User talk:Cirrus Editor

Hello, Cirrus Editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Graham Colm ^Talk 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

American Medical Writers Association

If you want to expand the article American Medical Writers Association, but are unsure about style, conventions, etc. on wikipedia, you could create a user sub-page of your own and copy the article there; then work on it and ask for comments. When it's ready and both you and the folks who comment are happy, you can paste it over the existing stub. You can create such a page by clicking this: User:Cirrus Editor/American Medical Writers Association, then copy the contents of the present stub there and save it. The advantage is that you can make mistakes and experiment without anyone reverting your changes.

If you're unsure about any of that, just say so here - I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while, so I'll see any reply from you. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured out how to indent! Thank you, and I will take your advice of making that user page. I will try to post some content today. Let's see if this works. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good - well done! Now you have the single hardest thing to learn: referencing. I've left some guidance at User talk:Cirrus Editor/American Medical Writers Association (the talk page for your article). Also keep an eye on American Medical Writers Association as it's been edited today - someone has usefully made a number of wikilinks - those are worth a look. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. I may post some of the more useful and solid sections of information that I've already gathered.

Cirrus Editor (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AMWA Journal

I see you've started on the AMWA Journal page; you've probably already realised that some of the content and references from American Medical Writers Association can be used and expanded there. You will need to look hard (use Google search, Google News and Google Scholar) to make sure that third-parties have referred to the Journal, so that you can quickly establish notability. That's always the first "hurdle". I should mention that when you're ready to put the page into mainspace, you can simply move your user subpage to the mainspace title. That's because no article with the name "AMWA Journal" exists yet (unlike American Medical Writers Association). This has the advantage that it will preserve the edit history. Let me know if you need help with anything. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see you've found a useful category for your new article, but the category tag is for use on mainspace articles only. I've inserted an initial colon so that it reads [[:Category:English-language journals]] which is fine for userspace (it's just a link to the category). When you move your article to mainspace, just remember to remove that initial colon and it will place the page in that category then. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So much to know! Thanks once again. I visited your user page and I think I'd like to set it up like that once I get around to do it. I'm thinking also that the new AMWA Journal page should be briefer. There are not many references to the Journal outside of the organization, so I think it will be best to "stick to the facts" on the new Journal page. Thoughts? Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RexxS, please advise. Look at the bottom of this category page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_writing where my user name is appearing. What error in the code is making my name show up? Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RexxS, I've added a few more relevant categories. Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage shows up in the category page when you add the category to the page - it's the same thing that I mentioned last time. The solution is to use [[:Category ..., rather than [[Category ... for any page in your userspace. You just have to remember to remove the semi-colon when you move or copy into mainspace. I fixed the problem for you so you can see what I did. Hope that helps.

The AMWA Journal page might never grow into a large article, but that's fine. You may find that when you have created it, other editors will advise that it be merged into the AMWA main page. At which point, you'll be able to see several other opinions on whether it should stay as a stand-alone article or be part of the main one. That's how collaboration works on Wikipedia and it's nothing to worry about. Go ahead and write as full an article on the Journal as you can. Let others argue about its size! --RexxS (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AMWA Journal page is now live. Look alright to you? Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine. I've removed the seemingly tautological first sentence and bolded the first mention in the next line, and added a ref for CINAHL. Take a look at ELS - it's a disambiguation page (dab-page) and we don't link to them from articles. If the usage of ELS you wanted to link is one of the articles on that dab page, then use a piped (|) link to go directly to that page. I did some google searches, but can't find much external coverage of the Journal. It may be that because of lack of notability, there will be a request to merge the article into American Medical Writers Association and that can be discussed if it happens. While I was searching, it seemed that the ethics of ghostwriting was an issue that provoked a lot of interest and perhaps this source:

• Gegeny, Thomas (31 Mar 2009). "A response from the American Medical Writers Association". PLoS. Retrieved 2009-10-21.

might be a useful addition to the American Medical Writers Association#Controversy surrounding use of medical writers section at some point in the future. I'll keep these on my watchlist. --RexxS (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's embarrassing! I was literally using the start text from the create page function in wikipedia! On another topic: Medical ghostwriting has its own page as medical ghostwriter, so I did not want to "load up" too much in the AMWA page. I did link to medical ghostwriter in the Controversy section on the AMWA page. I do think that the medical ghostwriter page could be greatly expanded. This is a hotly debated topic in the industry. Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your judgement is correct: Medical ghostwriter is a good topic to include the information. You can see from its history that it was only created a couple of months ago. You can also see that its major contributor is "Doc James" (Jmh649 (talk · contribs)), who is very helpful when asked. You could drop him a line on his talk page, introducing yourself as a new editor with an interest in medical writing, and see what he thinks about the content you could add to Medical ghostwriter. It's often much more fun working collaboratively on an article, especially when you find someone whose interests match your own. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed that Crusio (talk · contribs) has changed the categories on AMWA Journal to more specific ones - that's a good thing. He's also rated the page and tagged it as being within the scope of WP:WikiProject Academic Journals. It's a project "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of academic journals" and I thought you may be interested in taking a look at that page, and perhaps joining the project if it interests you. There's no obligation, but it might be a chance to "meet" with other editors who share your interests. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Content Inventory

{{helpme}} 1. I'm having trouble with some ref code work on a page I'm developing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirrus_Editor/content_inventory Guidance is appreciated!

make sure all your references end in </ref> Sophie 21:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried but it did not work. Perhaps because I'm using the web reference citations?? If you go to the page I'm working on, I'm trying to cite two previous references I've already used in text. I thought the correct way to do this was: Obviously, the wiki is not picking up off the previous references for "Baldwin" and "Marsh"....

2. Also, I'd like to make my user page have the same TOC box that most pages in Wikipedia have. I thought the double dash to create sections would automatically create this Contents box, but it has not.

add __TOC__ where you want it to appear Sophie 21:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

TOC auto-appears with 3+ section headings on a page. I for one am seeing the TOC box without the code right now. • ɔ ʃ → 21:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sophie. I added the TOC code and it worked.

How does X work?

{{helpme}} I'm having trouble making the External Reference work in the Further Reading section on my sandbox page for Chief Web Officer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirrus_Editor/Chief_Web_Officer Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are trying to do. If you want a footnote, the references has to be enclosed within <ref>...</ref> tags. However, all footnotes must come before {{reflist}}. Intelligentsium 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Your question. Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC) from above, previous help me: I tried, Sophie, but it did not work. Perhaps because I'm using the web reference citations?? If you go to the page I'm working on, I'm trying to cite two previous references I've already used in text. I thought the correct way to do this was: Obviously, the wiki is not picking up off the previous references for "Baldwin" and "Marsh"....

You need to name the reference the first time you use it, with <ref name=Baldwin>...ref details</ref> and then for future uses, use just <ref name=Baldwin/>. See 'named references' in the below. I will fix it on the article.  Chzz  ►  22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now done - see my edits.

Note the article contains lots of non-neutral promotional text; please read the business FAQ. External links within the body are not permitted, wikipedia is not a howto guide. Best,  Chzz  ►  22:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How references work

Simple references These require two parts; a) Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref> b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}"; == References == {{reflist}} (an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections) To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Cirrus Editor/reftest and try it out. Named references Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook"> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/> Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result. Citation templates You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation | last = Smith | first = John | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century | publication-date = 2001 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] | page = 125 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4 }} </ref> Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result. For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Web content lifecycle

{{helpme}} Sandbox created for new article on web content lifecycle. Please comment. I'm planning to post live this weekend. Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I should have added: I have also determined several related pages in Wikipedia to edit to include a link to this new page on web content lifecycle. Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, it looks OK to me - taking it on good faith that a) the references cover the facts, b) they are reliable sources, c) there are no large chunks copied (outside quotations).

Some quick comments;

• The lede looks a bit overlinked, and maybe doesn't summarize the whole article - see WP:LEDE. I don't think it worth wikilinking 'capability' or 'collaboration'; I'm not sure why 'techniques' links to management, and linking 'technologies' to a portal is a bit odd.
• The poster goes into great detail - the word 'great' is slightly non-neutral - picky, I know.
• Nakano^[11] described five “collaboration operations” - you should always have a reference directly after a quotation, so ref. 11 probably needs moving to the end of the quote.
• devised by CM Pros - this has an external link, and those are not permitted in the actual body text - only as either a) references, or b) in 'external links'
• "The Role of Technologies" and "The Role of Metadata and Information Management" - the quotes in these sections are rather long, and it is preferred to avoid such large quotes - better to paraphrase and use just portions. You don't want a WP:QUOTEFARM.
• ref. 7 Example text - I do not know what 'nd' is ... does it mean "no date"? The same is in some other refs too. Maybe this is a reasonably standard acronym that I am unaware of, and it might be OK - or, perhaps, write it out, or leave it off altogether; if it has no date (if that's what it means)
• If possible, it would be nice to add the author names and dates to the web refs

When you do make it live, make sure you submit it as a "Did you know..." entry, so that it appears on the main page for a while. See WP:DYKS.

You could also put in for a peer review. Chzz  ►  03:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much. I've gone back in and cleaned up much of this. Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me (the DYK) - it can take several days to get feedback there / get it checked and approved, so keep an eye on it; if it 'disappears' don't panic, it's probably been moved into one of the queues. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviews

You are very welcome - I usually say that a model article is helpful for ideas and examples to follow, but I couldn't find any computing FAs that were similar enough to be good models. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Web content lifecycle

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely revised article for William Goyen

Hi, I've developed a completely and thoroughly revised article for the author William Goyen. The current live Wikipedia page is here: William Goyen. My workspace page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirrus_Editor/William_Goyen

I am also developing a page for his first novel "The House of Breath": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirrus_Editor/The_House_of_Breath

I'd like to present both as a DYK soon.

Please feel free to comment, edit, leave helpful remarks!

Looks pretty good to me. I think they're both ready to be live articles. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Cirrus Editor, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Cirrus Editor/The House of Breath. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will make the page live and put the image back in; I have contacted the copyright holder and am waiting for their response to my request to keep this image on the article page. I have seen similar images for book covers that have been used in this same way, and I expect that this same usage will be deemed fair use. Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Goyen_The_House_of_Breath_50th.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Goyen_The_House_of_Breath_50th.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will make the page live and put the image back in. I explained the use of the image in the text accompanying the image.Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope there is an admin or super user who can help with this issue: The Northwestern University Press just today granted me permission to use their book cover image (the image that is currently on The House of Breath page. How should it be indicated in the image file, now that the Press has given permission to use their image? Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The page you probably need to read is WP:DCM.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but understand that the Press must be agreeing to release the picture under a free license. This means that not only are they releasing it to us, but to anyone else who may wish to use it in a derivative work. If this is indeed what they are willing to do, they should follow the instructions on the aforementioned page, but most publishers aren't willing to simply release a proprietary book cover under a free license. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 23:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the image file page (File:Goyen_The_House_of_Breath_50th.JPG) with more information (publisher, year published, book type, and link to book page). Cirrus Editor (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Patio (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Goyen

Orlady (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The House of Breath

Orlady (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Cirrus Editor/Federal Web Managers Council has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Federal Web Managers Council, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Federal Web Managers Council.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Federal Web Managers Council, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

mabdul 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Federal Web Managers Council

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN thread on embassy protests/attacks

Now at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_In_the_news.--Chaser (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansar al-Sharia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:U.S. mission and annex map in Benghazi, Libya.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:U.S. mission and annex map in Benghazi, Libya.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirrus Editor. You have new messages at Talk:Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Message added 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you comment on this? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2012 Benghazi attack

Per WP:EW "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable". This is policy. Guidelines from WP:MOS about lede are not. I have asked you to use the talk page. This is to acheive consensus. Will you please self-revert and comply? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-on, please review Wikipedia's guidelines on inappropriate canvassing. When you're looking for outside input to help resolve a content dispute, it's best to present the dispute as neutrally as possible. It's also best to contact relevant WikiProjects; is there some reason you chose to contact only the Conservatism WikiProject, rather than any of the 5 relevant WikiProjects listed at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack, for help in the dispute? MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not know. Thanks! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate some support in the Benghazi article for including an image of the Rhodes’ email secured by Judicial Watch by lawsuit under the provisions of FOIA. I enumerated my reasons for including the imaging in “Talk” under “Judicial Watch”. Mark Miller, GabrielleF and now NorthBySouthBaranof have all deleted the image without discussion or with weak rationale, e.g., “image waste space” & “replacing image with previous image”. Aspencork (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was away for some time, as sometimes happens here. By now you see that this particular article is very touchy with several editors. And some continue to pick it apart. I don't have time now to get back into it. Hope others can help, though! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

I'd like to have a discussion about your changes to the lead, and have reverted them in the interim. Please see that page, and respond to my comments there. RGloucester (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of mention

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible 3RR violation. The thread is "User:RGloucester reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: )".The discussion is about the topic 2012 Benghazi attack. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:2102 Benghazi attack photo montage.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:2102 Benghazi attack photo montage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

All those images in the montage were taken from .gov websites. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If the US govt is the copyright holder of those images, then those are PD. Sometimes, government sites use images from news organizations. Some of the images in the montage were from AP. If AP is the copyright holder of a photo, then the photo is not PD.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to check those. They were all from .gov sites and I thought all the images I used were from .gov sources, therefore, in the public domain. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Content audit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qualitative analysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Content audit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Content audit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content audit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Content Audit

Hi, I noted on the DYK page that the AFD discussion closed as keep, and that you are working on the refs. Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. On it. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're working hard. Please leave a note on the DYK nomination page when you're ready for another review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Content audit

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi

Don't accuse others of vandalism just because you disagree with their edits. Vandalism is a very specific thing. I've been editing here for more than eight years and I'm an administrator, not a vandal. It's perfectly easy to see that more than four books have been written about the attacks; you don't have to take my word for it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. I apologize. I was being sensitive. It's not vandalism. But in your revert you say that "dozens, perhaps HUNDREDS of books have been written about the attacks." That's some claim. Can you support it at all? I see your link above points to Amazon. What books specifically have been written about the attacks? I'll open a new section on the article's talk page for us to have a healthy and friendly debate, without any bullying, the type you see all the time here on Wikipedia. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MHP

I have no qualms with the tampons bit... it's just that it messed with the proportions and we we had discussed not having a controversies section on the talk page because of WP:CSECTION. Feel free to add a more succinct blurb about the tampons if you want. Another thing I do think does need some expanding is her "collective parenting" statements which garnered quite a bit of controversy awhile back. I was surprised to see that clumped into a "lauded and criticized" sentence. Cheers.LM2000 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm R3ap3R. I noticed that you recently removed some content from General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Content that meets inclusion criteria should not be removed. R3ap3R (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

last removal

Your last edit: this seems to indicate a POV in my opinion. This is a part of the subject, by removing it you show , what others may percieve as POV.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel I need to be more specific. Your edit summary is an opinion. I intend to return that for balance. Wikipedia is not a political battle ground and that information is one of the most specific "partisan" bits that gets removed. It seems odd to add content that is out of place and undue weight with anon sources and "allegations" not proven but remove specific content that directly relates to the article. I am really straining to continue to AGF...but I still do. Please help me understand that removal.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. See the article's talk page. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack

What in the world does "undoing edits to lede made by nonexistent users" mean? There are no nonexistent users on Wikipedia, that's obvious. Or "Undid revision 607041974 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) undoing edit by anonymous user"? Is your name really Cirrus Editor or are you an anonymous user? I see you've also accused VictoriaGrayson of sock puppetry - I presume you will be opening an SPI or hopefully apologising, as you should not accuse people like this without taking action. Edit summaries are meant to explain why you are adding or removing material. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you answer legitimate questions about bias? ArdenHathaway 20:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to get this straight: My bad. Yes. No. No. OK. What do you mean? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And, oh, hey. My bad again, but I can't recall. Which one of you accused me of being a Republican strategist? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or was it "propagandist"? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	brilliant. 竖琴老人 (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Goyen The House of Breath 50th.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Goyen The House of Breath 50th.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cirrus Editor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cirrus Editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cirrus Editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)