just noticed that there's a stub at Rajneeshee, which doesn't link to the much more excellent content on the subject. My sense is that here in Oregon, that's the name people are most likely to think of when researching the subject, so it seems this situation ought to be remedied. I could slap a few "see also"s on there, but thought I'd bring it up to you, since you're more familiar with the subject. Perhaps some kind of merge or redirect is a better solution. What do you think of doing a navigation template for the Rajneeshees topic? It's a little tough to figure out how all the pieces fit together, that might be a good solution. -Pete (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Um yeah sorry, noticed that right after I posted this, but you beat me to the correction! I'll slap it on the Rajneeshee article, case closed. I think it's time for bed. -Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! 
