--[[User:Salalah4life|Salalah4life]] ([[User talk:Salalah4life|talk]]) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Salalah4life|Salalah4life]] ([[User talk:Salalah4life|talk]]) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Comhar|Comhar]] ([[User talk:Comhar|talk]]) 11:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I notice you put an unreferenced thingy on my article on [[Sruwaddacon Bay]] the day I first put it on. I've worked on it since and I think its fairly well referenced now. Can I take off the unreferenced note or will you do it, if you think its referenced OK so far. I'll keep my eye on the article and keep improving it as I can. Thanks. Comhar
As I was looking over the DYK queue, I was intrigued by Wheeler v Saunders Ltd (nice article, and great hook!), but I have one request — could you modify the final sentence of the intro? It ends "had been a commercial dock, which was.", and I suspect that you meant to say something after the "was". Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed "dock" to "dock, which was a sufficient development", as I expect that others too will be confused. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject Awards. I have just nominated Nobel Prize for FA and I would love to have some comments or support on the nomination page. Since you are in the same project I hoped you could check it out perhaps? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Franklin Kay
Dear Ironholds, I will need a few days to write the full article - I have a lot of information available but need to filter the most important. Surely I will add all possible references. You can check some of my latest work in Iain Torrance and Flex Linhas Aéreas. Thanks. BRGDS (Brunoptsem (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You need to relax
I think you should give your bot a bit more buffer time on adding warning templates to new articles. Will save you and the editor time, among other things. --Shuki (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Thank you
Thanks for the positive feedback. Oddly enough, I just had another editor complaining that I spend too much time creating stubs and should spend more time making more indepth articles; so your comment is very much welcome and timely. :-) I may create stubs and not featured articles, but at least I don't leave a mess for other editors to clean up. I am glad editors like you can appriciate that.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I'm glad your work is getting positive reception. I actually do write more indepth articles when I have the time, resources, and interest. However, sometimes I just like to do something relatively simple and quick. I think that is why the editor in question is complaining; he likes the results of the articles I spend more time on. I guess in a way that is a compliment. However, I am of the school of thought that a well written and adequately referenced stub is a good addition to the encyclopedia. Some coverage on a notable topic is better than no coverage. Well, best of luck to you and thanks for your hard work patrolling new articles.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd is the correct case and link target under "battery"? As far as I can tell from the article, that case has nothing to do with trespass, much less battery or harassment (which involve some actual human-to-human interaction, and such interactions don,t seem to have been much involved in Hunter). Am I missing something? Circéus (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The textbooks I've got say so, but given that I can't actually find it in the judgment for Hunter I'm going to go a bit OR-y and remove it. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, re: separating case citation and general citations, the point is that usually legal article don't give the case citation of mentioned cases at all. The way I see them case citations in your articles are more similar to content notes than formal references, hence the usefulness of making it clear when a footnote is merely the legal citation and when it's a genuine content reference, especially since, if I'm not mistaken, some of those cases are missing the case citation. Circéus (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too clear whether accumulating a list of legal claims by stringing specific cases' conclusion (which appears to be what you are doing) falls under WP:SYNTHESIS, but that's a bit besides the point. If this is the decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, it looks to me as if there was a lengthy aside delving into harassment as private nuisance which was related to a secondary claim not discussed in the article or something along those lines (to be honest, the legal writing in that decision is rather opaque to me compared to the prose I'm used to from those American decisions I've perused, like Strauss v. Horton or Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, but that's not relevant other than to say my comment is probably wrong). Circéus (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as said, the articles are based on the textbooks; including the cases as readily available and more direct resources is the intent. Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd argue that indeed (unless you make explicit quotation from the cases), the legal citations are content notes: they are not required to source the material per se (since you do that by way of secondary sources), but are included primarily for the convenience of the readers who might want to dig them out. Although they could be reasonably dropped off (as I've said before, it is not customary at all on WP: to give full case citations of cases merely mentioned), I agree they are useful as content notes given that many are redlinks, and potentially not inherently notable (though it's hard to judge and I have no idea what, if any, is our standard for court cases). Circéus (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We never really agreed on one, so WP:GNG applies, which is pretty easy to fulfil with some case commentary by way of legal journals. I'm of the opinion that any case which creates new law in a court that can set binding precedent is notable, but most of those would pass GNG anyway for obvious reasons. Ironholds (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion for my two articles
Hi Ironhold,
I am kinda new with WP, however I have tried to improve my articles (Embedded Wizard and Chora (Programming Language)) e.g. with additional external references. I am a freelance graphics developer and I wrote this article because I often use the tool in my daily work and really enjoy it. In contrast to big commercial tools like Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Flash, I found "Embedded Wizard" kinda underrepresented at Wikipedia. :-)
However, if there is anything more, which can be improved about this article, it would be nice to have your feedback. Thanks in advance.
Stherrmann (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Easiest GA of my day so far. You've got a few suggestions on the review page to peruse at your leisure. Nice to see an English Law editor. I don't do much law editing these days but I keep an eye out for an interesting article. Anyway, good work and happy April Fool's day! HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wheeler v Saunders Ltd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just a friendly note on Helene Boullé. I'm contesting your prod because at least one biography of her exists,[1] which would give an indication that WP:BIO might be met. If you still have concerns, drop me a line and we'll talk. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nuisance in English law
On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nuisance in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I see you tagged my most recently created article KinoSearch with the notability template. I don't understand why. My article does have a published reference and I tried so hard to find as many news related sources as possible, but couldn't find very many. Even though you haven't proposed a deletion of it, in what way does this article not meet the notability guideline? Minimac (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Trespass in English law
On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trespass in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I noticed you left a message on this users talk page in regards to a recent CSD nomination of theirs, can you please review this nomination? I don't believe A1 applies but have already declined an A7 speedy that the user placed on the same page previously and don't want this to be seen as edit warring. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor adjustments to the section describing Lord Hewart's speech in the Lords of December 1934. The article as you wrote it gave some quotations that I assume were from Lord Schuster's biographer as if said directly by Lord Hewart. I've amended the article, with citations to Hansard. Opera hat (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand that to be your concern. It is in fact a chapter commencing at p46. The chapter is indeed p46 to p52. I will enhance the detail accordingly. Is that sufficient in your opinion? Thanks. DubhEire (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were slightly premature in this tagging [2]. The article obviously has references, but they were not localized to our citation templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I didn't see that; I assumed that somebody had been using empty or somehow cackhanded cite tags. My mistakes; apologies. Ironholds (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baker / Judge photo
The photo is on the missus's computer, so I'll try and grab it at the weekend. I thought I had a copy somewhere on my machine or back-up, but apparently not. BencherliteTalk16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions and referencing on Afghanistan topics
Greetings, I'd like to point out that I've done massive amounts of organizational work putting Category:Pashtun tribes into order, filled numerous redlinks, linked the lists of Afghan governors into their respective articles, fleshed them out, etc. Throughout that, I've given clear, hyperlinked, reputable references in the majority of articles I've created. Those articles which happen to not have comprehensive references are generally material already existing on Wikipedia which I've organized better than it previously existed (such as many of the tribal articles), or pure lists of names based on generically available information with no academic interpretation involved. Wikipedia, particularly the Afghan articles, are full of POV IP edits, completely unreferenced long articles, etc. My work is making that better instead of worse, and if a few stubs are unreferenced, let them be marked with an "unreferenced" tag, and either I or some other editor tracking Afghanistan issues will continue to improve them as we continue to improve all Afghanistan coverage. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pepper v Hart
G'day there, there was just one more thing on Pepper v Hart I wanted to clear up - see the fourth dot point under "prose": Talk:Pepper_v_Hart/GA1. It's a little thing that I would have done myself but I'm not 100% sure. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not getting the sentence as it is after your removal. It now says:
"In his judgment (issued 24 November 1989), Vinelott decided, based on the act, that "any expense incurred" referred to the average cost of keeping pupils, not the costs of keeping the teachers' children as pupils. Based on the amounts in question, Vinelott decided that the 1/5th paid by the teachers adequately covered the first category, but reversed the Special Commissioners' decision."
The first category is the "average cost of keeping pupils" (ie the full cost). If Vinelott decided that the 1/5th adequately covered this category, surely there would be no dispute? I think it might need to say:
"In his judgment (issued 24 November 1989), Vinelott decided, based on the act, that "any expense incurred" referred to the average cost of keeping pupils, not the costs of keeping the teachers' children as pupils. Based on the amounts in question, Vinelott decided that the 1/5th paid by the teachers did not adequately cover the first category, so reversed the Special Commissioners' decision."
Cheers - it's been passed now. For what it's worth, as I'm sure you'll agree, there is no way this version would have been passed. When I was trawling through the GANs a week or so ago, that's the version I saw! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. My FA and my current FA projects are both loner exercises, so it would be good to find something to collaborate on. My access to materials is obviously quite Australian-centric (as is my area of specialty), but a common law topic might bridge the divide. I'll have a think - perhaps some ancient principle of contract law? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop proding the articles concerning the "WIHL seasons". They are marked as stub articles, and further content will soon be added.Dolovis (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, friend
Yeah, I noticed that I had "Autoreview" status today and had to look up what that is. Thanks very much for that, I do appreciate it and it is useful.
I realize that I'm totally pushing the boundaries on one of my current WP projects. We'll see how that turns out: split into 5 articles or transformed into a book.
i need help adding stuff 2 this page i recently made, this has notability and i added the charts it topped but the page just looks really bland.can u tell me wat i need, heres the link [3] TheDeathKingTheGodfather 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thanx but how do u make a infobox??--TheDeathKingTheGodfather 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talk • contribs)
Sorry about that...
The page ACORN community High School, I accidentally clicked "Save Page" instead of "Show Preview" I will continue editing it but, I'll be careful this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraman X77 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Articles
Thank you for the nice feedback, and for trusting me with the Autoreviewer user right. It's really appreciated coming from a prolific editor like yourself, and it should help the new page patrollers out, too. Thanks again! Gongshow Talk22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rylands v Fletcher looks good too. Attempts to wikilawify the article might meet some resistance though by the looks of things... I'll check out what I can get over the next few days: as you say I'm sure there is tons of Australian material. I should at least look for Canadian and New Zealand stuff as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Andrew's, Blackrock
You tagged St. Andrew's, Blackrock as needing footnotes for precise citation, but I don't understand what is wrong with using the general references at the bottom of the page. Can you give further explanation please? DubhEire (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exchequer of Pleas
Nice work on this article! I was curious — what referencing style do you use? I can't remember encountering one like it before. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Standard Citations for Hodgepodge Articles, I guess. It's sort of like the Harvard style, but with the inline citations in footnotes rather than slap-bang in the middle of the text. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AIV
Hey, I'm clerking AIV for the bots atm (they're all bloody broken!) may I suggest you try WP:RPP first to try and get the page salted. If that doesn't work, by all mean re-report. I'll leave the report up for about half an hour unless there are any new developments. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cause it doesn't have one, the reference is the main article.
Yes everything comes from the main page form the seeds to the defending champion and the number of player is from the 2010 atp world tour page. Lo que sea.
Go to the external links.
How come you found a problem with this tennis pages, while an editer named Fram didn't find any.
What other editors its only you who have said anything, onyl thing that Kingpin said is according to you not the article.
Nope that wasn't it he was just defending you. i don't know why but he was very persistent. wonder.
I know what they ask me not to do and taht is not to upload pictures that doesn't have the correct permission not fot my articles. FIN.
DYK for Exchequer of Pleas
On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exchequer of Pleas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there. You proposed this article for deletion using the WP:BLPPROD process; I have contested the deletion, as I found this source which I believe is acceptable: [4]. If you still feel the article should be deleted, feel free to take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that source verifies her filmography. The rest of the content is still unsourced - feel free to remove it if you like, though it's not negative. Also, while the article is now technically sourced, I'm doubtful that she passes the notability guideline for people - so if you wanted to delete the article for reasons of non-notability, I'd support you. Robofish (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've contested this one as well - a couple of sources are listed in the external links. As with the article above, he may or may not meet the notability guidelines, but he's ineligible for WP:BLPPROD. Use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's the blighter! Tell you what, when I get around to writing that, the start of the judgment can be part of the DYK hook :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to do a little digging. So to speak. It is not good enough to say that R v F was adopted, or not adopted by state courts in the 19th century. Question is, did they do so later or not, and has the rule in R v F been adopted statutorily. Perhaps I can get hold of some law review articles, I'm not certain, such things on paper are harder and harder to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declination of Speedy Delete Washington Student Math Association
Very well; my reversions are not, in any way, retaliatory; waiting for your replies by hitting F5 on your contributions page bored me out, so I went clickin'. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a significant case in American legal education. I remember reading it in my first year torts class. If I can find a good source that cites it, I'll add some information on its significance in the U.S. -LegalSkeptic (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As did I. I have not had time to work much on the draft article, but it is my feeling that there is a need for post-1900 influence by Rylands on American law. I will also start searching to see if I can find additional information on the background of the case in one of my books on such subjects.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update on how I'm going with the Australian stuff: fairly well. I've found some very good critical commentary of how Australian courts have blasted the case out of the precedent books. I've also found quite a lot of New Zealand material in my searches but unfortunately I can't access that... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'll try to email you some stuff today. In particular I've found one very good article by an Australian academic panning the Australian and UK courts for wrecking Rylands v Fletcher while praising the US courts for their resurrection of the doctrine. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response, Iron. I'm moving a thought here just for the moment, so as not to overly encumber that page (and scare people off from the conversation). If the rules says: "If possible, one should cite both," then perhaps there is no need for the "the secondary sources are preferred (lay-person friendly) excluding" part of your suggested amendment. The reason is, we are clearly saying that where both are available, one should cite both--so there is no need to choose between the two types of sources.
The second part I think is a great suggestion ... "In situations where they factually conflict, the primary source takes priority for establishing what is/is not true". That, it strikes me, would be the only situation where one would have to "choose".
Works for me. Can I suggest, given the fact that this is likely to occur in legal areas particularly (with the prominence of case reports, court documents and other primary sources) we start discussing how to put it into WP:MOSLAW? Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Do you want to raise it there? Perhaps after revising your suggestion, per the above, and providing a link to that discussion?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ironholds, this is user:Agradman (I had a friend change the password on my account so I couldn't edit during final exam period. (HAHAHAHAHAHA a lot of good that is doing!!!).) I'm pleased as punch that you thought of me for helping with the work on Rylands v. Fletcher, but unfortunately it's a bad time with exams and all.
Best of luck. I'll keep the article in mind though.
I was intrigued by the side remark on Mason v. Levy and wanted to know more. First I note is that it should apparently be Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd. Then I came across T. Ellis Lewis (1967) "Liability for Escape of Fire. Rylands v. Fletcher. Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774" Cambridge Law Journal 25(2):160-16 JSTOR4505159. As far as I can piece from that short article, it's a peculiar application involving Musgrove v Pandelis where what escapes is fire, and the accumulation bit in Mason (at least the way Lewis puts it) seems to relate distinctly to "Non-natural use" criterion: "[H]e concluded that the defendants' use of their land was non-natural having regard to the quantities of combustible material they brought onto it; the way in which they stored it; and to the character of the neighborhood." I can't tell whether the quantities where a significant factor under the "likely to do mischief if it escapes" criterion, but given the nature of the case, that specific aspect was possibly not even considered. A discussion of this class of cases (a spate is cited in the article) might be warranted. Circéus (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'll take a look at those, but unless something more recent contradicts the 07 or 08 textbooks I've got it's probably not worth covering in the main article. When I get around to writing the case articles it'll be covered in more detail. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point (beside the case name error) is rather that Masson seems a peculiar case that might possibly even not be applying the Rylands test, so taking it out might be a simpler approach. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page of BLPPROD it was agreed that an Amazon source showing person X is the author of a book is enough to remove the BLPPROD tag. If you disagree, please discuss there. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of David Gold (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Member of a band with an article, though admittedly a PRODded one. Relist if the PROD succeeds. I've watchlisted both. Thank you. GedUK18:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed Serjeant-at-law at GA. Two things; firstly, if you're using all narrow-format Harvard citations (that is, no long ones) it's always better to use {{reflist|colwidth=23em}} rather than a fixed number of columns, otherwise either viewers with wide monitors get a huge amount of white space, or viewers with narrow monitors get a ludicrously long list if they try to print it out. (I've taken the liberty of changing it; try zooming the window size from narrow to wide and watch what happens.) Secondly, although I've overlooked the issues with File:Old Serjeant's Inn plaque London.jpg as I think the odds of the Corporation of London complaining are zero, be aware that it is undoubtedly uploaded under a false ownership claim and thus could be deleted the moment a Commons admin spots it. – iridescent00:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Surely there's a freedom of panorama thing here? Although I know in the US that primarily applies to buildings; not sure it'd work here. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FoP in the UK is misunderstood; people think it's a blanket right to take photos of "anything outdoors", or "anything on public display", and it's neither. CDPA88 s62—the "freedom of panorama" clause—applies only to buildings, and to "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Under English law, a "work of artistic craftsmanship" is narrowly defined and excludes "graphic works"—that is, to be covered the creator must by considered a craftsman and an artist. The test case is Hensher v. Restawhile which enshrined the "intention test"; that is, "did the creator intend to create a work of art?". The tiles photographed at List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, for instance, pass the test because they're created by "professional" artists and obviously designed to be decorative, but blue plaques have a weaker claim, as they're all to the same design and intended to be informative rather than decorative.
Buggeration. Ah well, thanks for your clarification. I'm hopefully doing an LLM in Intellectual Property and European Law at some point, so I guess I'll find out more there. Nice to know that education can work for WP and not just the other way around :P. Ironholds (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it; CDPA88 is one of those counter-intuitive things that everyone gets caught by at some point. – iridescent09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ironholds. I was wondering, can you copy small quotes from wikiquote? If you do, do you have to attribute them in some sort of way? Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing. I do not have a long history of copyright problems. I have only gotten into 3 formal, and all very minor, copyright issues.--Theologiae (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as you'll see, only one of the copyright warnings was actually (and still isn't, in my opinion) valid. The two others were interpretation mistakes. Please refrain from making judgements and preconceptions before actually knowing things better. 99% of the questions I asked you about copyright were before I did them, except a few. Look, I'm actually beginning to get, nearly, scared about all this copyright talk. I've read so many pages about what to do, what not to do, and etc. but every day I find out something new, and I don't remember whether I took that into consideration in the past. But, I will not accept to be called an editor with a long problematic history, and now a message which says so on my talk page, which is not very attractive. I will try to be kind to you, since you were kind to me, yet it seems just because I asked you a lot of copyright questions that you have taken me for an editor with a long history. So, first, could you answer the first question, and second of all, look at the edit contributions and history very carefully before making demeaning and reputation-ruining judgements, even with good intention. Thank you, and reply--Theologiae (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have answered my question, please tell me it again. Secondly, I'm not denying, I have a history, but it's not a long and incredibly problematic one as you want to put. As I said, you cannot say things unless you look at them very carefully. Pre-conceptions are very easy to make. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be hard to leave my favourite place, yet I feel that I need to.
Ironholds, I'm officially going to tell you that today (April 17) I will be leaving Wikipedia. It has been a great experience, but I have to move on.
Editing has been great fun (with the occasional exception). Yet, since I have been accused of several things, and am a bit worried about making serious mistakes, I feel it is time for me to move on. It will be hard; I have got to know this encyclopedia very well, and have become very fond of it, yet there are some things that slightly worry me. I am a child, and Wikipedia maybe is not the best environment for children (I love the environment, yet it is not suited for me).
I will contact a few editors, make my last edits, and after today I will leave.
But thank you for having made this a joy. I will always remember your help.
Comhar (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I notice you put an unreferenced thingy on my article on Sruwaddacon Bay the day I first put it on. I've worked on it since and I think its fairly well referenced now. Can I take off the unreferenced note or will you do it, if you think its referenced OK so far. I'll keep my eye on the article and keep improving it as I can. Thanks. Comhar[reply]
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)