Jump to content

User talk:Cirt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cirt (talk | contribs)
Line 39: Line 39:
The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything to libel or slander or create some illusive persona about Andrews. I seek to place facts on her page so that fans or any reader can read about her. I have no agenda beyond wanting to share information that I have researched on and ensure that an article I have worked on gets to convey truth. I will agree that sometimes the source material is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Every time I asked for reasons why factual information cannot be placed on a page, I get lots of round robin bs answers given to me. I then ask why other entertainers get a full listing of their achievements (filmography/discography) without a need for a mile of citations as I am requested to do so. Take a look at the articles on [[Robert Wagner]], [[Stefanie Powers]], [[Cher]]. Those entertainers are very much alive (BLP) and their pages detail out their career achievements. Yet when I try to do the same with Andrews, it is disallowed. Why does the Andrews article have a completely different standard? Is it because she is LGBT and therefore not allowed the same equality? Thank you for your help. [[User:Lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] ([[User talk:Lightspeedx|talk]]) 06:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything to libel or slander or create some illusive persona about Andrews. I seek to place facts on her page so that fans or any reader can read about her. I have no agenda beyond wanting to share information that I have researched on and ensure that an article I have worked on gets to convey truth. I will agree that sometimes the source material is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Every time I asked for reasons why factual information cannot be placed on a page, I get lots of round robin bs answers given to me. I then ask why other entertainers get a full listing of their achievements (filmography/discography) without a need for a mile of citations as I am requested to do so. Take a look at the articles on [[Robert Wagner]], [[Stefanie Powers]], [[Cher]]. Those entertainers are very much alive (BLP) and their pages detail out their career achievements. Yet when I try to do the same with Andrews, it is disallowed. Why does the Andrews article have a completely different standard? Is it because she is LGBT and therefore not allowed the same equality? Thank you for your help. [[User:Lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] ([[User talk:Lightspeedx|talk]]) 06:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:Just a quick FYI, [[User:lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] is currently [[WP:CANVAS|Canvassing]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosencomet&diff=prev&oldid=557764947], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obiwankenobi&diff=prev&oldid=557765756], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NaymanNoland&diff=prev&oldid=557766115], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catherineyronwode&diff=prev&oldid=557766732], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=prev&oldid=557767054], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=prev&oldid=557791714], because their previous [[WP:FORUMSHOP|Forumshopping]] didn't give them the results they desired. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_70#Erica_Andrews_article Dispute resolution page], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_60#YouTube_videos_as_a_source_citation Talk:Varifiability page], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Videos#YouTube_videos_as_a_source_citation Talk:Videos page], [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews]]. Cheers! [[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:Just a quick FYI, [[User:lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] is currently [[WP:CANVAS|Canvassing]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosencomet&diff=prev&oldid=557764947], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obiwankenobi&diff=prev&oldid=557765756], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NaymanNoland&diff=prev&oldid=557766115], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catherineyronwode&diff=prev&oldid=557766732], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=prev&oldid=557767054], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=prev&oldid=557791714], because their previous [[WP:FORUMSHOP|Forumshopping]] didn't give them the results they desired. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_70#Erica_Andrews_article Dispute resolution page], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_60#YouTube_videos_as_a_source_citation Talk:Varifiability page], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Videos#YouTube_videos_as_a_source_citation Talk:Videos page], [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews]]. Cheers! [[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

:: BTW, Cirt, Coffeepusher does not know who Erica Andrews is. Has no interest in her career, doesn't know anything about her work or career or even life but all of a sudden, he's now her article keeper. If you do not find this weird, you should. I have already called him out on this. I suspect he's a transphobic or homophobic person who for some reason really needs to use the Andrews article as a platform for his agenda or phobia. He's obsessed with following me around - which I must say is rather amusing since he obviously feels I'm that important for him to obsess about. But really, why this obsession with an entertainer he doesn't even know, doesn't care about, never seen her in performance and really doesn't even know what she has done. Also, Coffeepusher hung out with Qworty and Little Green Rosetta, both are banned users now. He agreed with Qworty a lot. [[User:Lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] ([[User talk:Lightspeedx|talk]]) 02:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:: Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? [[User:Lightspeedx|Lightspeedx]] ([[User talk:Lightspeedx|talk]]) 02:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


== RE: Talk:Dalhousie University/GA1 ==
== RE: Talk:Dalhousie University/GA1 ==

Revision as of 02:14, 3 June 2013

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
AFD/TT-7T-8T-2RelistedAFDOWP:DELSORT: Sexuality and gender, Law, Internet, NewsAFD tool linksWP:DRVWP:MFDAIVRFUBUAA/CATRFPPPERCSDABFARFAC urgentsTFARRSNBLPNFTNGAN Topic lists • Article alerts: Freedom of speechHuman rightsJournalismSexology and sexualityLGBT studiesFeminismLawInternetInternet cultureComedyU.S. Supreme Court cases
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - FA nomination

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is currently a candidate for consideration for a 2nd time for Featured Article quality status.

The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Your Help

Hi Cirt: I am told to reach out to you about this matter for hopefully you can spare some time to help.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, Little Green Rosetta were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Wikipedia with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that Little Green Rosetta got banned. So as part of Project Qworty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up), I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything to libel or slander or create some illusive persona about Andrews. I seek to place facts on her page so that fans or any reader can read about her. I have no agenda beyond wanting to share information that I have researched on and ensure that an article I have worked on gets to convey truth. I will agree that sometimes the source material is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Every time I asked for reasons why factual information cannot be placed on a page, I get lots of round robin bs answers given to me. I then ask why other entertainers get a full listing of their achievements (filmography/discography) without a need for a mile of citations as I am requested to do so. Take a look at the articles on Robert Wagner, Stefanie Powers, Cher. Those entertainers are very much alive (BLP) and their pages detail out their career achievements. Yet when I try to do the same with Andrews, it is disallowed. Why does the Andrews article have a completely different standard? Is it because she is LGBT and therefore not allowed the same equality? Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI, Lightspeedx is currently Canvassing [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], because their previous Forumshopping didn't give them the results they desired. Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Cirt, Coffeepusher does not know who Erica Andrews is. Has no interest in her career, doesn't know anything about her work or career or even life but all of a sudden, he's now her article keeper. If you do not find this weird, you should. I have already called him out on this. I suspect he's a transphobic or homophobic person who for some reason really needs to use the Andrews article as a platform for his agenda or phobia. He's obsessed with following me around - which I must say is rather amusing since he obviously feels I'm that important for him to obsess about. But really, why this obsession with an entertainer he doesn't even know, doesn't care about, never seen her in performance and really doesn't even know what she has done. Also, Coffeepusher hung out with Qworty and Little Green Rosetta, both are banned users now. He agreed with Qworty a lot. Lightspeedx (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? Lightspeedx (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Talk:Dalhousie University/GA1

I responded to the concerns which you brought up in the GAN. Anyhow, thank you for taking the time to review the article, it's greatly appreciated! Leventio (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through it tonight, see whether it's straightforward enough. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck peer review

  1. Fuck (film)
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Cirt (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this interest you at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, I'll take a look at it soon, thanks for the notice, — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Red Phoenix's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Responded there. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]