User talk:Ironholds

Article nominated for deletion

Nomination of Philips MCD395 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philips MCD395 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philips MCD395 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

New messages

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Flow.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Autopatrolled

I see you're more on the side of administrator evaluation of a request instead of arbitrary judgement based on a figure, which I quite value! In addition you're somebody I have a deep seated respect for from your extended work here on en. I was wondering if you would consider the increasing quality of my articles and evaluate if I should be given such a flag.

Full disclosure, I'm not sure which outcome I expect, but any feedback you provide, positive or negative, will surely help me to grow as an editor! :)

Sincerely, -TIM^(Contact)/_(Contribs) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Illusive Man: sure! I'll take a look. Actually these days I normally lurk around Special:NewPagesFeed plucking people out of the aether.

(Love the username, btw. Humanity must come first!) Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Illusive Man: okay, so I've reviewed your articles. My thinking can be summarised on "probably not right now, but looking good!" There are a couple of things that lead me to the first part of this conclusion.

First; yep, your articles are looking great - but there aren't many of them :(. Note that I'm basing this primarily off direct creations - if you've got substantive contributions to articles that existed before you fixed them up, let me know :). I'd like to see more examples before I feel comfortable handing over the right.

Second, and this doesn't directly factor into my decision, but just hints from one content contributor to another - if I look at Archaeology South-East (Company) for example, there's no lead. The first section is a perfectly good one, but you'll need to remove the header :). My only other thoughts are "bare URLs! Noooooooooooo" and a couple of proposed referencing tweaks. For example, if you use the Reflist template instead of a references tag, you can divide the references up unto columns (which is nice). You might also want to look at the formatted cite templates, like Template:Cite Web, which you can use to handle things like italics and handling access dates automatically. If you click on the icon in the toolbar that looks like a matched set of parentheses, that automatically drops out the pertinent templates :).

So, long story short; not right now, but great process and great articles. If you've got other contributions for me to review and factor in, bring them forward - and if not, I'm happy to reconsider when you do. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TIM.... Can you please have a look at my contribs too and tell me where to improve...would be very grateful.. Cheers, ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Eagle: Holy milhist, Batman! ;). Good to see a contributor in this field - I write some bits and pieces myself, although they're mostly a bit further back in the past. A fair number of articles according to the labs tool, and I see from your userpage there are several excellent ones that don't register according to the software. Consider the right granted :). Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you! ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

This deserves better than just the little heart from the notifications toolbar. I'm pleasantly surprised ... when I saw it was coming from you I thought it was for my TemplateData edits. Guess I should do some more of them ...

Looking forward to seeing you again in HK, if you're going to be there. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; those edits are much appreciated too :). It's a great article, and your help with TemplateData's rollout has been more than welcome. I'm not going to be in HK, I'm afraid - I was fully intending to, but a family wedding got in the way :/. Thinking about it I should probably tell the organisers. Oops. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Ehrmagawd, your pointers on my article creation were fabulous! Thank you so much, I will use this to bolster my existing articles and tailor all new articles to these points! A true example of an editor going waaaay out of their way to help a total stranger, and improving the Wiki in the process! Cheers! TIM^(Contact)/_(Contribs) 03:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). Let me know if you need any more help! Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devotions upon Emergent Occasions GA review

I've begun the GA review for Devotions upon Emergent Occasions and would like your thoughts on a few points. Thanks as always for your quality contributions-- Khazar2 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll try to take a look in a few days, but with recent work-side developments I can't promise anything, I'm afraid :/. Thanks, as always, for your quality reviews! Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and I don't mind waiting an extra week or two on this one if necessary. It's clearly close. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to screw with expectations, I've now completed the tweaks ;). (couldn't sleep). I hope they work for you. As an aside, because I couldn't find the appropriate place to note it in the GAN; I've removed the image, since I'm probably not competent to assess Australian copyright law as it relates to that of the United States. Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for your work to bring Devotions upon Emergent Occasions to Good Article status! It was a fun one to review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for the auto-patrolled - WP confidence in article creation is much appreciated. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Keep it up :). Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind...

I'm not sure if you remember having spoken to me on IRC several months ago, but I brought up our past conversation on the Arbitration requests page. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly; actually it's kinda amusing (particularly with regards to Zelda. I've had to deal with the admins over there, and this explains how they always turn up in a group). Anyway; no problems at my end. My apologies for the troll thing; as I recall, I'd spent the past 40 minutes being WHOIS- and PM-spammed :/. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's fine. No worries. I'd be scrounging for the nearest beer myself if I had to deal with that horseshit. -_-

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the people on Zelda Wiki are cliquish. I still edit there sometimes, but the secrecy in which everything is conducted really puts me off. And people think Wikipedia is run by a small group of people...

Not saying they're wrong, but it could be much worse. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to confess something to you...Secretly Wikipedia is run by a small group of people. 40,000, to be precise, which on the grand scale is tiny. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you so much for the auto-patrolled rights and your aprreciation! -Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for your articles :). Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ERRATA ANEX

No probs! I've just given Hesta Prynn's cover a listen—it's really good, I like the trip-hoppy feel to it. SnapSnap 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty fun, indeed! Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and Kiefer should just bury the hatchet and move on

You don't have to like each other, but I think you should each apologize unreservedly and directly (man to man), avoid each other in future, and disengage from the Arbcom case (half of me thinks those people are just bored and want some food to play with).

Feel free to give me what I deserve.

TCO (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Did you read my statement of "My commentary was entirely inappropriate and I have no wish to ever associate with him?" I'm not not burying the hatchet. Ironholds (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, I did. Give me some credit. But since you are young, I will explain. Then after that I will click unwatch on each of your pages.

Go to his page, apologize directly for the lighter remark: without explaining how minor it was, without any quid pro quo, without defending yourself, and whether or not he wants to make some case against you for all your other remarks.

TCO (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]