User talk:Ironholds

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at ArcAngel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Getlenses

Hi Ironholds,

the page of getlenses.co.uk which has been incubated was the original few lines of wording. I had done so much work to this page with 12 references and a lot more text. Is it possible to get a copy of the code for the final draft of the page I did last friday?

--Linz131313 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on new articles

I deleted my "view" section since it was ill-advised to begin with and is just clutter repeated elsewhere. I also deleted your comment in the process, so just a heads up. Feel free to revert if you want to retain the removed comment. SDY (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your input would be (on the whole!) positive :o)

... over at WP:RFA2011. You're an intelligent and thoughtful sort of person, who has the ability to put ideas and brainstorming stuff into concise and readable prose. Care to join the Task Force on this one? The more brainy people we have over there, the better it will work out in the end. :o) Pesky (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This actually ties into something I was working on. Catch me on IRC? Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (professional wrestling)

Two months later, after the dust has finally settled, I would like to bring up The Corre's article once again. I feel the group has become more notable. They've since obtained the WWE Tag Team Champions as well as having the Intercontinental Championship. They had a brief war with CM Punk's New Nexus and all of them were entered in the 2011 Royal Rumble. They've made waves mostly on the mid-card with Kofi Kingston as well as Big Show and Kane, forcing the latter two to team together, as well as having a (rather short) match at Wrestlemania 27. They also engaged in a sudden beatdown of John Cena and The Rock in the midst of their high-profile feud. However, I leave the decision up to you and possibly my peers in the matter of whether or not this article deserves a second chance at this point in time. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Put some reliable sources covering the team as an entity on the table and we'll talk. I don't care what they've done professionally if you can't show reliable sources proving it. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 19:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: User talk:Hellohello222

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at MC10's talk page.
Message added 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—mc10 (t/c) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		for impressive work on helping the community find its way regarding new users. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

This is to inform you that there is an AN/I in which I have quoted you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

re: User talk:Bjmlacrosse88

Hello. Well sometimes it's clear that these users are only here to vandalize. Sometimes we block folks when their motive is clear, and this is why I chose to leave the final. Also, in this case, it looks like Bjmlacrosse88 (talk · contribs) is also Derppy1 (talk · contribs).

So they're just tag teaming the articles and in this case I just decided to say enough is enough. Thanks for stopping by. Dawnseeker2000 16:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Favour?

Can you help me out? Part of a liaison thingy between Wikipedia and some US universities, students are writing articles as part of their course.

And, they only have a few weeks left. If the project 'works', then it can attract a LOT more good editors (from uni's, and not just US)

I know...it's not exactly your subject area... but, please please have a look at two articles, and provide any feedback/comments etc on the talk page

Note: the main idea is to suggest things on the talk, to the students - it's fine to edit the page, of course, but the more important - bigger picture - is to help 'em get more from their Wikipedia experience...hence, if you can show them how to make it better...that would be superb.

• California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anything - any comments at all - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Get Yo' Ass Over this Way - you'll love it

radical reform idea with supporters

You are now needed. You really are. And it's a play area dear to your heart. Pesky (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reducing newbie-biting ...... solution the other way up?

I know you're heavily involved in the whole 'make WP more welcoming to newbies' thing, and (as I'm an idle get at heart) I cba to go find the 'right place' to put this idea, but I know you'll know where it is :o)

One of the biggest problems seems to stem from the workload on NPP, making them stressed, snappy, irritable and hasty. Just too many new pages to patrol. So far, people seem to have been looking at hitting that list from the bottom end - i.e. only allowing autoconfirmeds to create new articles, etc. But, apart from the fact that it adds another hurdle to newbies who just want to dive in (possibly quite competently and with a great deal of passion), if someone's going to be a vandal / bloody nuisance, it really doesn't take much for them to become autocnfirmed. And, bearing in mind human nature, I think it's quite possible that a vandal would be moreprepared to jump through that hoop than a possible good new editor (who's maybe more liekly just to be pissed off by it and go elsewhere).

Sooooo ......

Turning the solution the other way up .....

If autopatrolled were to be 'handed out' to people who are clearly trustworthy, even if not prolific, the cumulative effect would be far fewer pages to patrol? I'm not suggesting a 'radical' reform here - just maybe it should be granted in the same kind of way as 'autoconfirmed' - maybe to people who've had either a DYK or GA on something that's clearly mainly produced by them, showing that they can 'do it' and be trusted. If one were to reduce the workload on NPP this way (and it should surely be possible to automate this) it might make for less newbie-biting just because of reduced workload / stress on NPP. The current 'you must have written 50 new articles standard' becomes ever harder to achieve for trustworthy people, unless they resort to going through the motions and creating a plethora of poorly-referenced stubs just to 'get by'. Which is wrong. IMHO, one GA should equal 50 pathetic stubs, in terms of 'trustworthiness'. I think it actually shows far more cluefulness about what actually constitutes a decent article.

Think of the cumulative effect of NPP's not having to go through up to 50 articles each for all those people who've had a perfectly good DYK/GA to their name. The idea is to remove a load of needs-to-be-patrolled stuff from the top end of the quality range instead of trying to remove it from the bottom end of that range. It might actually remove more stuff.

My main goal, ultimately, is to help reduce the newbie-biting thing and hopefully retain a few more new editors. Pesky (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed completely! Now to poke my pet data gimp :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from all the new users

I just have to take a moment and thank you very kindly for all the work you've been doing to help out the new users. It's been really wonderful to have such an inspired and dedicated admin helping so many people that may never know all the good you are doing. The work you've been doing on the Wiki Guides project has been great. Being the voice of new users in the Autoconfirmed RfC has been very generous of you. And starting the New pages project to help users that have trouble with their first articles means a lot to me. I just wanted to say that there are some of us that notice all your awesome efforts and I wanted to say thank you for all the people you are helping.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In grateful recognition of all your efforts helping new users, I am proud to present Ironholds the Admin's barnstar. Thank you for your many countless hours of work to help Wikipedia become a nicer place to new users. And thank you from all the thousands of new users you have helped. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, dude! :). It's great to see people are noticing my efforts - not in the hope of plaudits, but in the hopes that they too will choose to get involved. Keep up the good work with autoreviewers and autoconfirmation yourself; Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Jpurificato's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ruthy sue (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor survey

I have just completed the editor survey to which I found a link on my dashboard.

One section was about the attitude of other editors and I stated that they had mostly been friendly and helpful since I joined as an editor 6 months ago. However I felt bound to mention the one exception, the very offensive comments you made on my user page on March 16th, 2011. The next questions in the survey were about whether the unpleasant behaviour was ageist, sexist, racist etc. to which I replied "No" because I didn't see how you could have known that I was a 70 year old female who had never previously been sworn at or threatened with violence in my life.

I still think your responses to my original comments on the Great Backlog Elimination Drive were entirely inappropriate. Don't you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, yes; they were dependent on context which I couldn't have reasonably expected you to be aware of, and for that, I sincerely apologise. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted! :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would note, however, that my actions were inappropriate regardless of your age, gender or life experiences. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-New page incubation

The aticle Capricorn FM has been tagged for assesment, when you're chanced could you kindly assess as per limbo. Thanks Otelemuyen (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 4, 22 April 2011 This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Voting begins for steering committee - The voting phase for the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee election started this week, and will continue through 27 April. Seeking more Regional Ambassadors in the US - We are still looking for Regional Ambassadors for the United States! The deadline has been extended to Friday, April 29th. India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune. Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case. Ambassador program at Wikimania - We're planning a set of Wikipedia Ambassador Program presentations for Wikimania 2011, in Haifa this August. Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Rock drum's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Rock drumALT 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Court of King's Bench (England)

Hi. I recently came across this article and noticed that it uses the male nomenclature, unlike virtually every other such article that I could find. Is there any particular reason for this; should we not move it? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Stalking) Presumably it's because the Court of King's Bench is a historic institution which only existed during the reign of Kings so was only hypothetically the Court of Queen's Bench. The other institutions you've mentioned have all existed through reigns of both Kings and Queens so get their current names. The similarly titled modern court (Queen's Bench Division of the High Court) is appropriately named. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted; I don't consider myself involved, and so will not comment - if questions are asked where I could provide a useful answer, feel free to poke me. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

William Garrow (1760-1840) was a British barrister, politician and judge known for his indirect reform of the advocacy system, which helped usher in the adversarial court system used in most common law nations today. He introduced the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", insisting that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court. Garrow is best known for his criminal defence work, which, through the example he set with his aggressive defence of clients, helped establish the modern adversarial system used in most common law systems. Garrow is also known for his impact on the rules of evidence, coining the best evidence rule. His work was cited as recently as 1982 in the Supreme Court of Canada and 2006 in the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal. In 2009, BBC One broadcast Garrow's Law, a four-part fictionalised drama of Garrow's beginnings at the Old Bailey; a second series aired in late 2010. (more...)

Brilliant! Thanks :) Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When I saw this on the Main Page, I immediately knew that it was one of yours. Well done again! ;) AGK [•] 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather a journey - at this point, I may not even be in the UK past june. Ironholds (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This would be the case linked to on my talkpage, which I've already said I have no interest in and won't be commenting on, right? Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think...

that the article Alejandro E. Del Real is eligible to be salted. mauchoeagle _(c) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh. He's on a final warning - any recreation and I'll salt and block. At this stage, however, most recreations come from the same time-period; I tend to limit salting to where there is long term abuse, or abuse with multiple accounts. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?

No, that's flat out wrong, and trying to lecture me about it is just as bad. He was in clear violation of 3RR, and has a history of it, as well as this particular method of disruption. Just looking at his talk page makes it clear he has no regard for the concept of consensus, and has little interest in discussing matters, since this is the same disruptive pattern he's made on plenty of other articles. But aside that, protection is there to prevent disruption, which is clearly what he was doing by edit warring. The fact that it was protected on the version he favored should have made it clear that I did it only to end the 3RR disruptions. I only refrained from blocking because I'm terribly angry at the gross disregard of the consensus policy, and the 3rr noticeboard will take care of that. So you can take that self-righteousness and shove it, dear Ollie, I won't be talked down to by a man who defends a bully. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection is there to stop disruption, but that doesn't mean that it should be hammered down with a single user disrupting things. Again, you used your tools in a situation you were involved in. If you can't see a problem with that, I suggest you hand them back. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly involved. I reverted a disruptive edit, and continued to revert the same disruptive edits when they were repeated. I have been involved with the article in the past, but take a look at the history and you'll see that it's been a long time since I've been there. The editor made it clear he intended to keep being disruptive, and freely admits to using force to get his way because it's worked in the past. Like I said, a block would have probably been better, but those are mor controversial and I recognized that not everyone would have thought I was being objective in my anger... and from the discussion on WP:AN3, even that might not change his hard-headed ways. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)"

That makes you involved, Bahamut0013. You were involved in that dispute, and it would have been wise to let AN3 or another noticeboard handle it. And note that both of you passed 3RR - no matter who passed first. And do note, that many policies do state that inclusion is discussed, we do not leave possibly violating material stand, that even goes for material where guidelines suggest against inclusion, let alone policy, or possible, decrees of the board or law. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being rude to you earlier. I know you were just trying to give me a wake-up call, so for my part, I don't have any hard feelings. You might not feel the same... bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all - assuming you now accept that your actions were incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I'm a stubborn man, so I can't say everything was wrong. But the basis of why you felt the need to go to ANI, yes. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973

I've left a few observations here, and the review is now on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans; I'll go handle it now. Ironholds (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question for you at RFAR/Racepocket

Hello Ironholds, I have directed a question to you on the workshop page of the current Request for Arbitration/Racepocket. It would be appreciated if you could respond within the next 3-4 days; please take your time and be thorough with links and diffs so that we can understand your thinking. Thank you. Risker (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your question on my talk page. As you know, on March 22, I posted an inquiry on the meta wiki to which User:LauraHale responded, and by March 26, we both agreed that the WMF was not her "employer." Following that, the issue died down. On April 20, LauraHale started a new series of posts claiming "Racepacket tried to CONTACT MY EMPLOYER," rather than the person he thought was my employer. This lead a number of us to believe that someone had contacted her employer in late April causing her new round of complaints and demands. Although I had been avoiding contacts with User:LauraHale by this point, it would be better if she knew that I had not been the person behind whatever triggered the new problem. After I left the talk page message, on April 21 she clarified it to be a concern about "future outing." Only much later, did I discover that April 20 was when she started overtly laying the ground work for the second Arbitration. Rschen talk page diff. So, there was no real world event around April 20 that prompted that round of "he contacted my employer" accusations, although my response was a sincere statement based on the belief that she thought that I had done so in late April. Again, I did not contact her University in March, nor did I contact it in late April. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The goal was to convey sympathy, assurance that it was not me behind whatever it was, and to avoid any language that would be potentially provocative. If I were to say "I did not do x specific thing." she could potentially take offense by my recharacterizing her statements as x. Again, the only reason why I left the message was that she had to hear from me, in a sympathetic tone that I did not cause whatever it was that created the angst at her employer in late April. If Ironholds had left a talk page message on April 20 saying Racepacket denies that he is contacting your employer, it would only add fuel to the fire. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your views. From the moment I stepped in to assist Bill with concluding the GA review, it has been a no-win situation. I have disengaged a while ago, have never edited the netball articles except for deleting one category in early April, have proposed dispute resolution, and have a settlement offer pending. I don't "watch" her pages and I will raise concerns through the Arbitration Proceeding. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about AN/I topic ban proposal

Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vere Bird, Jr.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)