Revision as of 01:14, 3 December 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Your reverting at the Osho article: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:08, 3 December 2009 edit undoJayen466 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,646 edits →BarnstarNext edit → | ||
Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
::Also your should give your sections more neutral descriptions, this ..Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob.. is not a really neutral way to open a discussion...perhaps a re-title, more neutral...perhaps...Discussion regarding the new suggested additions...would be a more welcoming title... ] (]) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ::Also your should give your sections more neutral descriptions, this ..Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob.. is not a really neutral way to open a discussion...perhaps a re-title, more neutral...perhaps...Discussion regarding the new suggested additions...would be a more welcoming title... ] (]) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. ''']''' (]) 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | :::Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. ''']''' (]) 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Barnstar== | |||
Might as well make this official. :) | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Content Creativity Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your – in my Misplaced Pages experience – unsurpassed ability to roll up your sleeves, compile a stack of sources, and pull a complete, well-written, encyclopedic article out of the hat in next to no time where there was just a wasteland of ill-connected snippets before – as evidenced in ] and countless other articles. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
|} |
Revision as of 12:08, 3 December 2009
This is Cirt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. | |
|
|
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit |
Centralized discussion
|
|
AFD/T • T-7 • T-2 • AFDO • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • Google Search
|
Other neat portal ideas for longer term
- Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:
- Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion, United States; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
- Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
- Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
- Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
- If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.
- Also take some time to check out style/formatting at Portal:Indiana Cirt (talk)
Note to self
independent reliable secondary sources
- {{findsources}}
- Citation model
- Body text in-cite
<ref name="REFNAME">], p. PAGENUMBER</ref>
- References section
(reference template from WP:CIT)
*<cite id=LASTNAME>REFERENCE</cite>
- Different model
- Template:Citation
- Template:Harvnb
- Example: <ref name="REFNAME">{{Harvnb|LAST|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>
See models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
More at Misplaced Pages:Harvard citation template examples.
Dispatch
Cirt, Awadewit suggested that you might be interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch article on Featured portals (the only area of featured content we haven't covered). Sample previous articles are at {{FCDW}}. We've covered:
- Featured content overview
- Peer review
- Did you know
- Featured lists
- Good articles
- Featured sounds
- Featured topics
- Images
- TFA
- And Featured articles many times: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches
None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will mull this over and most likely draft something up. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2108 (UTC)
Razzies progress
- 15th Golden Raspberry Awards through 29th Golden Raspberry Awards = reformatting process done.
- Note: Going to have to go back and model these after the modifications made subsequently to 29th Golden Raspberry Awards.
- 29th Golden Raspberry Awards - so far only one expanded with sourcing research. (WP:FL)
- Razzie Award for Worst New Star = reformatting process done, next to use Talk:Razzie Award for Worst Picture as model to reformat other pages in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards by category (with subsection breaks by decade)
Work in progress - Van Morrison
Much of the music Morrison released throughout the 1980s continued to focus on the themes of spirituality and faith. His 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart was "a move towards creating music for meditation" with synthesisers, uilleann pipes and flute sounds and four of the tracks were instrumentals. Van Morrison is a former Scientologist; during the 1980s he dedicated an album to the organization's founder L. Ron Hubbard. Van Morrison was recruited into Scientology by Scientologist and musician Nicky Hopkins. Friends of Van Morrison's within his musical circle that were also into Scientology included Mark Isham and Robin Williamson. Van Morrison's album Beautiful Vision was influenced by Scientology, and his next album Inarticulate Speech of the Heart (1983) included a "special thanks" credit given to L. Ron Hubbard. After Scientology, Van Morrison moved on to "a broadly Christian faith". He titled his 1986 album No Guru No Method as an attempt to distance himself from Scientology. In a review of Van Morrison's musical work in The Times, journalist Pete Paphides described his album No Guru, No Method, No Teacher as "the 1986 album that found Morrison adrift from God, wounded by his dalliance with Scientology, wrestling the mother of spiritual hangovers and deciding that only the compass of memory could help a lost soul to redemption". Van Morrison's exploration of spirituality, including Jehovah's Witness, Christianity, mysticism, and Scientology, served as an influence for his works including Astral Weeks, "Kingdom Hall", Enlightenment and "Whenever God Shines His Light". In 1991, Van Morrison explained his period of spirituality and self-reflection, commenting: "I'm into all of it, orthodox or otherwise. I don't accept or reject any of it. I'm not searching for anything in particular, I'm just groping in the dark for a bit more light." In 1995, when asked by the University of Ulster to list his favorite philosophers, Van Morrison included Aristotle, Socrates, Sartre, Steiner – as well as L. Ron Hubbard. In 2009, the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper St. Petersburg Times listed Van Morrison among "Former Scientologists".
consider for undelete
Good afternoon,
I'm writing for you to reconsider deletion on the page Matthew LeDrew, who runs a small press publishing company known as Engen Books out of St. John's Newfoundland. People keep putting up a page on, and you keep deleting it.
The reasons why confuse we for the following reasons: it's claimed LeDrew is not notable, when other authors of the same caliber and comparability (ie: Kenneth Tam) have their own articles. Also, one of Engen's previous titles (NewFoundSpecFic) has its own article.
I fail to understand how an anthology Engen used to publish is notable and Engen itself or LeDrew is not. Regardless, it's more the bad press of it all: by your own machinations,[REDACTED] is a top search result on google. As a result, when people search LeDrew on google the first thing they get is his wiki page, which now comes up deleted. This looks bad, and is not appreciated.
As for the comments again in the discussion section on why his article was deleted that his books have not received attention or review, these claims are untrue and are considered defamatory. I have no idea where your office is located, but just because something hasn't reached YOUR attention does not mean it hasn't reached SOMEONES. Clearly it's reached enough people that two people put up pages on him.
I'm going to ask that you consider my request for Mr. LeDrew's page to be reinstated, siting the two page references above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.19.85 (talk • contribs)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew LeDrew (2nd nomination). Cirt (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cirt (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
How the Earth Was Made
The dispute has been resolved, in that there will be no more edit warring, if you'd like to go ahead and unlock this article so the others can continue working on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you put in a request at WP:RFPP, I'll defer to the judgment of the reviewing admin there. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Duncan Ferguson disambiguation
Hello. Just to let you know this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Lisa Simpson
Hey iam trying to get lisa to FA could you take a look at this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro thy master (talk • contribs)
- I'd suggest working on it at the main article, itself, and posting to the talk page of WP:DOH for further input. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah but incase i screw up i have a page that i can fix without anybody nowing. so will you help--Pedro J. 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry I am focusing on writing a new article right now. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah but incase i screw up i have a page that i can fix without anybody nowing. so will you help--Pedro J. 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The Scope
Cirt, could you please explain to me why The Scope does not meet WP:RS? I am not quite sure why The Evening Telegram would meet them but the Scope would not, considering they are both reputable newspapers.--Newfiechick88 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to be a blog - does it have independent editorial review? Cirt (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a blog, though. It is a print newspaper with a full editorial staff. They even have an article available here The Scope talking about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- That wiki article is entirely unreferenced, and does not show anything. That comment also did not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a blog, though. It is a print newspaper with a full editorial staff. They even have an article available here The Scope talking about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
RenderX - Undelete Request
The decision to delete the article was based on biased and unproven information. The discussion clearly indicated that the consensus has not been reached: the reviewers who argued for deletion did not support it in any way, except for Ckatz. It seems that Misplaced Pages is monopolized by clans that overrule any policies and apply double standards to articles, based on their authors: If it is one of the clan members, the article stays regardless of its quality; if not - they will find any reason to delete it. I have to add that, while the initial version might have suffered some of the problems indicated by Ckatz, the last version had none of them. Relying on comments such as "I have not read the article, but I am assuming that such and such went through the mess of references. Therefore it need to be deleted." is not good practice. The phrase "mess of references" already shows that the reviewer is biased and has nothing to say to the subject. Does Misplaced Pages define "mess of references" in its policies? While it is quite clear that references like that clearly violate the good faith policies set on this site. None of the reviewers who argued for deletion did not do any reasonable attempt to verify references. Some of these references are (just some): W3C: http://xml.coverpages.org/xsl.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/sliceG.html#section-N87175-Acknowledgements
Patents:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZH53LNiKaS8C&pg=PA188&dq=renderx&lr=#v=onepage&q=renderx&f=false
http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Languages/XML/XMLFamily/Exploration/Ch12-XSLFO.html
Do you want me to continue this list?
- Did the reviewers tried to improve the article in any way? - Did they stated any specific reference they disagreed with? Any part that was not referenced? - Is any of them has any knowledge of XML, XSLT, XSL-FO? - Where they able to specify a more notable company in this area? Did they check Google search results on XEP or RenderX?
Therefore, I would like you to reverse your decision and restore the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.161.142 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Already been discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/RenderX. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Newfoundspecfic
It seems that someone is going back and removing anything they do not like from this article (ie: dubious markers), even ones made by you and other seasoned wikipedians. I felt this should be brought to your attention, as the notes / talk page are becoming spiteful in nature by all parties involved. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to[REDACTED] and am interested in the process. What happens with this article now? At what point does it either get 'saved' or 'deleted'? Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Marc Koska
Marc Koska's WP entry has been vandalized again. It was protected previously but now, I think it needs to protected permanently, because this keeps happening.Johnalexwood (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like Rjd0060 is on to it. :) Johnalexwood (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI
A report of your edits at Alford plea and elsewhere will duly be lodged at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Redheylin (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Cirt at the above page. Is there any chance, though, of discussing with me your motivation in this matter, which has led you into so many incidents? You're a capable person and it looks to me like a waste - I am very sorry about it and feel sure you must have a good reason - but not one that will support your actions. Please do feel free to contact me on this. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seems a bit bad faith to report a sourcing dispute to ANI. The correct forum for that is called WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Assume good faith and let's see. I will arrange for us to talk invisible to wiki if you like. I do mean it. Something's driving you, and it does not look like the kind of drive that can lead to anything positive for you - certainly not from the POV of your wiki "career". I am not prejudging the issue or trying to demoralise you - I've seen the history. Redheylin (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm, it appears you have "seen" something presented by someone POV offline to you. That is not the "history", but rather a POV summation. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Still does not get around the fact that you chose to take a sourcing dispute to ANI, instead of the proper place, WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the ANI noticeboard regarding my comments. These are muddy waters, in my view. Jusdafax 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the ANI noticeboard regarding my comments. These are muddy waters, in my view. Jusdafax 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Assume good faith and let's see. I will arrange for us to talk invisible to wiki if you like. I do mean it. Something's driving you, and it does not look like the kind of drive that can lead to anything positive for you - certainly not from the POV of your wiki "career". I am not prejudging the issue or trying to demoralise you - I've seen the history. Redheylin (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Idle chit-chat
Hey Cirt. Per your interest in those legal article, I figured you were interested in the law? You probably noticed I posted this at the other discussion, but it's probably more appropriate (if it's approrpiate at all) to discuss here.
Have you been catching The Good Wife? I think it's a pretty good show. The Practice was pretty good too, as far as lawyer shows are concerned, but I'm not a fan of James Spader (he joined late before spinning off into that other lawyer show). I have a link somewhere of a video of Jack Nicholson peeing on his shoe from some 80s (early 90s?) movie if you want to see it. He gives me the creeps. William Shatner makes a good honorary partner like those politicians that get signed on at firms for their contacts on the golf course.
Anyway, Thanks again for you kind words. I'll have to check out the underlying articles when I get a chance. I've been caught up in college football fever. Rivalry weekend and all. Are you in the U.S.? I'll have to check your userpage... probably says there. Well, take care. Sorry about the joking around. It's late here and I'm a bit overtired! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have not yet seen The Good Wife. I caught a few episodes of The Practice and have seen a bit of Boston Legal. I happen to appreciate both James Spader and William Shatner, though Patrick Stewart was the better captain. :P Cirt (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see the dispute has flared back up. I really do think Redheylin means well and is just frustrated. Editors get stressed out, especially when they're being threatened and aren't familiar with the consensus process (which does take some getting used to). I agree he needs to ease up on the accusatory tone (as do those making accusations against him), but I hope that as the more experienced editor (and as an admin) you can lead by example and stay focused on the content and sourcing issues. And what about Edward James Olmos as a ship captain? And Harrison Ford was a good one also. I lot of people liked Sean Connery (if we're counting subs), but I prefer Roger Moore (although I don't think he's been a ship's captain? I think there was a sub in one movie though...). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Redheylin (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times for making unsupported allegations about what he calls "bogus" sources, when his statements are in fact false. He refuses to retract these unsupported false statements. Such baseless claims, after warnings not to do so, violate WP:NPA. Overall, I'd say David Tennant is the best ship captain. :P Cirt (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see the dispute has flared back up. I really do think Redheylin means well and is just frustrated. Editors get stressed out, especially when they're being threatened and aren't familiar with the consensus process (which does take some getting used to). I agree he needs to ease up on the accusatory tone (as do those making accusations against him), but I hope that as the more experienced editor (and as an admin) you can lead by example and stay focused on the content and sourcing issues. And what about Edward James Olmos as a ship captain? And Harrison Ford was a good one also. I lot of people liked Sean Connery (if we're counting subs), but I prefer Roger Moore (although I don't think he's been a ship's captain? I think there was a sub in one movie though...). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt. I posted an inquiry on the wp:content noticeboard regarding the underlying content dispute. I saw you already made a narrower request for input on the tagging issue, so this notice probably isn't needed, but I didn't want you to feel left out. :) Hopefully we can get some additional input and perspectives. Certainly you and Redheylin are both welcome to contribute to the discussion, but I think it would be best if this new venue was used to get fresh perspectives and that it won't turn into a rehash and further digging into the dispute with arguing of the issues by the parties already involved (which might scare others off). Anyway, I appreciate you willingness to make article improvements and to address concerns. On the other hand, the acrimony on both sides hasn't been a good thing, and I think the accusations have flown in both directions. Take care. I've never heard of David Tennant, so I'm going to have to go do some research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Portal:London Transport nomination
Can I ask why the nomination was closed before I had received responses from any of the opposers to my comments.--DavidCane (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- 3 opposes and no supports, did not seem that it was likely to pass. After two WP:FPOCs, I would highly recommend going next to WP:PPREV for the portal, contacting those that commented on the last FPOC, and if you addressed all prior issues - asking them to then comment there, prior to another FPOC. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do think the closure of the nomination was premature:
- The first nomination was over three years ago (when the portal had a different name and only covered a fraction of the subject matter it now does), so it hardly seems relevant to the current nomination.
- For the first of the three opposes that had been made, all the issues raised had been answered, the second gave no additional reasons and the third requested something that is not required of a featured portal.
- The main issue raised appears to be the choice not to use automatic rotation to circulate a series of selected articles, but this is not a requirement and I believe I gave a clear explanation as to why this has not been used.
- Rather than chase the opposers, I was giving them the time to return to review and consider my comments as the featured content review process expects. The fact that they hadn't yet done so, should not have been construed one way or the other. As the nomination for Portal:Nevada has been open since 6 October there did not seem to be any hurry to push for a response.
- I didn't bother with the peer review as this seems to be a rather dead area. Of the three most recent entries there, one has not been responded to in a month. One took a month to get a response and the third nearly two months. The request for a peer review on Portal:Drink took more than five months to get a single response. Not particularly helpful. --DavidCane (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'd suggest a peer review this time, when moving forward. Have you thought to notify those that commented at the FPOC, and also relevant WikiProjects' talk pages, about having a peer review? Cirt (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do think the closure of the nomination was premature:
Bale Out FA
Congrats!!! — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! :) Cirt (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FOUR
We attempt to keep the queue to a manageable length by asking people to review one nomination for each nomination that they make. If you get a chance come by and review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay sure, will do. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/GA4
Hey. I'm sorry about that comment yesterday; it was completely uncalled for (not to mention unconstructive), especially considering the time you've spent on the article. While I'll be busier in the coming weeks, I think I can manage with the article. Again, sorry. Mnation2 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you are going to work on it, for sure I can allow some more time. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Blown for Good
On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blown for Good, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
SoWhy 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Alford plea
The description of the Alford plea goes in the Alford plea article - obviously. You do not repeat all that info in list of people who entered an Alford plea. — ] (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- , . Cirt (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've responded on the talkpage with regard to this matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Chitty Chitty Death Bang
It's really no big deal. IGN made those "Flashback Reviews" about every episode in the first two season.Aquila89 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Behind the Exclusive Brethren
On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Behind the Exclusive Brethren, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
SoWhy 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Updating Portal:Norway's articles and bios?
Hi Cirt. I've just completed my monthly update of Portal:Norway's DYKs, and I came to think, should perhaps the selected articles and biographies be added to a bit too? I think that Nansen's Fram expedition and Harriet Bosse should be added, being featured articles. If you could have a look at that, that would be great. Manxruler (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Great! So you'll take care of that? Manxruler (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll give it a try. As soon as I have plenty of spare time again. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
NPOV on Old Dogs
I would back you up removing the tag but I'm about to go on an extended break, so if someone disagrees with me and you then I won't be around to voice my agreement. I have no problem with a film article saying that a film got bad reviews, and reporting bad reviews cannot violate NPOV. After all we report all the awards film gets, we should report the bad reviews. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Possible...
I tell you, I don't know what it will take to get some serious rangeblocks imposed on this monkey. I almost cut loose with a page-long litany of obscenities on the talk page of that last sock; common sense intervened at the last millisecond. Someone needs to wring his neck. I'll keep an eye on that article you linked me to. Thanks for the alert and thanks for blocking some of those socks. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. It defaults to full protection and I managed to hit the default instead of the semi-protect. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Bonnie Woods
On 2 December, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bonnie Woods, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Removal of portals
Sorry, I only meant to remove the languages portal, not the religion one, from the Moonies page. I will correct this. RolandR 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
Hello, Cirt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice, Cirt (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Your reverting at the Osho article
As I clearly said these additions are worthy of discussion, personally as I said, I am of the opinion that the additions are giving excessive weight to a position, please follow the bold revert discuss editing cycle. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You removed duly sourced info (Associated Press and Chicago Tribune) with basically no other explanation than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is you who have not explained anything about it on the talk page. Please discuss there. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also your should give your sections more neutral descriptions, this ..Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob.. is not a really neutral way to open a discussion...perhaps a re-title, more neutral...perhaps...Discussion regarding the new suggested additions...would be a more welcoming title... Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also your should give your sections more neutral descriptions, this ..Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob.. is not a really neutral way to open a discussion...perhaps a re-title, more neutral...perhaps...Discussion regarding the new suggested additions...would be a more welcoming title... Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
Might as well make this official. :)
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
For your – in my Misplaced Pages experience – unsurpassed ability to roll up your sleeves, compile a stack of sources, and pull a complete, well-written, encyclopedic article out of the hat in next to no time where there was just a wasteland of ill-connected snippets before – as evidenced in Alford plea and countless other articles. JN466 12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
- Turner (1993), page 153.
- Cite error: The named reference
ecclesiastical
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Bielski, Zosia (January 6, 2009). "Seizure killed Travolta's son, death certificate says;Body showed no sign of head trauma, undertaker says; case puts parents' religion under scrutiny". The Globe and Mail. p. A3.
- The Guardian staff (October 4, 2006). "Listed Scientologists". The Guardian. p. 29.
- Leggett, Jonathan (2006-03-25). "Cult musicians: Scientology has long been regarded as 'a Hollywood thing', but as Isaac Hayes cooks up a storm and quits his role as South Park's Chef, Jonathan Leggett reveals other musical followers". The Guardian. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2008-06-23.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); More than one of|author=
and|last=
specified (help) - Morton, Andrew (2008). Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 102. ISBN 0312359861.
- Rogan, Johnny (2006). Van Morrison: No Surrender. Random House UK. pp. 343, 351–352, 358. ISBN 0099431831.
- ^ Buckley, Peter (2003). The Rough Guide Rock: The Definitive Guide to More than 1200 Artists and Bands. Rough Guides. p. 425. ISBN 1843531054.
- ^ O'Hagan, Sean (March 9, 1991). "Van, Them and now; Van Morrison". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd.
- Partridge, Christopher Hugh (2005). The Re-enchantment Of The West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture, and Occulture. T. & T. Clark Publishers. p. 148. ISBN 0567082695.
- Sandall, Robert (June 13, 1993). "The rover's return; Van Morrison; Music". The Sunday Times. p. 9.
- Collis, John (1997). Van Morrison : Inarticulate Speech of the Heart. Da Capo Press. p. 163. ISBN 0306808110.
- Paphides, Pete (March 3, 2006). "Even the Belfast cowboy gets the blues". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd. p. 15.
- Krewen, Nick (July 31, 2005). "Van the Man, enigma still; Another bio fails to explain Belfast's Morrison". Toronto Star. pp. D07.
- McCann, Eamonn (August 23, 1995). "Van Morrison may try teaching rocker intrigued by offer from university in Northern Ireland". San Francisco Examiner. p. C7.
- Tobin, Thomas C. (June 23, 2009). "Ecclesiastical Justice". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.
{{cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)