User talk:Ironholds/archive 27

Edit?

If I may ask, what edits were made to the article?

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect sticky prods

Hi Ironholds, would you mind reverting your incorrect sticky prods and undoing the associated warnings to the authors. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When external links become references, you let me know. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people now will you revert your incorrect BLPprods? ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight after you show how that trumps Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. "in addition, biographies created after 18 March 2010 that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this new process". I see external links, not sources, and even if you consider them sources they still need to support the article text. No ID as references, no suggestion they support or are intended to support the text, no article. End of. If people persist in failing to write section headings correctly and not sourcing their articles, this will continue. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Court of King's Bench (England)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research????

What original research are you talking about, the squads are from Italian Wikipedia all of them, and they are unsourced as well. Those squads WERE the players representing those clubs, and if you don't believe it, grab yourself some Italian DVD's to rewatch the matches. Thank you Roslagen (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairly sure...

It's your birthday today. Have a good one! ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy bidet!

Get it? As in B-day? Celebrate, Ironie, since I have officially established myself as inferior to you. In terms of humor. Yes! I see you smiling.

It's a sh*tty template but better than nothing. You're welcome. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 02:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Twas a pleasure

Happy birthday again.... enjoyed your repartee a lot. As you say "again" and to ther cunning plans. Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Belated birthday wishes. Was it a good one? :) AGK 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy! A surprising number of free G&Ts, my partner dropping by when I was working, shitloads of presents and a WP meet, what's not to love? Btw, can you guess what I'm about to ask? :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't, but if it's for me to help with something wiki-related, you'll have to make my days eighty hours long before I possibly could. ;) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Working or summat? And yes, it starts U-C-T... :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup - I'm on another holiday soon, so working flat out so that that's covered. And nooooo! Please, this summer is my *break* from all that. (I'll see what I can rustle together, if you give me a month :D. When you looking to get started on it?) AGK 12:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Any time is good; I'm going to spend some time myself rewriting and tweaking the userspace draft, plus I have a Student Union constitution to write. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Panyd's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Bill of Middlesex

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding the article 'William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield' there was a road named after him, Mansfield Road, in the late 19th century on the land or his heir owned in north London. Politis (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will also look into the road. I think he was part of all those land owners whose land was developed as London expanded and whose name is recorded is some form in the naming of the street. Politis (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh lawz

(Sorry for my long talk page... I hadn't realised I'd neglected archiving for so long) I thought I'd said the opposite.... Not disputing your quote, just wondering what I'd typed now. I would only call something with 'Court' in its name a court, but I would be willing to describe tribunals &c as a pseudocourt, something I suspect the majority of lawyers, including the one I'm related to, would be horrified to hear. I am, however, getting out of my depth if I try and give detailed analysis on that: the bits I know anything about are criminal, rights and some injury claims stuff.

I get the distinct impression you have some legal qualifications (something I don't have, hence my lack of case law knowledge); is this correct? I comment on as much as I am comfortable with and then stop, but you strike me as willing to deal with pretty much anything.

I think I remember saying something along the lines of 'there's a handful of courts with whole-UK jurisdiction;' if I did, that's what I was thinking of. I guess this is what I get for not thinking things through before I say them Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the education. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nude vs Playboy

I'm curious about your edit to the Karin Taylor article. You changed "nude" to "Playboy" saying that we needed a cite saying that she was a nude model. Wouldn't being a Playboy Playmate qualify as "nude"? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Is the toffee apple reference copyrighted? I'd consider paying royalties to be able to use it in future. Not on-wiki...IRL, I mean. Tiderolls 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Pepper article

I was patrolling as well, and it seems to be notable enough to face AFD. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels and Trolls

Hi there,

I'm curious as to your reasoning for removing the section concerning Outlaw Press; the actual statements made in the article were pretty neutral. Yes, the links used to support the word "controversial" were strongly negative, but that doesn't mean they're invalid. I agree that some of them probably don't qualify as WP:RS, but to delete the entire section on that basis seems excessive. Certainly, deleting the last paragraph--the one covering edition 7.5--seems unjustified, given that it has nothing at all to do with the links in question.

Help me understand this, please. I don't just want to revert your changes, but I don't see the justification for a deletion of this magnitude. --BRPierce (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that the blogs don't qualify as RS, but why delete this paragraph?

The relatively simple rules for Tunnels & Trolls have led to it being used for a wide variety of genres. Modern discussion of the game is found at Trollhalla and the Trollbridge. The 7.5 edition was released in 2008 by Fiery Dragon Productions, being an update and clarification on the 30th Anniversary Edition.

As I said, I don't see how this is related at all to the sources in question; nor do I see how it could be perceived as defamatory. Certainly, a source would be good here, but it shouldn't be difficult to find one for something as straightforward as a product release. --BRPierce (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the questionable sources for the content--and I agree with you both that blogs are not WP:RS and that the content of those blogs was inflammatory--may I suggest the following sources as replacements? Summary of the allegations, Distributor response, Reference site noting the controversy. All three establish the basics of the controversy without engaging in undue personal attacks or vitriol. --BRPierce (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest asking for comments on the reliable sources noticeboard for all three; no idea exactly how reliable they are. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any objection to my restoring the quoted text above, since it's unrelated to the controversy? --BRPierce (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Na, that's fine. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi O

Thanks for the link to the Chope story. I like your style and cutting comments. However not sure about all the refs to abortions etc.... surely we need to keep something in reserve for the real war crimers.?? So I was trying to think of a constructive suggestion. Tell me Ironholds. If Chope was to be given the legal/political equivalent of a Darwin Award then what would it be called and who would the previous recipients be? Victuallers (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Before and sticky prods

Hi Ironholds, I've removed your personal attack on DGG, please focus your comments on edits rather than editors. As for how sticky prods work, you might want to read the recent RFC - particularly the fifth point of the summary where DGG and I wanted to move in opposite directions. We didn't get consensus in that RFC as to whether or not sticky prods are exempt from BEFORE - so if you apply a sticky prod without first checking for sources then you do risk having someone like DGG point out that referencing that subject was easy. If he is only doing it for clearly notable subjects then that may point the way to a compromise re Sticky prods. ϢereSpielChequers 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The leader of a minority political party != clearly notable. When I say he is cack-handedly enforcing policy and evidently hasn't fully read it, I'm commenting on the edits; where do you think I drew that opinion from? Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And if it was clearly notable, we wouldn't have two delete votes within 20 minutes. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'd pointed out to him why you disputed notability I wouldn't have bothered to comment. Calling someone cack-handed is a comment about an editor, saying that you consider a failed political candidate to be non-notable is a comment about an edit. ϢereSpielChequers 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying somebody is editing in a cack-handed fashion is not to comment on their edits? Again, where exactly do you think I drew that assertion from? And I no longer bother discussing anything with DGG. I have not once seen him change his mind, renege on a previous action or in any way take the suggestions of others into account. If, as the pot-smoking inclusionists claim, the wiki is overrun with deletionists, DGG would have been pilloried long ago - he's utterly intractable. Ironholds (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG has done even more deletions than I have, and as he pointed out he only declines sticky prods when he has added a reference. I think you'll find some quite extreme deletionists who wouldn't want to pillory or even discourage someone who references or deletes articles. If you think your conduct in that exchange is appropriate I suggest you print it off, xxx out the names and ask someone you respect for their opinion of the exchange, without telling them which of the participants was you. As for not taking others views into account, have you seen or can you imagine DGG or any admin go on a mass restoration spree and restore a bunch of deleted articles without due process? ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but you're completely misunderstanding the initial situation - as expected. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan Seals (Illinois Politician)#Residency

Good Evening Ironholds. Since you've contributed & discussed re the Dan Seals article could you give input re current (ie, 2010) status of the Residency section? I think it ought to be removed for more up-to-date npov. See my discussion on lack of npov for sole citation for the section at the article. cc: Flatterworld. Thanks for your input. Cardinal91 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sophie Dahl

Hello, there was something wrong with the diff as I didn't get the changes, just an old version. I did see, however, that Beckerbrown has removed a portion and edited another. Thank you for letting me know about the Daily Mail, I am not very familiar with British newspapers so I don't always know which ones are ok and which ones are the silly tabloids. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left a friendly note on Beckbrown's talk page asking them to engage in discussion on the article talk page for further removals. Removing the daily mail cite and editing that other section were fine but I noted in the article history that they have, in the past, gutted reliably sourced information and even removed references. The article was in a very poor state when I found it. Beckerbrown has also only ever edited this article, which does seem a bit WP:SAPish, however I will continue to assume good faith at this time. If you have any particular insight into this, please don't hesitate to enlighten me as all I want is a useful, informative, NPOV article and am always very happy to work together with others to accomplish this. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Email campaign: lost in translation.

Re [1]

No problem with not deleting it - the AfD result was a speedy keep. I just didn't understand what the emailers were talking about - from their emails it seemed as if what you wrote, quoting Lunt, was for a while in the actual article which I couldn't find with X!'s find addition of text in a page history tool - so I kept sending the not_XYZ template. [I didn't know where in the world they got what they quoted from you,] I only now found the ticket.

Do you think posting a comment to the blog entry made today (2010-08-16) [...] will help? Maybe how Wikipedia is a tertiary summary of verifiable published material - we summarise what the sources (academics like Lunt) publish, including major opposing views? -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t20:57z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t20:58z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t21:21z

Diabetes Hands Foundation

We've edited the article to further signify its importance and make it more informative. Please refer to the article and let us know if there is anything still making it subject to possible deletion. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmi325 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Brown FAR

Hi Ironholds! Would you mind revisiting the Michael Brown FAR (found here)? The main editor doesn't seem to be working much on the article at the moment (although they say they will be again shortly), but it would be great if you could post remaining concerns of yours on the page. If your concerns have been resolved, and all that is left is the image issues, those can easily be taken care of and the article kept, but if there are still major sourcing issues, then it would be good to know! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas I, Bishop of Schleswig

Dear Ironholds, the above-mentioned entry bases on a translation of the quoted Danish biographical lexicon, which summarises Nicholas life in a short article (less than a page), spreading over two pages, filling four lines in the first page. So almost all inline citation will again and again repeat the very same second page of that article. In this particular case inline citation is redundant, all information is from that short article. The hint requesting inline citation does not make sense here. If another source will be found and thus more info added on Nicholas I, which I guess will rather not be he case, maybe additional facts maybe citable by inline quotation from these sources. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk)

Trusts

Might Jeffrey Hackney be of interest? I needed a stub on him for my latest project, but figured you might be able to flesh it out a bit - or, at the very least, bear in mind the possibility of a wikilink when next you cite him! Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling! By way of contrast, I picked up a copy of the 1945 memoirs of Mr Justice Travers Humphreys the other day; an entertaining read (he was counsel in the trials of the poisoners Crippen and Seddon) and is full of lovely asides about why flogging would be a good idea and how miscarriages of justice often occur because of a sexually jealous woman being believed by the jury... He's got a decent ONDB write-up, so I might yet turn him into a little something (to make a change from dead, or alive, academics!) Bencherlite^Talk 08:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As a former student of Jeff Hackney, I know quite a lot about him. Unfortunately finding references is a bit of a problem! – ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, see my reply to Bencherlite on his talkpage (and damn you for going to a decent university. Personally, though, I prefer Hudson to Hackney). Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your post

You've just demonstrated to me why people keep on rejecting your rfas. Einsteindonut/"David Appletree" is a long term problematic vandal, COI-violater and sockpuppeteer. If you look at AN and ANI and SPI, you'll find currently open cases raised by other users about hsi activities of yesterday. You have just uncritically accepted what he says. Meanwhile other users are dealing with the real problem. And "David Appletree" is a pseudonym not a real name, so no outing.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Castiglione

Can we get a little bit of substance on the OTRS deletion request? Subject appears to have no notability issues (host of national TV show, multiple film credits, major label music release) and there doesn't seem to be any contentious content in the article, aside from some very standard vandalism from time to time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Essentially it is just the subject requesting deletion. If you want, I can try to appease her with flaggedrevs or something similar to keep vandalism out. Ironholds (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a better choice. I think the subject is well beyond the level of notability where deletion-by-request should be an option. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

no srsly

i will totally gay you up. → ROUX ₪ 07:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Court of King's Bench (England)

I've reviewed this and there are some very minor points to address before I pass it. Aiken ♫ 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Hi I wanted to respond to you on Jimbo's page but thought it wasn't the right place. Just an FYI, I've been working on keeping my personal attacks to a minimum lately. How am I a threat to this website? Who do you consider "like me?" According to the world's smallest political quiz, I'm right on the cusp of "conservative" and "libertarian." And as you know, I'm pro-Israel and against hateful and violent ideologies. That said, what is so "despicable" about my political views? I'm glad I amuse you though :) --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of my userpage

Can you please send more more information on where I can find information about WP policy about this? I look at RolandR's page and it seems to contain plenty of "excessive personal information and screeds. Also external linking." And he's appears to be a longtime established editor. --DavidAppletree (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for looking through The Deep End (TV series) for me. I really appreciate the feedback and comments given. :) Cheers, Bejinhan talks 14:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC) +  Chzz  ►  14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. Give me a poke when you put it up at GAN and I'll remove it. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nommed it here. Bejinhan talks 11:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Damned RFA rebels...

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For committing the henious crime of "making sense" in an RFA, as you did here [2]. You should be aware that rationalism is met with distrust around these parts. It is, of course, suggested that you immediately adopt a stance that is more in line with accepted community RFA standards. P.S., you have long since passed the mark where I would support you in an RFA. Hell, I would nominate or co-nom at this point, something I haven't done in a couple years. Give it a some thought. Trusilver 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thank you. Unfortunately making sense is an execution-worthy feat around this part. Just wait until next Wikimania; I'll be talking about how paid editing is fine and BLPs aren't what we think they are. You don't often get to watch an editor be executed for thoughtcrimes, but I aim to be the next. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Daring to question dubious commentary in the opposition in an RFA is a serious offence. You should know better, Ironholds. Aiken ♫ 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry! Please, baby, I can change! Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

• Thanks, Ironholds. I appreciate the good words, and the phrase "the smell of patchouli drifting after them" makes me laugh every time I think about it. If you see spot any signs of me becoming waaay too serious, please talk some sense into me. Thanx. Mandsford 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  Will do; I keep a .22 rimfire round set aside for just that purpose :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick one

Hey :) When you mentioned an OTRS ticket at Talk:Labshare were you meaning a recent one re these socks, or a more general one from a previous time? Asking in case it's relevant to the SPI for these socks. Orderinchaos 14:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw

Hi Ironholds,

This is Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP because I've been using WikiBreak Enforcer to try to squeeze out a little scholastic productivity. Sadly, I'm back because I learned that I am currently the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw.

There's no question that I own both accounts, nor are people questioning that I use JD_Caselaw account for the legitimate purpose of making edits that are not associated with my real-life name. However, the investigators rightly point out an occasion when I really did use the JD_Caselaw account to engage in sockpuppetry. It was in May 2009, during my first month on Wikipedia. My response is that it was a long time ago and it was a mistake. And that's where the question stands: Given that I behaved really scurrilously, once a long time ago, can I be trusted now?

I figure you might have some relevant insight into that question. You're the first editor I collaborated the most with on Wikipedia, and also the editor I've collaborated most with. So it would mean a lot to me if you could look at that page and share some insight into the question. Many thanks.

-user:Agradman, forced by WikiBreak Enforcer to edit as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Iron Holds

Please cease your in-hospital crusade against the City of Edmonton and its councilors and reread #2 of Wikipedia politician.

1. 2 Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.

Edmonton is the capital city of Alberta, the biggest economic engine in Canada with a metro area of over a million people. Your lack of knowledge to that effect does not look good on you. --Þadius (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Luttrell

Could you explain why partially unreferenced and completely unimportant information is worth keeping in such a way? Ironholds (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because when it happened it was a big deal and widely reported on making it a notable entry in the article. -- Esemono (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Then show it. Show me more than a single minor source that covered it. Ironholds (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That section of the article has four citations -- Esemono (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Brown FAR Part 2

Me again :) Would you mind revisiting the Michael Brown FAR one more time? It looks like Cla98 has retired from the article, but I am trying to pick up some loose ends since it looks like the article is close. I think I've fixed your concerns, but as I'm not a lawyer (and had never heard of this person before) I may have just totally mucked things up. If you wouldn't mind checking, any further thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bach double violin concerto

I heard the Largo today. You asshole. I'm starting to respect your taste in music. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Ironholds, I was wondering if I could nominate you for adminship, your contributions have definitely improved from your last request and are certainly well appreciated, your GA Reviews are fantastic and well I have no reason to see why you aren't deserving of the tools. —'Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deserving of the tools isn't the point, it's not some kind of an award. There has to be some demonstrable need for the tools. Malleus Fatuorum 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't really need em. I do a few CSDs a week, a couple of AfDs or PRODs when there's a need through OTRS, and sometimes I pester an admin to protect something. I'd be using my tools 60 times a year tops, so why bother? I'm a content guy. I write articles. Sometimes, I even get the feeling that matters around here :P. Nevertheless, thanks very much. Ironholds (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite - is it really worth being sat in the stocks all week, just to get some tools you'll barely use? Probably not. But should you change your mind and run, I would certainly be in the support section, regardless of how often you'd use admin tools, it's how you use them that is important. Aiken (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all. If I do a volte-face and decide that spending weeks tinkering on an FA isn't for me, I'll give it a thought :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not an award Malleus, there's no need to be snide about it. If you do decide to run, let me know and I'll be happy to (co)nominate you :). —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was intending to be particularly snide, and if he was, please don't kick off an argument on my talkpage :P. As arrogant as it may sound I've already got a dozen other users offering, but thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• On a related note, your previous "experimental" RFA was mentioned here. –xeno^talk 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You'd make a good admin for sure, no doubt about it. Consider me part of the "peanut gallery" then :) keep up the good work! Regards and happy editing, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:46pm • 09:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:McG/GA1

Hey. Just poking you about this review; not sure if you want to finish it up or just fail it if there's as many concerns as you say, since the main author hasn't edited in a few weeks now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New portal for your amusement

I thought it was about time that all your excellent work on English law and legal history had a wider audience. However, as nobody much reads portals, I'll have to think of something else beyond Portal:Ironholds (or "Portal:Law of England and Wales", to give it its unofficial title) - but it may interest you anyway. It needs more juicy quotations, and I've not finished assembling the "DYKs" but otherwise I'd be interested in hearing your comments. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on vandalism sandboxes

As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Corinthian thing

I've changed the tag to 'attack' - the place is a real school and this piece is by a disaffected student, in my opinion.... Peridon (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

hello Tarshan is new Company.. it is not advertising .. why you are marking as sparm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazalca (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Tracing in English law

Just a few minor questions for you here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

New photo for your entertainment

"Hello, Ironholds!", says Lord Judge.

Taken on this excursion. Bencherlite^Talk 09:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! Added it to the article? Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Salmond's Muir

Thanks for the interest in the article. I've removed your {{unreferenced}} tag because... well, there is a reference there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry; I saw it, went "bugger" and tried to bail on twinkle. Evidently it didn't work. My sincerest apologies. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... there was a formatting issue that made the reference section difficult to see. I've shifted things around to address this. Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request your input on BLPN

I've just posted a request for help at WP:BLPN#Need some advice on Kevin Hart (poet). As the person who previously handled the OTRS requests along with having made the first "neutral" version, you may have some relevant info. Additionally, I don't know if this is within your provenance, but we need a different admin watching the article. User:NuclearWarfare has recently dropped the use of his admin tools, and so is not available to help enforce the BLPBAN provisions the article is under. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr B's case

Nice work! I'm sure it won't be long before I can add it to P:ENGLAW (now up for featured status, as you may have seen mentioned at WT:LAW). What's your next plan? Bencherlite^Talk 07:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

WP:Law discussion that might interest you...

...at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#A-class_legal_articles. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas, weekends are v difficult (Wife of Bencherlite (talk · contribs) and Son of Bencherlite (talk · contribs) deserve attention) so most unlikely I'll be able to make such events. Changing the subject slightly, I'll have some GA Qs for you at Dr B's case shortly. Bencherlite^Talk 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to responding to your skeleton argument when it is submitted to the court. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Filed and served. Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My response is in the work; it should be with you by 7 (which reminds me of an amusing story a barrister friend once told me). Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dr. Bonham's Case

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Case citations

Hello there. Have you seen how this template works for the US Supreme Court cases? 60 U.S. 393 (1857) So an equivalent could be [2008] UKHL 48. Neutral citations go back to 1998 in full, I think, and there are many leading judgments available before then. Do you know how to - or do you know someone who does know how to - do a similar template for English courts? Wikidea 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest looking for some kind of template message board, if such a thing exists - if you can't find it, try the village pump. I'm afraid I don't know anyone. Ironholds (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is {{Cite BAILII}} any help? Bencherlite^Talk 09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop rolling back my use of {{Cite BAILII}} with which I am attempting to clear up URLs for BAILII which violate their guidelines. Your explanation of why you are doing this makes no sense, and it would have been nice if you had asked first why I was doing it before simply wiping my efforts away. I took your point in relation to Cream Holdings which is why I restricted myself to providing proper links to BAILII, but you are still wiping my changes without explaining properly: what is "more difficult to find"? (In reference to your quoting AGF above, using an tool like Twinkle doesn't make it any less of a slap in the face than simply using the rollback feature, just so as you know…) —Phil | Talk 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to imply that. this, for example; your replacement of a direct external link with a reference means that readers now have to click on a teeny-tiny character to drop down to a section which explains where they can find the information, rather than just, y'know, clicking on a massive notice which takes them to it. The same applies to the other reversion. I'm struggling to see how we violate their guideline; they say "You must use the document URL -- do not use the search string in the address bar." The articles you've brought to my attention are ones which use the document URL. Ironholds (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Bencherlite, thanks for the bailii template - I was wondering if we could have something perhaps even shorter though - the American template is really uncomplicated, and has a slightly different result. I'll see if I can get to the people who created that at some point, I think. Wikidea 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Law Reviews -- RSs?

A discussion as to whether law reviews are RSs it taking place here. Given the apparent confusion and lack of familiarity of some editors with the review and fact-checking process of a typical law review, I wonder whether at some point it may be helpful to clarify at the guideline?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ship cases

Tried to think of a ship-related case. Well, you and I might call it The Wagon Mound (1) but that's just a redirect to Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd. Is that the best option? Or is the best option a bit of flexibility depending on whether the case's "common name" is the ship's name or the "X v Y" name? Bencherlite^Talk 17:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's about an Arbitration statute that is no longer even in force :P. No real common name, because nobody refers to the associated cases any more! But point; I'll link the full names and then add the ship names as a redirect later. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Per your GA commentary, btw; it may interest you, because it's a certain GA. I'm managing to write an article on an Act of Parliament, complete with historical background and associated case law, when the Act isn't even in force. A tour de force even for me :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had it watchlisted... Bencherlite^Talk 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, that'd explain it. A worrying number of people have my talkpage watchlisted (yes, you, invisible gnomes. I'm talking to you). Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I undertook earlier today to review Quistclose trusts in English law, but in the light of ongoing accusations being made against me I decided it would be more prudent to withdraw until the fuss is sorted out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, matey; whenever you're ready. Hope things work out. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

They already have worked out in a way, but we'll see what happens next. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm up and down like a whore's drawers, must be the switch back to GMT. I'll look through this tomorrow, now once again firm in my usual conviction that I'm (almost) always right. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Review done, just a few questions that probably display my ignorance of the law. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Na, it's cool; thanks for the review, matey. Up and down like a whore's drawers? Is this an attempt to get your fizzog on the gogglebox? :P Ironholds (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Baronet articles

Hi Ironholds. It was a while since we spoke, I hope you're well. Are you still involved in nominating articles for deletion? I just came across a number of articles on baronets that probably won't meet the notability criteria, all created by a very active new user, User:LoveActresses (unless being related to the current Chancellor of the Exchequer makes you notable). They are: Sir William Osborne, 10th Baronet (died aged 7), Sir Daniel Osborne, 12th Baronet, Sir William Osborne, 13th Baronet, Sir Charles Osborne, 14th Baronet, Sir Francis Osborne, 15th Baronet, Sir George Osborne, 16th Baronet and Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet and, a stray one, Sir Euan Bowater, 3rd Baronet. The alternative to nominating them for deletion would be to merge the material into the articles on the Osborne and Bowater Baronetcies, this would probably be the best solution as a lot of work has gone into creating the articles. It would also be good if someone could inform LoveActress about the notability guidelines. I need some advice here and I hope you could help me out. Regards, Tryde (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir William Osborne, 13th Baronet should be kept (Deputy Lieutenant), Sir George Osborne, 16th Baronet as well (MC winner, Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army); the rest I'd merge or AfD. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting news about User:LoveActresses today. I'll have a look at the articles in the next few days. Regards, Tryde (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)

Cbl62 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If we come around again, can I get off?

You redirected my painstakingly collected page, Ancestry of Jesus. I will let you know that I already visited that page you redirected to, and was not impressed. After trying to improve the article, Genealogy of Jesus, I ran into this problem 123. Adhering his last suggestion, I went off and made my own Article. It's perfectly alright to have two articles with similar information but from a different perspective, just look at the Articles Jesus and Christ. Anyway, I just think we should discuss this before you do anything drastic. Again.--Nate5713 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Your example of "Jesus" and "Christ" as analogous topics is incorrect; one refers to Jesus of Nazereth, the historic conman, while the other refers to the general Abrahamic idea of a messiah figure. A more accurate example would be having different articles for "windscreen" and "windshield". I can't seem to find any request for you to go off and write your own article - only people going "you can't base an article on this, it's not a reliable source". Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. Their problem was that saying that I cannot use "The Adam and Eve Family Tree" as a reference (Which I find weird, nonetheless). Adhering to their suggestion, I abandoned the Good Things Company and decided to reference only the Bible. They also mentioned that a third genealogy would clutter the article (perhaps I forgot to mention that part). Knowing that such a genealogy is still necessary, and submitting to the deleting-eager majority, I figured that a new article would cover both grounds.

"you can't base an article on this..." are you referring to a particular reference I use, or are you just saying that an unbiased compilation is somehow, "unnecessary"?--Nate5713 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why your magical new article is unbiased, and the old one is not? We do not create different articles for different points of view. If you have a dispute over content, that is something to work out with the other editors, not something to be worked out by splitting off your own article Peoples' Front of Judea-style. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you would point to something particular you had a problem with, but I'll try to explain anyway; sorry to disappoint you, but it's not by magic. Really, the only thing they had a problem with was the fact that I was citing "The Adam and Eve Family Tree", so I dedicated myself to check my sources more. Yet, even when I do check my sources, my article is still deleted by a Mr. Iron Hold, who is actually asking ME what's wrong with the article. If we come around again, can I get off?--Nate5713 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't be patronising. If you're looking for my particular problem with your creation of that article, I'll reiterate it again. "We do not create different articles for different points of view. If you have a dispute over content, that is something to work out with the other editors". Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The "other editor" would be you, the only other guy who edits the Article. Nonetheless, I will try to look for a resolution to the Genealogy of Jesus article, anyway. --Nate5713 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all you did was try to recreate "Ancestry of Jesus", which I have reverted back to a redirect, because the "article" was, in fact, a POV fork, which is not allowed. I think you had better learn our policies a little better, because your edits have, with some consistency, been against various policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I meant the other editors at the Genealogy of Jesus pagge. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Discretionary trusts and powers in English law

Orlady (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arbitration Act 1979

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kitten for you!

Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, dude! :). Ironholds (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jokainen tavallaan

Wrong tag. I meant to tag the artist with A7, and then this article with A9. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled?

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm not sure what it means. Does it mean that no one will check my articles? I'd actually rather have some feedback on what I'm doing. Pkeets (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DeMinus "L.I.F.E" deletion?

my page was informative & did not deserve to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminemfan223222222222 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a link

the link to the artist's website is on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminemfan223222222222 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Zaxby's Menu

I saw your prod, but I went ahead and deleted it as G11, blatant advertising or promotion. LadyofShalott 03:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair play; thankee. Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambrosia (dish)

Shouldn't Ambrosia (dish) just be redirected to Ambrosia, since it says in the article that it "is the food of the gods"? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology

The discussion in that thread at WT:RFA has moved past my comments, but I wanted to apologize to you for my incorrect interpretation of your comment. I attributed a thought to you that you had in fact argued against. Thanks for correcting and clarifying. Townlake (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's alright! My fault for being terse as much as anything else. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)