User talk:Cirt/Archive 2

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Pi zero in topic Category:World
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I see you've been granted Check User so well done & well done to everyone for getting 25 votes! Use it wisely. Regards.   Tris   20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! –Juliancolton | Talk 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Now you're CU, I've got a short list of people that need... Investigating.... mwahhaha --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Subsection concerning my opposing vote

Please do not think for one second that that I didn't trust or that I don't trust you now. The simple fact is that I do think you will be a great check user, and further asset to the Wikinews community. My dissent was based solely on the number of users with CU status versus my views on how many check users we should have. I said here that I did not think you "would abuse the tools in anyway ... , however, the number of CU users is already high enough. That said, if one or more the existing CU withdrew they CU status, I would see the need for the Cirt to get the tools as he is a frequent contributor/admin." As you have now been promoted to CU, this line of discussion seems pointless, but please remember that I fully trust you and now that you have the tools, I fully support you're having them as it was decided by the community (both Wikinewsies and others) and one of the foundations of Wikinews is collaboration and general agreement about things I'm not going to go against that trend just because I though 5 check users was one too many for this project. (On a side note, if you're CU vote had come on WP, I would have supported it in a heartbeat, as I realize that the English Wikipedia is far larger and needs all the help and support it can get.) So again, good luck. I know you will use the tools well and I hope you have little occasion to, for as far as I know, CUing is only when problems arise. Oh yeah, congratulations. Calebrw (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

w:Template talk:Recent death

I'm pretty sure we've got all the input there's going to be on this for the moment. Anyone strongly opposed to the change to link to Wikinews could probably still decide to assert there is no consensus, so I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to highlight it on the WP Village Pump, {{editprotected}} it, or make the change. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Can you get the abusive usernames and couple of nasty trolls and post details to checkuser-l? I'm kinda busy and they seem like known vandals who tend to use open proxies. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay have to run out now but will do in a couple hours, good point. Cirt (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
most posts on checkuser-l contain the log details. The useragent details can do a good job of tying vandalism from different wikis together. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah alright, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Please don't forget to bump dates on articles before you publish them :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point, okay. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help clean it up. I guess I just don't mind dashes as much as some people do. The other thing is since it was probably written by a Rich Kupchella -- a former TV news anchor -- it may have had a bit more of a broadcast style to it. Calebrw (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for working on Lightning strikes Mumbai. But it has failed review. I am searching for sources. Can you help me by making the article non-copyrighted? --Srinivas 06:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Make lead removing page from watchlist

I confirmed it happens to me to. This is an issue with the api. I've filled bugzilla:20816. Bawolff 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Adding DEFAULTSORT to an article resets when the article was added to a category. So adding it to an article from 4 years ago, makes it show up at the top of DPL's it could be included in. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lots of things reset the DPL to a category n stuff, so far, I have not heard of a solution for that yet. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

New Rhode Island articles

This seems worthy of a story, but I'm no good with business stuff. *hint* :)Juliancolton | Talk 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOL! You want me to write a Rhode Island article? I'll try to sit down with some time in a few hours and slap something interesting together... Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks great, thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. ;) Cirt (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Project INDECT

I need all the help I can get on this. Take a look at the in-prep article text, the video, and my notes on the talk. At the moment I'm going to look at the NeoConOpticon report - will be speaking to the author in the next couple of days. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Creepy stuff. I will take a look. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

New user

Hey there. I would like to contribute to Wikiquote, but I'm not really sure of the guidelines and policies here. I'm an active editor over at Wikipedia (User:Netalarm), but it appears that there are some differences between the two projects. Could you point out some things that I need to know? Thanks. Netalarm (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you realize this is Wikinews, right? :P Cirt (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Meh, I'd like to contribute to both. xP. So many projects tend to get just a bit confusing =D. Netalarm (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Heh, no worries. We could use good article writers and reviewers, here at Wikinews. :) Cirt (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The above article's problems didn't take long to fix, so I went and did it. Could you re-review? Thanx Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hrm, actually I see a bit more POV, moment... Cirt (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding space

[1] = I see a significant whitespace underneath the infobox when the quote is on the right side (maybe it's due to my rather low 1024x768 screen resolution). Perhaps you could consider moving the quote back to the left side (and moving {{HYS question left}} to the right side, to balance it out)? Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see everything perfectly, I don't think anything is wrong with the current layout. I looked at it at multiple different computers. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps this looks better for you? [2] Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that looks a lot better, there's no whitespace in that version. Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply


You did the block on poetlister (talk · contribs). Can you comment on the Water Cooler before xe sends me another unblock-begging-email?

When I first got one a while back I asked a few people on IRC and got a general, "you want to accidentally mark that email as junk and forget about it" hints. I could not be bothered wading through all the linked-to Wikidrama, and I have zero interest in arguing about cross-project bans or authority. Based on contributions here Poetlister was okay; but, sockpuppeting? What's the "pop psychology" diagnosis? Megalomania? Planned vote-stacking? Would we face someone creating two personae to write and review their own stories?

What does the evidence suggest? I doubt access logs go back far enough to checkuser Poetlister's contributions here pre-block. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply


☻ Someone has poured you tea

You welcomed me on Oct 21. Can you help?

Please help me with the article British Climatic Research Unit's emails hacked (talk). I've not created it, but I hope you can suggest something and/or review it. Q0k (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Suggest contacting Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) regarding the points that could be addressed. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
But he is an involved editor, as you can see:[3]. I need help of an uninvolved editor to publish the article. Q0k (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
These is what Brian McNeil says at the talk of the article: "I'm also not about to review it (again). The way the story came up prejudiced me against it". Q0k (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes but he might have advice on how it can be further improved. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
You see, Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) does not want to see this article again: "I'm also not about to review it (again). The way the story came up prejudiced me against it". Q0k (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are now making me repeat myself. He said he would not review it again. That does not mean he would not offer advice on whether or not it has been improved since his prior review. Cirt (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
At the talk page, you see that that user is busy now. While we are talking here, the news is getting 5 days old. I hope there is a way to work a lot and to publish it today. But I'm a novice, I have done everything the "to-do" list at the talk page of the article has offered. Help? Please? Q0k (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you anyhow, the article has been published. Q0k (page, talk, contributions) 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Block of Anthony 5432

Hi Cirt! Could I ask why specifically you blocked Anthony 5432 (talk · contribs)? Your block summary wasn't very specific. Was he socking? Just curious. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

[4]. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Hi Cirt, just popped by to say thanks for your support in my RfA. the wub "?!" 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries, Cirt (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikinews:Deletion requests#December 26.2C 2009

You recreated a previously by-consensus deleted category. I have nominated it for deletion again and highlighted the important NPOV reasons laid out in the prior discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Flood flag

Better use it if you're doing that cat. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, good point, but I'm pretty much done now. :P Cirt (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I'm sorry I was so quick and blunt, but I needed to get it in fast. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
No worries, Cirt (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply


Just a heads up, using <div class='float_in_title>....</div> (instead of the big long style='position:...') will work in all skins, as opposed to just monobook. Bawolff 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you fix it? Cirt (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done Bawolff 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Billion Year Contracts

I've read the emailed OR stuff - looks good. I copyedited the lede and intro and have scanned through to check the quoted interview is substantially accurate (not as nitpickily as I read in the original document). Can you work Hubbard into the intro to move that wikilink out of her question answers, look at the comment on the talk about appropriate corrections - there's the example, some inappropriate capitalisations, and probably a few other points you could correct without altering the meaning in any way or (sic)ing her.

Can you do that, as well as try to cut out all wikilinks in her answers and keep those in your questions to a minimum (eg, list in intro the other preceding publications). This is mainly to minimise people's temptation to wander off in the middle of the interview.

You may have done some of this - give me a shout, about for another hour, possibly two, and I'll review and publish. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Deletion request

Hi Cirt. Would you please reopen the discussion you just closed? The debate didn't last for the normal three days given to other articles going through PROD, and I had an unanswered question. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, sorry. Consensus was quite clear, unanimously so, for deletion. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but the discussion was only open for a day, preventing other less frequent users to express their opinions. In addition, an unanswered question indicates that the discussion hasn't finished. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to ask that particular question at that particular user's user talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Questions on deletion procedures are best directed towards closing admins, which in this case is you. So since you insist on keeping the debate closed, I shall ask you: why wasn't the article allowed to go through PROD, and why did you close the discussion early? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • You want the answer Benny? You should've asked me. I nominated it, and – if you looked at it, and the god awful cesspool sources used – then you should understand perfectly clearly why it was nominated for a swift and ignominious death. I will not go into details around the checkuser results on the team of sockpuppets that kept trying to build a fake consensus, publish what they'd written with another account, or talk up the trash. Wikinews doesn't need it, your question was stupid if you had not reviewed the article talk page, the article's edit history, and the fact that virtually every contributor to it, plus several IP addresses and proxies, all got blocked or permabanned. Redtop journalism is garbage; it isn't even fit to use to wrap your fish and chips in, plus they probably use toxic ink that comes off on the food - the actual printed content is indisputably toxic. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yea, um, that. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
People write terrible articles all the time, and when they do, we just fail the reviews and delete them through prod! And when we DO have a deletion discussion, everybody should at least have the opportunity to voice their opinions! Benny the mascot (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

undeleting {{ready}}

Hi, just a heads up, I undeleted {{ready}} since its linked from a lot of pages, and redirects generally don't hurt. ezPeerReview does recognize it (actually it recognized {{ready}} {{review}} {{breaking review}} and {{under review}}). There was a bug introduced when adding i18n support for FR that caused it to not replace the review template when reviewing articles. It should be fixed now. Cheers. Bawolff 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries, Cirt (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Upcoming articles

  1. tardis
  2. conlang
  3. author interview
  4. free speech interview
;) Cirt (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: nice job

Thanks :) Wasn't too bad for my first article. Just have to keep an eye on what categories i should/shouldn't be adding in. Wizardman 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Single source policy

The single source policy doesn't apply to local news. See {{single source}}. Also, I would appreciate it if you give details on what exactly I need to copyedit on the article you just failed. Benny the mascot (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably best to get more eyes from additional reviewers. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Although {{single source}} says local news doesn't have to follow the multiple-source policy, I've noticed that in practise, that's almost never done. Articles with one source/publication cited will almost certainly get tagged, regardless of how local they are. Tempodivalse [talk]
  • The key text on the single source template is (emphasis added): "Exceptions may be possible". Not a carte-blanche to publish from a single source due to something being ultra-local. An element of discretion is required to permit reviewers to critically assess a single listed source which may be very closely related to the author of the Wikinews publication. As Cirt knows, there are very good reasons why WN:AGF is a redlink. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nod, both comments have some good points. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Search engine optimisation spam - abuse filter

You seem to have developed most of the abuse filter entries; is there one from Wikipedia, or can one be created, to watch out for terms related to using search engine optimisation where there are multiple links to external websites not included in appropriate templates? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about just try adding all those links to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? :) Cirt (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ohhh. I would suggest asking for advice from w:User talk:Werdna - and/or at w:Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. There are folks there that are much more experienced than I. :) Cirt (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hat hab at en.wikiquote

[copied from my talk]

Hi Bawolff, I hope you are doing well. See my "test" subsection, here [5]. Perhaps you could tell me why the Hat/Hab templates are not collapsing what is inside? Cirt (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your missing the required javascript. (specificly stuff relating to navboxes) From which wiki did you get the template? Bawolff 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: Thank you

Your welcome. Happy Editing Cocoaguytalkcontribs 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your Support for my RFE

Thank you Cirt for your support. I won't let you down. PSD27 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


Hey Cirt, just a heads-up as an arbcom member, there's a case that's come up that needs your consideration. [6] You're the only one who hasn't commented yet, thought I'd just make a friendly ping. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Commented there, thanks. ;) Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


I saw you privately ping me in irc, but i was AFK at the time, by the time i returned you were gone. :-( Was there something you wanted to contact me about? Tempodivalse [talk] 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Got advice on something from someone else, thanks though. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rubber stamp

It looks alarmingly as if you recently rubber-stamped a bunch of articles, publishing five in less than fifteen minutes. Our reputation — and therefore our future as a project — hinges on the fact that we absolutely will not ever publish an article without a rigorous review, even at the cost that some articles go stale and are ultimately deleted because they weren't peer-reviewed in time. (See Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/February#How to peer-review.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wholly incorrect assessment. I read and reviewed them earlier. They were up for over 10 hours or so. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Glad to hear it. And yes, I was aware of about how long they'd been waiting. --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Block of OP

Hi Cirt, just a heads-up that I reblocked (talk · contribs) to indef, more in line with our current practise. Feel free to revert if you disagree though. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Current practise? As defined by? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
? ... in other words, we've always blocked open proxies this way. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Five years, or indef, either way is fine with me. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sports Prefixes

Could you please take a look at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Sports_Prefixes. Please give your thoughts there. Calebrw (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply


I assume you have read everything on recent moronic activity?

If you have email enabled, I will be in touch once I get to work because, frankly, I think several of those who severely escalated this into a people leaving and getting de-privved issue should, themselves, be subject to votes of confidence. They did far, far more damage than I - and I now cannot checkuser our latest vandal/abusive username. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

nice ;-)

Wish you'd write more; you could do with some practice. ;-)

But, a classic headline to dig up. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Scientology article question

Cirt, I have a question about part of the article you wrote at Talk:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Thanks! Either way (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

EPR didn't sight. (After all that.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

A quick note

Please see Talk:Car_bomb_attack_in_Iraqi_town,_at_least_two_dead_and_45_injured#No_verb_in_title. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nod, agree with both comments there. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Janwikifoto comment

Dear Cirt, you have to read the Discussion page for the story Talk:UN to protect free speech on internet to see the changes, and the points that I do not understand. If you make an affort to sxplain, maybe I can write a few more stories. --Janwikifoto --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

CU request

I know, this is painful. Those checks need done, otherwise the people who picked the "fluffy bunny wallpaper" win with the idiocy that is AGI.

Skenmy's exceedingly terse response does not take into account the blocks & checks around sundry socks associated with this permabanned user. IIRC, I had to go as far as a block of a /10.

As you will see, as evidence builds, piece by piece, Xe - the troll - tries to retreat for a later attack. The interview is fiction. God-only-knows who the Japanese-looking woman in the pictures is. Look up the purported interviewee on a non-misregistered CC site. It looks like the interviewee photos are about 5-10 years older than the PR ones.

Good luck with this one, it is a mess. You have my private mail, you can as-appropriate ask others who will not share result. And, to close, you need to look at the non-user CUs I performed around Saqib, and related users blocked. You are talking about a lot of sweaty socks. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom case filed

Hello! I've filed a new arbitration case. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply


I have nominated you as a candidate in the current ArbCom elections. Please see the sitenotice, and be sure to clearly accept or decline the nomination. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the nomination! -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

election certificate

Election Certificate

The election committee for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election certifies that this user was elected to be an Arbitrator until July 31, 2011.

Benny the mascot (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note to self - cleanup stuff

Cirt (talk)


Per here, please respond. This, I believe, should be treated as a serious matter. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

See talk thread #Serious errors. --Pi zero (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, might be helpful to also notify the user that wrote the article itself, for future reference, at the user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks in return. Being at least as absent-minded as the next entity, I appreciate reminders. As it happens, I did. --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply


PacketFactory (talk · contribs) has just popped up and made exactly the same kind of attempted Peer Review circumvention as Mike3620 (talk · contribs) in an effort to get xyr propaganda published. Can you run a CU please? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you post a request, to WN:RFCU? -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Alviner (talk · contribs)

That comment is a seo/spam link methinkst. - Amgine | t 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but only one edit so far. Please do monitor and keep me apprised above it, or generally admins at WN:AAA. -- Cirt (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Replied. :-) --Diego Grez return fire 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Adding info

Please don't self-review when you add info; per WN:REVIEW somebody else needs to do it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Really? It's pretty simple stuff, each diff is tied directly to the source. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Really. Otherwise, you effectively bypass peer review. Which is A Bad Thing™. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Alright, okay. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Early archiving?

...fifteen hours early? Pourquoi? --Pi zero (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Eh, couldn't hurt. I just did a few a tad bit early. Two days might be a bit much, but can't really complain about this short of a time span. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well... it could hurt if it early-archived an article that was still on the main page. Over the past few weeks we've often been only one or two articles away from archiving off the main page, and we've crossed over the line twice (once for several consecutive days, as I recall). I'm all in favor of forcing an article off the main page by archiving it when it's actually seven days old, but until then I'd rather not artificially shortchange the main page list. Also keep in mind that when archiving an article that's still listed on the main page, it's important to add the archive tag and sight that edit before protecting it; otherwise we'd be listing an article on the main page that most users actually can't edit, which would be un-wiki of us. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah, understood. Thanks for the explanation, and for being so kind and polite in your conduct when imparting it. Most appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note to self - comments about articles

[7] - Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Can you come on IRC? I want to discuss a potential story but no one else is around, and you're the last person at Recent changes. Thanks, :) Matthewedwards (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Hello, Cirt. I had a query- what are the interviews, like 'Wikinews interviews Ubuntu developer Fabrice'? How are they taken and by whom? Thanks, and awaiting reply --Sainsf :) (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not Cirt (obviously) but if it helps, please take a look at WN:OR. Original reporting, such as interviews, is the reason we are here (imo). They are (usually) taken by a Wikinewsie in good standing, often by accredited reporters. Method is whatever method suits the interviewee: email, im, irc, phone, in person. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, InfantGorilla (talk · contribs), much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Texas Agriculture Commissioner article

You know, man....I'm really trying to hang in here.....I really am......I've submitted a'lot of stuff lately that's ended up in the toilet.....but again, I'm trying to hang tough. Re: the Texas Commissioner of Agriculture article....I really don't disagree with some of your observations....and admittedly, I might've rushed it a tiny bit into review status. However, re: NPOV, you stated that it seemed a little bit like Spam/, the article was about The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture coming to a school......he did it, it happened....he was there.....I was there.....someone being there isn't spammy....they were there or they weren't there......a notable political person being at a place isn't just is what it is.....the topic was clear......the article was about the visit.....what's spammy about a visit?Bddpaux (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see it still only uses one source. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category templates (or whatever the issue is)

I do not understand the motivation behind your reversion of my edit to Category:Abortion. Could you please explain? --Pi zero (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if you have a concern, you could help suggest changes be made to the category templates themselves, such as {{latestcat}}, instead of manually changing things, at individual categories. You see? -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd tend to agree that latestcat is pretty shoddy as it stands. Was what you'd put in lifted direct from it? If so, the DPL needed sundry hackery anyway - the listed articles shouldn't include disputed or nopublish items (see main page dpl). A quick glance also suggests that, in this case, it is grammatically incorrect too. How about trying a new {{topical category}} template? That is, being mindful of the current main page look, that some will be sparse, others well-populated and merit a geo-breakdown. Of course, the actual 'raw list' should not be pushed completely out of sight.
This was what I was trying to do with the portal template design, but quite a bit of work on MakeLead &EzPeerReview is needed there. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have started a discussion, at Template talk:Latestcat. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I did copy the DPL from {{latestcat}}. (Fixed, I think.)
I've been envisioning standardized category format as rather no-frills compared to portals. Roughly like {{Areacategory}} (e.g., Category:Alberta, Category:Bengaluru). --Pi zero (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The changes to {{latestcat}} look great, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

wikiquote user welcome

responded on my talk. Bawolff 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


I've unpublished Nevada Republican opposes Angle for US Senate over 'extreme' anti-abortion position due to the defamation of character unsupported by the sources for the article. There is no mention in any of the sources of Scientology. - Amgine | t 19:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wrong. Cited in the Related news subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have examined the prior article. She was criticised for supporting a prison program. In no way does that article, or any other source connected to this news article, assert past criticism for membership in Scientology nor her support of alleged Scientology forced abortions. When you add explicit sources which do so I would withdraw my current opposition to publication of such an otherwise baseless defamation. - Amgine | t 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wrong. Info in article at present is Confirmed to multiple secondary sources [8]. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pakistan's former president Farooq Leghari dies aged 70

Is it ready for review now? We have image of Leghari but fair use, can we use it? --Saki (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Best to try to find a free-use version. Who is "we" ? -- Cirt (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
We Wikinewsie. --Saki (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it is already on Wikinews it might be ok (though I can't find it on English Wikinews.) Please post a link. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Image link, [9]. --Saki (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Of course. Such a way? Talk:Wikileaks_releases_Iraq_War_logs#Source for Iran involvment. thanks--Pierpao (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I [added] the right template with all necessary data in the sources section. But someone deleted it with the news. I do not understand why Iraq tortures are not Pov and Iran renforcement are Pov. It seems not a such free and open newzine. I'll never write for the third times the same period. If you like to do you are welcome. Take care--Pierpao (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the sourcing of "WikiLeaks Releases Iraqi War Logs," please see the notes I'd added in the "Collaboration" section of the article. I hope you find them ok, and will reinstate the changes I'd made. Best Wishes.The san gabriel mountains (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Hi there! I'm an improving news-writer and trying to become an efficient one. I also want to review articles and improve my knowledge. I frankly address that my previous reviewer request (3 months ago) had been rejected because I couldn't understand the Style Guide. But now I've improved. Please help me in becoming a reviewer! Thanks --Sainsf :) (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

fetch·comms 22:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

WN:RFCU - Assistance needed

Hi Cirt. As you get time to, would you please be kind enough to go to WN:RFCU and possibly take a look at the additionals to the KittiesonfireXX range you confirmed for us please? There are new accounts appearing, and I was wondering if I could get confirmation or denial as to whether they're tied to the original set you CU'd previously please? Many Thanks. BarkingFish (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

re: Welcome

Hey! Thanks for the kind message. I've actually edited as an IP before on Wikipedia, so for that reason I'm familiar enough with wikis to be able to edit here! I've actually been considering working with your team here at Wikinews, although I do have a few questions. I've noticed that the articles here on Wikinews are primarily syntheses of other news sources; is that an article format that you generally prefer? Would you accept articles that draw from non-news sources, like academic journals or newsmagazines? How much leeway is there for a writer to argue in favor of a particular viewpoint, given that a writer can never be completely neutral?

I look forward to discussing with you further... I realize that my questions may be quite vague, so I might end up writing a few articles to try Wikinews out anyway. Since I don't have a talk page that I can easily check, you can respond here if you'd like. (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest asking at Wikinews:Water cooler/Assistance. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Block based on CU

There is some discussion on the blocks of this IP going on on WN:AAA.

I know about the issues with CU disclosure; is there any information you can give regarding this block? Since there are no contributions, or deleted contributions, for this IP - and no apparent rangeblock - can you shed light on this? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will comment there. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Early archivng?

Some reason to have not waited until midnight UTC? (Just curious.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was only a few hours. It couldn't have really hurt. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I was just wondering if there was a particular reason. It's certainly not earthshaking (though, due to our somewhat low output recently the articles that get archived are pulled off the main page thereby). --Pi zero (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
You think something should stay on the main page as "news", for over 6 days? -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I'm not in a hurry to archive it before the appointed moment when we're short on stories on the main page listing. But like I said, it's not earthshaking; I was only wondering if there was a particular reason, and I gather 'no'. That's fine, my curiosity is satisfied :-). --Pi zero (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am not really sure if it is even worth devoting this much time to coming over here and discussing this relatively insignificant issue. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dynamic IP

Just as a reminder, you really shouldn't block a dynamic IP for longer than 24 hours. That's the limitation in the BP, and any mildly competent vandal knows how to get a new IP from their ISP so it's not an effective tool in most cases. - Amgine | t 19:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the input. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

re disruption

Hello, I was not trying to be disruptive. I was following the [[Wikinews:Despite resolution - Step three. I apologize for any disruption I caused. Since I have no "off wiki" communications, I don't know much about how to go about things here, and the directions are very unclear. Again, I am sorry for the disruption. It was done out of misunderstanding "Step three". Is there a place to get advice here that is not considered disruptive? Is there any way to get help? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You "notified" at least eleven (11) different users, in posts of quite similar texts, to each of their user talk pages. That is disruptive. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

epic fail

fixing now, thanks Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

fixed Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


How can i make one thats easy to do? thank you. --Beginner2 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps ask at Wikinews:Water cooler/Assistance. -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks for reviews

Dear Cirt, Thank you so much for reviewing Gay couple elected prom king and queen in Maine's Sanford High School and YouTube allows users to share videos under Creative Commons license! I appreciate the edits you made to the first article before passing it, and I also appreciate the suggestions you made for the second article. Hopefully I have sufficiently revised the second article, so that it is now ready for publication. Best, Ragettho (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. And, Done! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

What does that mean?

You told me that the merger between my article and another article had to be addressed. What do you mean by this? I have already incorporated information from Tyrol5's article into mine. What issues need to be addressed? Can you please help as soon as you possibly can? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 12:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I mean that the issues had to be fully addressed, discussed on the talk pages, and the merge tags removed, and then one article redirected to the other. That had not yet happened. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


I'm serious about the compliment as I have seen you on multiple sites, always constructive. Do you remember that I reviewed at least two of your articles for GA? You were a pleasure to work with! Best wishes, and thanks! Mattisse (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly as I recall, um, but thanks, I guess ... -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Should I have not said that? Mattisse (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your words are appreciated, as are the complements. Your memory and your recollection of the situation is a bit ... off. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well I found one, not under the best of circumstances I guess Talk:Being Tom Cruise/GA1 - but I was always trying to edit well. That was my goal. I hope you have it in your heart to understand, since you are prolific also, and I always sought to improve wikipedia. Mattisse (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thank you for the good faith comments recently, Mattisse. I really appreciate that! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interview sketch

I've put together a few questions on User:Ragettho/Interview proposal for National Archives Wikipedian in Residence. Feel free to add any other questions you might have. Ragettho (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom nomination?

Would you accept nomination for another year on ArbCom? The deadline for nominations is 2000UTC on the 17th. --Pi zero (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

To be sure of getting in before the deadline, I went ahead and nominated you. Hope that's okay. --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question (re election page)

I'd like your opinion of a possible alternative. I understand your discomfort with a deceptive TOC; indeed, I recall that bothered me last year. I am also uncomfortable hiding part of the record of proceedings.

What would you think of having an archival section with a different name making it clear from the TOC that it's not an active candidacy — perhaps "(withdrawn) Cirt", or even "[WITHDRAWN] Cirt"? I'd have no problem simply omitting the comments/votes subsections since they never had any content (or we might choose another way to prevent them from appearing in the TOC). --Pi zero (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Libyan rebels story

can u help? --Dustbowlhero (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


I saw your name at WikiNews: List of WikiNews Welcommittee volunteers and would like to ask you a question: Why exactly should I create an account here? 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (Never mnd.)

A thought on archiving

For perspective: My practice when archiving has been, for the past year or so, not to archive below 10 articles on the main page. If there are only ten articles on the main page, to my mind, the articles there are serving primarily as representatives of our work, and it makes no sense to me to hide our work; indeed, truthfully, it seems to me more detrimental to the project to leave too small a sample on the main page than it does to leave some older articles visible there. I've been diligent about archiving; when we get down to ten articles on the main page, I archive one article for each article that is published, until we pull out of the slow-down. --Pi zero (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Btw, I realized a bit later, I usually thank you on WN:CU when you've helped out there, and this past time, in the press of events, I forgot. Thank you! --Pi zero (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, sounds good, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply


...whom you blocked yesterday as a sock, is requesting unblock on grounds of mistaken identity. Based on rather ordinary-looking contributions on other projects, I'm somewhat inclined to grant the request, but thought I should check whether you had any objections / supplementary comment on the case. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Hare Krishna movement

Just a note, because I notice you created Category:ISKCON. I renamed it. In discussions in recent times, the community has generally preferred to avoid acronyms in category names (rather like headlines, I suppose, where the advice is to avoid acronyms unless length is prohibitive or they're better-known than the full name (like NASA)). I seriously considered using the expansion of ISKCON for the new category name, but decided to go with the common name in keeping with the precedent of Category:Mormonism.

If you really feel strongly that it should be Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness, let me know; my preference isn't that strong, and if the rename is a mess that needs cleaning up, I did it so I won't shirk my responsibility to fix it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was probably going by whatever was the convention at en.wikipedia at the time. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

re: Woman gives birth on New Jersey PATH train

Thanks!!! hopefully I can find a better picture. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 00:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply


Since I believe you're active on a range of projects, and therefore see a real variety of users and reactions, I'd be most interested if you could comment on the ban proposal at AAA and let us know one way or the other what you think of it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply


Did my best to articulate my concerns more lucidly on the article talk; sorry it took so long. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply


You're aware I'm intensively reviewing that article, right? --Pi zero (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Replied at User talk:Pi zero. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

User talk:

Hey. Unblock request of one of your blocks at the above talkpage - I can't see the techinal stuff and don't even know which sock collection this was supposed to be from, so I'd appreciate it if you could deal with this. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm almost disappointed. I thought that guy had more imagination. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

User talk:

Range blocks are outside my repertory. --Pi zero (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

New neologism

Hi Cirt, I just read your new article in review. What do you think about putting this at the top? "A new website now appears prominently among Internet search results for Romney and defines the candidate's last name as 'to defecate in terror'." Thank you for your edits to other articles, Crtew (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done, thanks for the suggestion! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

romney neologism article

You may have observed, I didn't pass it. I already knew I wasn't going to pass it when I put {{under review}} on it; I wanted to provide as much useful feedback as I could, though, which is what took so long. --Pi zero (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I replied at the article talk page - I agree with all of your suggestions! Thanks for the helpful advice and I'll get on addressing it soon. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply


Cirt, The death toll changed since the author wrote this and the death toll is now 39. I left a suggestion for updating on the collaboration page. Crtew (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for being on top of this, I changed Template:Lead article 1 to match it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this category - I'm doing a cross-collaboration project as a crosswiki sister project coordination at Commons:Category:Freedom of speech. Please feel free to help populate the category locally at this project, that'd be most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Importing an enWS filter

Gday. I have a filter at enWS and other wikis that is there to highlight possible pattern bot accounts. Could I impose upon you to import that Filter here so we can keep better track of the issue. Thanks. Billinghurst (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sure, gladly, what steps must I take? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sandra Fluke insists she will not be silenced

I wanted to comment to you directly on this. If I weren't honestly significantly uncomfortable with the article as it stands, I'd have put my concerns in a comment on the talk page rather than submitting an actual not-ready review; but, I feel one way or another the issues need to be discussed. At the same time, I'm really quite dissatisfied with my own ability to offer guidance on the matter, so have invited BRS's advice, and am considering whether to ask brianmc's. I suppose I've got a dual motive there, since I'd both like to see the difficulty with the article successfully resolved, and see it as an opportunity to advance my own understanding as a Wikinewsie. --Pi zero (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cirt, are you around? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


This is a little thing, so, I want you to treat it as a little thing, as-in it only warrants a little bit of thought......but, remember how I got my knickers in a bit of a twist a few days ago about the Santorum category thing? You, Pi Zero et al. provided some good clarity re: all of that AND through that (and more reading) on my part I came to learn about all the bru-ha-ha around Wikipedia and the neologism etc. etc. Admittedly, just bouncing around via Google shows there's been plenty of mess about Savage, Santorum, the neologism, the drink etc. etc. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF NEWSWORTHY STUFF GOING ON, no doubt about that on my part. Heck, the whole "campaign" re: the genesis/development of the neologism is worthy of a d*mn book unto itself!! But lets not trail off onto that.
What I think I was trying to say the other day, and what I know I'm trying to say now is this: Wikinews is a good thing. NPOV is a very good thing. Articles with titles/tone/timbre like Savage on Santorum on Savage begin to creep (when viewed along side other efforts) toward Agenda-Pushing.....that's what I'm trying to say. Viewed within a vacuum, the style/tone etc. of the article may, unto itself meet NPOV guidelines...but I'm talking big picture here. I'm really, really, really saying this humbly and I'm not attacking you...........I just think backing away, taking a breath and looking at the whole picture might be valuable. Sermonizing is hereby over. :) --Bddpaux (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

On the topic of catchy interesting article titles that grab the reader's attention and then make it more likely they'll actually read the article and gain some knowledge from it, please see another article I wrote, "Post-probe, problematic peanut paste products pulled". :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Savage v Santorum

Er. Okay, well, I not-ready'd it. I could have just pulled the video, of course; my real concern was the lede.

What really makes me feel guilty, I suppose, is that, having found it not-ready, I'm now going to bed and sleep for seven or eight hours; I haven't got another review in me tonight. --Pi zero (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


Do you want accessed or distribution date? I did it by distribution. The Pediatrics article was embargoed until March 19 but is the March issue. Crtew (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay that sounds great. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Women etc

The women infobox is a nice idea, but I feel it misses something; would we simply dump in every story to which a woman contributes? Likewise the category. What might be a nice idea is to rename (except you can't properly rename cats, ofc, delete and recreat... PITA, might get a bot on it) instead as Women's issues. We could pull in all the related cats for the infobox and make them subcats of the cat. Springing to mind are Category:Feminism (Saw you create that :), Category:Women's rights, Category:International Women's Day, and Category:Women's sports.
I'll take a look at the Fluke thing. I was gonna do a free speech one too, might ask you to take a look at that after. :D Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look at the article! ;) I'd suggest we use the infobox on articles where a woman/women are the central focus of the article itself. Modifying it might work, but I'd say perhaps to Women's rights instead. I'll give it some more thought. I note that all the subcats you cited above, are already subcats, of the main cat, Category:Women. -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've always disliked Category:Women.
  • It's got a name that doesn't make it clear what to expect in it, making it both unlikely to be well maintained and unlikely to be useful.
  • It's got a name that isn't likely to be linked when the word occurs in an article, which further makes it unlikely to be well maintained (this being one of the purposes of {{w}}).
Put another way, I'm dubious there is any situation where one would not be better off using some more specific and well-defined category (such as Category:Women's rights) instead. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I like both, but you're probably right about the last point. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Sandra Fluke

Better? :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Much! Thanks very much! -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pattern bot abuse filter

I note that the pattern bot filter is not present at enWN. I wasn't sure whether that was accidental or intentional so I am popping here to ask. Billinghurst (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to add it, and thanks very much for your help! -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Leonid Shebarshin

Hi there. If you've got some time, could you take a look at my little obit for a onetime KGB head? It's at Ex-KGB head Leonid Shebarshin dies at age 77. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing, I'll start reading and doing some minor copyedits if the need arises. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Going out for a bit, might not finish it for a few hours though. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's okay. Thanks for working on it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I finished it off. --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Labor Department Honors Farmworkers and Cesar Chavez

Can you please help? I think the article is neutrally written and well sourced. Labor reporter (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to get a chance to look it over a bit later on. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
thank you. Labor reporter (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is a further development in this saga. See WN:AAA thread. --Pi zero (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Cirt, Is there anyway you could *review* Brazzaville? It's been one month as of today, and it's critical that it reviewed very soon. I know it's a big job. Crtew (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

First female bishop in NSW and Canberra consecrated

I've just been scratching my head about this, and since you reviewed it I figured there was at least some chance you might be able to shed light on the matter. (I know as well as anyone that reviewers can't possibly catch everything, but, some chance anyway. :-)

Why is "and Canberra" in this headline? It's not apparent to me the story has anything to do with Canberra. --Pi zero (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point. The author probably meant "or". Did you ask the author? -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
/me blinks. "or"? I still don't get it; any relation to Canberra eludes me. Not only does our article not mention Canberra, but the source I can access doesn't mention it either. (The other source complains I don't have Flash on this machine.)
I expect the author to be hard to reach; but yeah, guess that's my next stop. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, feel free to keep me posted. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Cirt, Why are we all on a watchlist? These are my students. If we have a similar IP it's because we're in the same classroom. Did we do anything? Crtew (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hooker photo


I saw that you had deleted the Hooker photo. Actually, I believe that mugshot fall under PD-CAGov template explanation. Do you agree or disagree? Thanks, Crtew (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, she loaded it with the wrong license. Can we request an undelete with the proper template? Crtew (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yulia Tymoshenko on hunger strike

The story is barely 4 hours old, notification is just coming out that she has been hit and has been on hunger strike since Friday. I have added refs. I dont have time to edit all the details but every major news agency will cover the story within 24 hours, so surely wiki news can at least give a headline. Yours ever w:user:Czar Brodie, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's comments on the talk page by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that should be addressed, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Would you please go and undelete User talk:Labor reporter/test. I did not ask for it to be deleted. Thank you. Labor reporter (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it's basically spam/coi. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Australian media focuses on Olympic prospects against US for women's basketball

Can you please consider reviewing Australian media focuses on Olympic prospects against US for women's basketball ? I'd very much rather talk to sport organisations as a Wikinews accredited reporter than as a Wikipedian and WM-AU board member. If we can't get timely reviews on original reporting, it makes it difficult to justify doing Wikinews portions of live coverage. : / --LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it got reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sandra Fluke article......

...lots of sister links on that one....very cool! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply


It took me a few minutes to line up my rearrangement of leads. Partly automating that is on our wish list of software upgrades. Makelead doesn't warn of lead shifts while one is arranging it (another possible upgrade, there), so I've actually had things get screwed up because two different people both decided to make something a lead but did it differently during overlapping times. Fortunately, I was just a little slower than you were, and my rearrangement included the number 5 spot. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Revision history of "Mass protest grows against Kudankulam nuclear power plant in India"

Thank you very much! --Fmrauch (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where in the sources is the 55,000 number verified? --Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've submitted an edit removing the sentence pending determination. If you'd care to review my submission. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

There appears to be a second error (at least) in the article. The article says that according to the BBC, someone was shot by police trying to disperse the crowds, but afaics the BBC source doesn't say how the person was shot, and a commenter claims the person was shot trying to break into a police station.

I'm getting the feeling the writer was writing bullshit. --Pi zero (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not, however, certain on this point. The comment might be wrong too, and I'm really not sure how to read the BBC source; so I'm not actually proposing a {{correction}} at this point. --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
False alarm, methinks. I'm satisfied the article's okay. <sigh> Starting to mistrust a reviewed article is a slippery slope. --Pi zero (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply


You sighted a revision of the unpublished article. That wet stinging sensation you just felt was a trout. --Pi zero (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, which one, where? Can I undo it? -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I undid it. When you reverted the removal of the disclaimer, you sighted it (by reflex, would be my guess).
Btw, it's looking like I'll probably have to suspect this review for the night before finishing it; of course I optimistically underestimated the size of the task. I'd love to get it out the door before I turn [in], but my eyes are already expressing a preference otherwise. --Pi zero (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
You mean suspend? Oh I was really hoping of informing a few folks interested in the article that it'd be live soon. Anything you could do would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Review is slow; we all know it. I'm still struggling through my copyedit pass; haven't even started source-checking yet, and honestly I'm not sure I'm sharp enough now (let alone as it gets later).
I'll do what I can. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Published. I wondered just after publication (as usual) whether before publication it might have been desirable to rename it by removing the prefix "Expclusive:"; the template says it's exclusive, and interviews usually are. But I'm not inclined to change it post-publish, as that can mess up various feeds. --Pi zero (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks, next time I write up an interview I won't have that as part of the title. To my knowledge, he hasn't done an interview related to his new book yet. -- Cirt (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply


This has never been used consistently, from all I've seen. It's certainly never been used as an inclusive category, i.e., the union of all continents — and honestly, it doesn't seem like a category for the union of all continents would be useful anyway. I've long wondered what, ultimately, should be done with Category:World. Occasionally I've seen it on an article that I couldn't immediately say it didn't belong on, but most articles I've found it on (in the archives) I've removed it from. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply