User talk:Ironman1104

Barry George

Can you explain the difference between "scientific" and "forensic" for me? I don't understand why you've changed it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Forensic" means "to do with the courts". "Scientific" has its usual meaning. Forensic science is science in the service of the courts. In one sense, all evidence, scientific or not, is "forensic evidence". Ironman1104 12:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand this; I see your point and don't see much to be gained in arguing over it, however; but as a criminologist by qualification and research, we do usually talk about "forensic evidence" when we mean "scientific evidence". Just laxity of language, I suppose --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What was pointless about my change of heading? I have chosen to start a section on the talk page about this. Philip Cross (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ken Macdonald

Spent or not the conviction has been widely reported in recent years, and was one of the major issues brought up when he was appointed. As someone working the legal system, he's probably in an exempt profession anyway, so I still think it is not unreasonable to mention the matter in the article. I think we need wider input on this, so I'll take the issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. David Underdown (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Carnwath

I noticed that you moved Robert Carnwath to Robert Carnwath (judge) and I was minded to move it back. There's not usually any need to disambiguate when there is only one Robert Carnwath. Don't want to start a WP:Edit war so please comment.Cutler (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw it as description rather than disambiguation, but feel free.Ironman1104 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire table

del meaningless and unsourced assertion about 'figures have run'

I agree the phrase is vague - not my line, I just reverted to a previous line - but rather than remove just one reference, perhaps ALL the unsourced estimates should be removed. They all relate back to the line about Pentagon estimates at the top of the table. I forgave the dodgyness of the stats because I thought there ought to be some indicator of numbers of friendly fire deaths through recent history, and researchers need time to find good sources. I'll have a bit of a look myself and if I cant find anything by Monday I'll clean up the table myself - fair enough? Mdw0 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Very sensible. Ironman1104 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Damian Green

This mysterious Bogdanor; The URL cited doesn't mention him. So can you provide a cite that does? Thanks. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred Goodwin pension "scandal"

I see you reverted "scandal" from the "Pension" heading. When you have a moment, could you come over to Talk:Fred Goodwin to outline your thinking on this? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have now done so. Ironman1104 (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - I'll leave it a while to see what other points of view come up. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Inn

I've seen your early work on this article - I'm currently trying to get it to Featured Article status. Any comments on the ongoing Peer Review or tweaks to the article itself would be appreciated. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Je t'aime

Indeed, I stood corrected. I had misunderstood. Sorry - Rothorpe (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

List of members of Gray's Inn corrections

I note that you removed the note about Auld's time in the ECJ - why? Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because he was not a judge of the ECJ. If there is a reliable reference that says he was, then fine. Ironman1104 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Last November's Eyes Wide Shut Edits

Dear IronMan1104,

Last November we had a very civil edit-skirmish (I wouldn't call it a war- everyone was too polite) over the plot of Eyes Wide Shut over whether Milich was exploiting his daughter and merely pretended to be shocked. I decided then (and still agree) there is a case for your reading, and outlined the case for it while retaining some tone of ambiguity in the final edit of the plot. I think there is no need for further changes, and remain satisfied with it as it is. However, I have just read the expanded second edition of one of the best books on Kubrick ever written entitled Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze by Thomas Nelson, and he interpreted the scene conventionally as in assuming Milich was genuinely shocked and surprised prior to Bill Harford's attendance at the party at Somerton Manor. If a critic as astute and observant as Nelson could miss the hints that otherwise is the case, I think almost anyone could.

Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wickerguy How interesting; thanks for pointing this out. I watched the scene several times and thought it was obvious! After all, if Milich was so surprised to find his young daughter in a sexually compromising position with two unexplained intruders, it was at least odd for him not to wish to discuss it with her a little further. Instead (as I recall) she left the room and Milich carried on his conversation with Bill who was, after all, only coming to hire a costume. And I thought the character of the girl was disturbingly quasi-adult, which rather reinforced the impression that there was more to her than merely being taken advantage of by strangers who happened to have got into a locked shop. Best wishes Ironman1104 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, Julian Rice in "Kubrick's Hope" has an interpretation of the scene closer to your own. I think Milich's behavior is more telling. The girl's simply establishes that she has engaged in behavior like this for a while.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hi,

I noticed with your edits to Talk:Ali Dizaei (for example this one) that your standard signature does not have a link to one of your user page, user talk page, or contributions page as is required - please see Wikipedia:Signatures. If you would be as kind as to add a link that would be helpful. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• How's that? Ironman1104 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats it - Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Community restrictions

O Fenian (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert that edit which is a clear breach of the 1RR restriction on the article, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've added sources that record those convicted of his murder, but O Fenian disputes the sources and keeps removing the additions. It's a shame the article is overshadowed like this. --Flexdream (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Harman

Hello, Ironman1104. You have new messages at Rrius's talk page.
Message added 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are getting your version. Instead of going around making childish edits, why don't you take a deep breath and get on with your life? -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. O Fenian (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)