Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 06:42, 6 June 2011 (→A concern: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Cirt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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.
Nominations: Metropolitan Club (New York City) (talk | history | start review) • Interstate 85 in North Carolina (talk | history | start review) • Main Street Vehicles (talk | history | start review) • Rico Krieger (talk | history | start review) • Maisi (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Green Lantern (film) • Cú Chulainn • Wings (1927 film) • Electric vehicle warning sounds • Vampire folklore by region • American Horror Story • Henry VIII • British Library • Mikhail Gorbachev • 2017 World Series • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Refining the administrator elections process Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace Voluntary RfAs after resignation For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

15 January 2025 From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Other neat portal ideas for longer term

• Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:

1. Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion, United States; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
2. Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
3. Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
4. Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
5. If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.

   Also take some time to check out style/formatting at Portal:Indiana Cirt (talk)

Note to self - tools and templates

• MakeRef
• Reflinks
• Citation tool for Google Books
• Citation tool for DOIs
• Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size
• User:Edward/Find link

independent reliable secondary sources

• User:Citation bot/use

• {{findsources}}

Refs inside scroll box

<div class="reflist4" style="height: 200px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #ababab">{{reflist|2}}</div>

Cite templates

<ref>{{cite book| last =  | first =  | authorlink =  | coauthors =  | title =  | publisher =  | year =  | location =  | page =  | url =  | doi =  | id =    | isbn = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news| last =  | first =  | coauthors =  | title =  | work =  | language =  | publisher =  | page =  | date =  | url =  | accessdate =  }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal|last =| first=| authorlink=| coauthors=|title=|journal=|volume=|issue=|page=|publisher=|location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web| last =  | first =  | authorlink =  | coauthors =  | title =  | work =  | publisher =  | date =  | url =  | format =  | doi =  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

Citation model

The Simpsons (season 3)

Body text in-cite

<ref name="REFNAME">], p. PAGENUMBER</ref>

References section

(reference template from WP:CIT)

*<cite id=LASTNAME>REFERENCE</cite>

Different model

• Template:Citation
• Template:Harvnb
• Example: <ref name="REFNAME">{{Harvnb|LAST|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>

See models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.

More info. Cirt (talk)

More at Misplaced Pages:Harvard citation template examples.

And Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets.

Cirt (talk)

Note to self - New article creation project - Game for Vultures

Game for Vultures, novel by Michael Hartmann, 1976.

• Made into a film, A Game for Vultures.

1. Fix both redirects, Game for Vultures and Game for vultures.
2. Create a hatnote, from one to the other. (Slightly confusing with the only different being the "A" in the beginning).
3. Begin research for WP:RS secondary sources, book reviews, news articles, etc.
4. Think about sect on Film adaptation or just Adaptations within the book article.
5. Draft up sourced brief article for author, currently empty with disambig at Michael Hartmann.
6. Notes regarding relevant WikiProjects, post regarding interested parties to work on the article.
7. IMDB page for author, not much there, link
8. Other books by same author: The Hunted (1982), Days of Thunder (1980), Leap for the Sun (1976), Web of Dragons (1988)
9. Research on the reception from secondary sources, of these other books.
10. Credited also as co-author on the screenplay, OCLC 6567974
11. Book, OCLC 2425654, and OCLC 16481951

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

-- Cirt (talk)

Thank you for keeping us from having to wear helmets

Sorry if you object to what some term "the orange bar of death" but I just wanted to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for your work at RFPP and elsewhere too, of course. I have nothing but respect for contributors who keep the substantial infrastructure here from crashing down around the heads of the rest of us. I'm grateful; thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're most welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Austin

Hey Cirt. I noticed the article 'Hugo Austin' has been deleted recently. I have a odd request, is it possible you could get me the text that was present so I can place it in a sandbox. The character was notable but just needed a lot more effort putting into it. It had something useful there already I think.Rain the 1 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Raintheone/Hugo Austin. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. :)Rain the 1 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep me posted regarding improvements if you are thinking about proposing it go back into article mainspace. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

The protection is appreciated. I had to do a bit of fiddling around with that article and Dipendra of Nepal because of vandalism. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy! international tournaments AfD

Cirt, I think a merge or relist outcome was probably best here . One of the deletion arguments is apparently wrong (and frankly irrelevant as a former participant writing an book on a topic doesn't make that book lack independence) and I think the others might be read as being much less relevant in the face of actual sourcing. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Restored, relisted, back at AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Hobit (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Keltz

You were the deleting admin on February 2, 2010 of the article Jonathan Keltz. It was a good deletion. The article was recreated January 2011 as a two-sentence unsourced stub and was quickly A7 speedied. No problem with that either, as its author did nothing but write two meagre sentences. But 15 months have gone by and the actor's career has not stood still. He has now completed major roles in three more major productions to now meet WP:ENT, and has the coverage that he lacked back then to now meet WP:GNG. As I wish to return a far improved version to mainspace, I invite you to visit my new and improved version at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz, and perhaps offer your blessing at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz#Comments:. Thanks, Schmidt, 08:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just wished to re-affirm that the original deletion 15 months ago was a good one, and to get your approval for a return of an improved article. Thank you and best regards, Schmidt, 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Scaoch

Dear Cirt,

I think deleting the article Scoach was not necessary at this stage as improvements have been made on a going basis. Rather than deleting it I would appreciate your input for improvements or deletion of parts that you deemed wrong.

Regards. Lefa1992 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefa1992 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Parental Rights Amendment

Shouldn't this have been relisted? 4 deletes to 3 keeps (one "weak" and one from the article creator, who is paid to promote this bill) seems like a weak basis for keeping the article, even as "no consensus." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, are you considering relisting the debate? Would DRV be an alternative? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit too late to relist. I would suggest you contact those that commented keep, ask them to further improve the article. Give them at least one week to do so. If they do not, I would have no objections to a re-nom for another AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, did. Thanks for your help! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

My recent edits to the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack article were meant in good faith. I did not realize that we had to cite sources showing how the previous version of the article was inaccurate. I've started a talk page discussion. Polyquest (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the talk page discussion, and I am participating there, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick FYI...

relative to a block you made Ticket: 2011060210013923. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears an appropriate response was given to the individual. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the appropriate response was given and the unblock denial sound, I just wanted to drop you a small note regarding the ticket in case it becomes relevant at any time. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New articles for LGBT Project discussion..Dan Savage biblio

Rather than placing these on the Project Page I think they should go on the Talk Page..I also think that they're more likely to get some attention there. Pjefts (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I at least agree that both are appropriate places. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bummer of a login

Hi. Thanks for your welcome note. It turns out, though, I just never noticed I wasn't logged in. Oh well. My userspace is found here for future reference. Schyler (one language) 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you do that? I would like to have the two edits under my username. Let me know on my talk page when the deed is done. Thanks a bunch! Schyler (one language) 02:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is, the removal of the tag on the article and the discussion top/bottom tags. Schyler (one language) 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Rivertorch (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cirt

I just wanted to drop a note to you. While we've not had a great deal of direct interaction, I noticed that we've both been involved in several of the same threads lately where you and I disagree on some fundamentals. (the Santorum stuff). I had to note that you have worked extremely hard to be reasonable, compassionate, understanding, and always showing the utmost respect for all editors and their viewpoints. While we may disagree on this particular article, it is a true pleasure to work with someone who shows so much maturity and understanding. Your efforts to find a reasonable compromise in the entire situation have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for being the type of editor and admin. that I think we should all aspire to. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  14:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ched, thank you so much for your kind words, and for recognizing my efforts at a polite and respectful demeanor. I really appreciate that. A lot. So very much, actually. It means a lot to me. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		What Ched said. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ico-Man/BS.Player

Not sure whether to drag the discussion out of the archive, or just to ask here. Would you stand for or against reinstatement of the article, given the recent improvements? --Lexein (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really seeing enough there in terms of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought three reviews was enough. --Lexein (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the page appears to still be tagged with citations needed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I put those there, but am willing to assume good faith that there's changelog or bsplayer.org forum news announcement about it. You're saying it shouldn't reinstate with any challenged claims. --Lexein (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not married to it. --Lexein (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum

Funny that the discussion of this neologism seems to be best described by another neologism: truthiness, which seems to describe most of the arguments made by those who would see the article removed. In two years, santorum will be eligible for inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary, and I wouldn't be totally surprised if it winds up there. That would amuse me greatly... but I doubt it would suffice to end the debate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, I think the article lacks any real glaring issues at the moment... or, at least, I see nothing that I wouldn't fear would lead to an edit war if made at this time. I think there are a lot of highly politically-partisan hackles raised right now, and a fair number of editors engaged who cannot adequately divorce their personal feelings and political leanings from the rules of this community. For the same reason, I'm not sure how much good will be done by reasoned discussion: someone will come along with an impassioned-but-unsupported plea that Something Must Be Done that ignores opposing viewpoints.... At this point, I think it's clear that the article won't be deleted, merged, or substantially altered if the community consensus is respected. It's nearing dead horse time... but it's equine flagellation time in US politics now, so I imagine the fury will keep seeking an outlet. One must have faith that enough editors will shout down those who see WP:IAR as the answer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT... or, at least, that someone will actually put in the effort to bring forth a good, cogent argument for the other side that sways us, eh? (Perhaps the biggest lack of understanding 'twixt the sides is the difference between firm and intransigent with regard to beliefs...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for your kind note. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

truly disappointed

Hi, Cirt. May I say I am truly disappointed by both you and C.Fred? Anyway I did not expect you to side with conservatism. I am puzzled by the inappropriate action of deleting "burnt out diabetes" of a likely biased user and by your support for the said actions, in particular by your locking the deletion and for not allowing further discussion on this topic. FYI, the key word "burnt out diabetes" has over 2,000 positing and websites. It is a likely paradigm shifting concept, which, as the history of science and medicine has shown repeatedly, antagonizes traditionalists and those who have minimal tolerance for the scientific progress and for advances in science and medicine. History repeats itself. As for technicality of DELTERION OBJECTOIN (“use conventional methods to protest deletion”), not all people on the planet are as Misplaced Pages-savvy as certain biased. Instead of supporting people who have mitigated tolerance for new concepts and mark anything for deletion that is not consistent with “their” traditional and science-conservative expectations, you may wish to also support the underdog of the Misplaced Pages World in the interest of advancing freedom of science and allowing Misplaced Pages to grow rather than becoming yet another tool in the hands of the monitors of the monitors of the monitors…. Very few people mean vandalism, and to discredit a balanced effort of reviving an unfairly deleted page as "vandalism" and showing least tolerance for such efforts in not consistent with your impressive track record in your website. Hope we see your true you and your advocacy for freedom of science and against scientific fanatics.Burntout1234 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this account is a sock of Burntout123 (talk · contribs), who recreated Burnt-out diabetes mellitus and other variant titles about a dozen times tonight/this morning. I finally wound up SALTing the original title and blocking him for 31 hours. I had advised him before the block to contact you if he objected to your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, and that if you and he couldn't resolve the situation, he could take the matter to DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, the sock should request unblock, through its main account. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And I would grant an unblock request—obviously with the understanding that any attempt to create the article again would result in an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No objections to that. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me mirror here the statement I made at User talk:Burntout123, rescinding my assent to an unblock. It's becoming clear that the user has an axe to grind against other users; until he can demonstrate willingness to participate civilly, I don't see a reason to shorten the block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

Hello! Your submission of The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed an ALT1, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. ALT1 is good to go. I've added a to The Commitment's entry Great ALT1 hook! OCNative (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Just a friendly reminder - when you add a protection tag to a template like this, make sure you wrap it in <noinclude> tags. :-) Otherwise it's transcluded with the template and makes non-protected articles think they are protected. (Our articles are easily confused sometimes.) _ennasis @ 19:14, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Oh dear, I didn't notice this edit. You have no right to unilaterally enforce your opinion. I don't want trouble so I won't take it to AN/I, but I do want to register my distaste for this kind of action. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had already decided I was not going to do that a 2nd time, but another editor did agree that it was inappropriate, diff. Your edit removing all the comments of two other users diff was also inappropriate and contrary to talk page guidelines, but I don't want to push that either at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that after I did it that I shouldn't have blanked. Did that once before too, just because it seems to me like the right thing to do with a thread which will just distract others. Anyway, peace (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And also onto you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

DYK for Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

On 5 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Dan Savage's book Savage Love was published, his advice column of the same name had 4 million readers? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re

Thanks to you, for the incredible article. Edslov (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account

User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will simply defer to the outcome of consensus expressed by the community from that discussion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Skipping Towards Gomorrah

On 5 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skipping Towards Gomorrah, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dan Savage indulged in the seven deadly sins during research for his book Skipping Towards Gomorrah? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE Scoach

Yes, that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefa1992 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice, its amazing your work, congratulations. Edslov (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The kid

Not done. Give me a few minutes. Then you can undo.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've put it into more typical format. Can you streamline the awards table with a slightly smaller font? Also, you should add a list of musical numbers. See The King and I for formatting ideas. This is a very good start. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiWitch

Hello Cirt. Thank you for closing Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (second nomination). Would you please userfy to User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant the last version (written by me) with the attribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A concern

Hi Cirt, I have a concern about your editing.

On AN/I on May 27, in response to complaints about the interaction between yourself and Jayen, I asked him to consider not filing an RfC on you until some of the heat had died from the situation, because it seemed you were feeling embattled. In return you agreed to take on board the criticism that you seem to edit too much to further what might be personal interests.

Now I see on your talk page that you had two DYKs on June 5 for articles you created or expanded about Dan Savage. Savage is the writer who began the neologism campaign against Rick Santorum that you recently expanded the article on, taking it from 1,500 words to over 5,000. You also created Dan Savage bibliography, and three templates to which you added the neologism: Template:Dan Savage, Template:Political neologisms, and Template:Sexual slang. It was this editing, in part, that lay behind the AN/I concerns.

On May 29—after the AN/I discussion—you proposed a third DYK related to Savage, on May 30 a fourth, on June 1 a fifth, and today a sixth.

I'm confused about this, and would appreciate an explanation. SlimVirgin 05:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The DYKs and associated articles are not related to recent politics, but if you would like I will remove those currently being considered as DYK candidates. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could remove them, but could you explain why seem to be promoting Dan Savage? SlimVirgin 06:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a gesture of good faith I removed all of the DYK self-noms that were currently being considered as candidates, diff. Your assumption is incorrect about my motivations, but if you have a specific comment about a particular article, I would hope we could address it at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Cirt, it's not a question of motivation. The upshot is promotion, no matter what the intent. Placing one writer's name on the main page six times in a short space of time would be of tremendous value to that person.

We all write about issues that interest us, including people we know about and admire, and want others to know about. There's nothing wrong with that. But several (reasonable) people have gained the impression that it regularly crosses the line with you into promotion, which was the reason an RfC was suggested. You said or implied that you'd make an effort not to do anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way in future, and I really think it would be in your own interests to stick to that. SlimVirgin 06:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a further gesture of good faith, I just removed all DYK related pages from my watchlist. I intend to not nominate anything to DYK again for an extended period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but as an uninvolved party I would prefer that the DYK nominations be restored. These are quality, eligible articles and removing the nominations might be seen as bowing to political pressures being applied to Misplaced Pages by external forces. (If news stories are to be believed, the Santorum campaign is working to "clean up" his image on the internet in preparation for a presidential run. These efforts and ambitions should have zero effect on the contents of this encyclopedia or on the workings of its various projects.) Loss of Cirt's contributions would be a blow to the quality of both DYK and Misplaced Pages. - Dravecky (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I will not restore my noms. If others wish to add them back, so be it, but I am no longer watching any pages on Misplaced Pages related to DYK. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also another Savage DYK in the queue. Do you mind if I remove that too, Cirt? SlimVirgin 06:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I will not object to that. Again, I am not going to watch those pages any longer related to DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted Cirt's withdrawal of those approved hooks. If anyone feels it's necessary, I could renominate the hooks myself but in my opinion that would be a waste of valuable time and effort by the editors who have already checked out these articles and approved these hooks. Any "promotion" concerns can be overcome by spacing out the presentation on the main page over many days rather than quashing the nominations altogether. - Dravecky (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dravecky, I am sorry but I must request that further discussion take place at WT:DYK which is no longer on my watchlist and not at my user talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Cirt, I'd appreciate it if you would ask that the one in the queue be removed—wherever is appropriate to do that—rather than simply saying you don't mind, which leaves others to argue about it. The aim is to avoid further dispute about this whole situation, including on AN/I and RfC, not to trigger yet more discussion. SlimVirgin 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a further gesture of good faith I have done as you suggested, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin 06:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, SlimVirgin. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)