User talk:Ironholds/archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sources up to or exceeding the strength of a peer-reviewed paper[edit]

So in the case of Richard Dixon Oldham, are you measuring up to your own standards as a proud Wikpedian, one of the four hundred most active people in this online enterprise? I hope that the entry for Oldham can be preserved as a tribute page to your style of editing.

  • What? Look. If you have a reliable secondary source correcting what you perceive as an error, stick it in the article. Sorted. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Under your style of editing, who is to say whether Oldham's paper of 1906 published by the Royal, the pertinent section of which is quoted in full at the publically accessible portion of Bilham's website from whence comes the picture of Oldham, is a reliable (primary) source? If you think there is a stigma attaching to Oldham's paper, on which the claim to any discovery of the Earth's core rests, might we be told that? You are a proud Wikipedian, one of the four hundred most active Wikipedians. You expose yourself. I hope that the Oldham entry can be preserved as a tribute page to you. You have yourself sorted.

  • There's no need for sarcasm. I am trying to be polite in this conversation, and would hope you would do the same. The question is twofold: firstly, whether Oldham's paper is an acceptable source for the information in and of itself. It is, assuming that he at some point in the paper clearly states the statement you wish to include. If, instead, you are interpreting the paper to mean [what you think he says] or [what you think he intends], this is not acceptable; it constitutes synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Secondly, whether Oldham's paper, clashing as it does with another source, supersedes another source. I would, upon reflection, agree that it could supersede the other source, assuming that (as said) he clearly states what you wish to be included. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, and in the politest possible sense, you have yourself sorted. Of course, in the process, you are getting yourself tied up. Is the source you are quoting, William Bragg's tribute thirty years after the event, peer-reviewed. Even if it were peer-reviewed, what guarantee do we have that Bragg has read Oldham's paper from 1906, but without interpreting it to mean what Bragg thinks Oldham says or what Bragg thinks Oldham intends? The pertinent section is quoted in full at Roger Bilham's website: there is no mention of a molten core. It was breakthrough enough in 1906 to be able to infer that there is a core. There would be a serious question of whether the equipment and method at that period could sustain the inference that there is a molten core, so had Oldham made that stronger inference he might well have been right in retrospect, but wrong at the time. A significant point here is that this was not actually Oldham's research area, so you would expect him to err on the side of caution. Then there is the question of what Harold Jeffreys thought he was doing in going on to investigate the rigidity of the core and why it is said that it was Jeffreys who was the first to show that a large percentage of the core was most probably liquid, that is, molten.

I suggest that, upon mature reflection, you will see that I am not at all being sarcastic, but rather more simply holding you to your reputation as a proud Wikipedian, one of the four hundred most active Wikipedians. You have got yourself into what might be termed a post-modernist dilemma in reading scientific papers - or, in this case, in not actually reading them. What you are doing, and what I suspect Bragg was doing, is reading back into Oldham's work the contemporary understanding of the Earth's core. We know Oldham discovered something about the Earth's core; we know that a large part of the core is molten; so we conclude that this is what Oldham discovered. But that is an anachronism.

I hope that the entry, along with your lawyerly disquisitions upon it, can be preserved as they are as a tribute to Wikipride. I shall try to persuade the relevant Wiki-working group of the merit of such a preservation order. If I could award you a Barnstar for Wikipride, I should gladly do so.

  • Consider this conversation terminated. Come back if you can go more than thirty seconds without being facetious - your snide and patronising attitude clearly indicates that, whatever your purported intentions, actually helping fix the article - which I have repeatedly invited you to do - is not your priority. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your Wikipedia. You are the proud Wikipedian. But it is you who have no interest in revision. Was Bragg's tribute peer reviewed? Did Bragg get Oldham's paper right? I put it to you that it is you who have no serious interest in getting things more nearly right.

You say that I am sarcastic or facetious. But that is a calumny. I am seriously pointing to the serious difficulty that you have created for yourself.

By your own admission, you took it upon yourself to edit the entry for Richard Dixon Oldham for little more than fun and fancy, without going back to Oldham's papers, in the process editing out information that accurately reflected the contents of Oldham's writing, replacing it in one case by inaccurate information and in another by no information. Not unnaturally this approach is unlikely to encourage others to intervene to reinstate and perhaps enlarge upon the accurate information. Moreover, when taxed with this, you have argued in a manner that makes it virtually impossible to edit the entry based on Oldham's work, because of the requirement to know Oldham's meaning or intent and, adding insult to injury, you have used highly subjective language in denigrating your interlocutor. You interlocutor is only pointing to the very serious problem that, in your lawyerly manner, you have created in the matter of reading scientific papers. In that this might appear to personalize the problem, I should add that you are far from alone: you are upholding Wikimores - if you will, Wikipride - but this issue goes to the heart of the debate on ``paradigm shifts" in science launched by Thomas Kuhn in, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

But now comes a rather neat denouement, because if we go back to the secondary source that you cite for Oldham's discovery of a molten core for the Earth we find no mention of the core as discovered being molten: here is what Bragg says, ``In a paper, published in 1906, analyzing the seismographic records of fourteen world-shaking earthquakes, Oldham established the existence of two distinct sets of deep-seated waves, traveling at different speeds; and, from the way in which the waves of distortion were damped out in depth, he deduced the existence of a central core in the earth, four tenths of the radius in thickness, which contrasted in physical properties with the external shells. In this way Oldham pointed to the pretty analogy between seismic waves as a source of information regarding intratelluric conditions and those of light which, on analysis by the spectroscope, give information regarding the composition of the sun's atmosphere".

The natural inference following what you have written is that Ironholds, on reading this passage, knew that Bragg meant or intended ``molten core" because Bragg knew that Oldham meant or intended ``molten core".

But I feel I owe Bragg an apology. All Oldham was able to say at the time was that there was a contrast between the core and the mantle, in that it could not be mantle all the way through; and Bragg has that right after all, so much speculation why he might have it wrong was in vain.

  • Very nice. For the sixth or seventh time, at least, feel free to correct the error rather than write endless unsigned diatribes on it. Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    And for reference; yes, I require that you understand what the source is saying, and that information which is not referenced, regardless of its veracity, be removed. These are policies of Wikipedia as a whole. 09:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again I must demur, because I do not claim to have the sort of superior understanding that you claim, as, for example, in reading Bragg's tribute to mean that Oldham discovered that the Earth has a molten core, when Bragg makes no mention of a molten core. I defer to you: you have that understanding of Bragg's tribute; unless you deign to make changes yourself, it is difficult to see how the entry can be changed. As to ``endless diatribes", sadly that is more of your subjective language. In fact, I have been trying to discuss an interesting aspect of Wikipedia policies as a whole, but in particular as articulated by you; that is, you have a genuine problem here, and I respect that.

Kramer[edit]

Hiya, now that the Edward E. Kramer AfD has been closed, could you please remove protection on the article? Thanks, --Elonka 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem; now done. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Elonka 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

copy of response written on User talk:Σ ‎[edit]

request for assistance

yesterday did retrieve http://www2.hull.ac.uk/acs/lib/infoskills/caselawnew.aspx the information that is the support for having made the citations within the article Fair dealing in United Kingdom law, the content does seem to indicate that cases citated are to be written in a strict form containing the correct information.

Also, wasn't directed at anyone to have capitalized(so wasn't shouting at anyone),thought correct/preferred correct for legal form,to introduce the legal cases capitalized whilst discussion is retained as lower case(just to add about [case] and [cases]. Capitilized does implicitly indicate matters concerning the capital city i.e. matters of state, so to reduce the formal element is to lessen the importance of the location,therefore to lose some of the significance in the meaning communicated,as the legal cases do infact concerns persons involved in affairs of the city of London). http://www2.hull.ac.uk/acs/lib/infoskills/caselawnew.aspx Much of the content of this Factsheet is based on sections of the Law School library and IT manual 2006-2007 (© University of Hull), written by Kylie Baxter and Phil Bielby. Page last updated by Sharon Redgrave on 30/09/2011 Drift chambers (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

also is quite difficult to understand the cases relevancy to the article discussion if there is no transcript link available, since a person would have to accept the opinion of the article(authors) without recourse to information provided for the purposes of their own learning.Drift chambers (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP :IGNORE + the details of the years when the cases were heard are essential to understand,i.e.ommitting this information leaves the reader in ignorance.Drift chambers (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

if it could be clarified from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1142.html , that site shows citation Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142 (18 July, 2001) and underneath the line

cite as:

then

2001 (7 of these)and 2002(4 of these)

showing in -2.- an additional date indicating these number of hearings (that is 11 hearings in total to reach a verdict)Drift chambers (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

at the time as your mail arrived was about to create:

-Links to case transcriptions- (title of section )

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PADDY ASHDOWN, MP PC- and -TELEGRAPH GROUP LTD((2001)) EWCA Civ 1142, (2001) 24(9) IPD 24058, ((2001)) HRLR 57, ((2001)) EMLR 44, ((2001)) 4 All ER 666, ((2001)) UKHRR 1242, ((2002)) Ch 149, ((2002)) ECC 19, ((2002)) RPC 5, ((2001)) 3 WLR 1368, ((2002)) ECDR 32

(BAILII.org) retrieved 15:16GMT 1.10.11((Drift chambers (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)))

thought that writing

-all in caps-

in capital letters might be considered an overkill, or rather that some might consider the choice to have been unnecessary and that your communication would also have functioned (was sufficient) without the inclusion of this element within a capitalized form, since the word capitalized does infact convey sufficient meaning for a person to understand.Drift chambers (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

is improved by the transcript reference (BAILII.org) , so better to create the section, (am requiring an agreement or permission on your part or else to have the edit done by Ironholds)

Additionally, the Hull University site shows citations to be created in a order different to that shown within the article,which would require these to be changed,and would prefer the years and other citation information to be within the article body so that a reader might have the timeline of the development of the law,as the discussion otherwise is difficult to understand having to move the page to the citation years in reference part then to text body etc, just creates unnecessary (too much) complication.Drift chambers (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

O.K., will stop Drift chambers (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Theresa May[edit]

Would be good if you could give reasons on the talk page as to why you applied the {{POV}} template so that editors can see exactly what needs to be fixed. Thanks.Keith D (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Yup, sorry; will do. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For writing - Inchoate offences in English law  :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring[edit]

Thank you for the positive reinforcement!!! Any tips, hints, or suggestions would be appreciated. Shellnut (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thieved[edit]

Here. Feel free to revise all you please before 21:30, and sincere thanks for gracing our pages with your raving harangue. Skomorokh 06:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I prefer "frothing vitriol" :P. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay in the Signpost[edit]

Hi Ironholds. I hadn't run across you until your RfA at the beginning of the year (sorry I didn't vote), I'm not sure why I hadn't seen you before, but I remember thinking highly of you at the time. I was very thankful for your generous contributions to one of my pet projects shortly thereafter. I also recall being happy when you joined the Wikiguides project, especially when you started the New pages project to help new users as the new user issue is my greatest concern.

Anyhoo, I just read your essay in the Signpost and I think you hit the nail on the head. I can't tell you how glad I am that somebody on enwp is talking about this. It really means a lot to me and I believe it means a lot to new users to know that there are experienced users that care about them. It is very admirable of you making this a priority and putting so much effort in to this area. So I had to stop by and thank you very kindly for all your efforts and to let you know how much I appreciate your hard work. You truly are a fine example to others. Thank you very much for everything. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • No problem! It's one of my little pet interests, so thank you (and thanks to everyone else who commented on the article, too!) for convincing me there's still hope :). It seems like everyone was going "wow, I thought I was the only one!" and I was in the same camp in that regard. Ironholds (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Lord Chief Justice writes...[edit]

"Hello, Ironholds. I wondered whether you'd seen this speech I made recently on Coke, Bonham's Case and other matters of legal history?" Thought you might like it. Bye!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (talkcontribs) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, er. Igor :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the words about the Mandala folk dance ensemble article![edit]

I'm hoping the many present/past Mandala members will help out on this - I tried searching for them but did not find much cite-able. I guess there IS something about when they got their non-profit status, perhaps I should put that in. If you have any hot tips, I would certainly appreciate them! —Martha (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I have access to some news archives and journal archives; would you like me to do a search for any coverage and then send you what I can find? Ironholds (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pleas Pleas Me[edit]

You might want to check for repeated wikilinks using User:Ucucha/duplinks - you link "Court of Chancery" quite a few times, for instance... Dashes fixed for free. BencherliteTalk 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll take a look

A beer for you[edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I will take you up on your offer of assistance[edit]

Ironholds, thank you for your watchful eye and timely mentoring on my newly minted gastropod articles. I too am a practicing attorney, and no longer have electronic or library access to many of the journals which I formerly was able to get my hands on easily. Doe you have access to on line biology journals lime Malacology or Zoologica Scripta? I am trying to get my hands on a few newer articles and unless I either "pony up" a credit card or drive to the local UC bio sci library I may be out of luck without a friendly helping hand. Citations for articles on Wikipedia are always wanted, but my personal science library is a bit old now-a-days. Thanks in advance. Shellnut (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look like it, I'm afraid :(. If you give me a specific topic I can search for articles on that topic, but those two specific journals, no. Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • What issues are you looking for? I'm going to school tomorrow and I can see if our library has them. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Protonk; probably best to leave the message on Shellnut's talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I didn't ask your feelings about talk page stalkers. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    oh, no, I find them terribly helpful - I just meant that in my experience, Shellnut's used to the "he posts to your page, you post to his" method of communication and may not otherwise see this :). Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Roger that. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another lawyer editing[edit]

I mentioned some of your work at User talk:Mikesiris#Other ideas for things to do as part of an attempt to guide an editor who is apparently Michael Siris, a lawyer in the USA, on areas to edit that are less of a problem with regard to COI. You might be able to provide extra ideas or more guidance. Mike is still very new to Wikipedia and is still learning basic mark-up for references, etc. (Some of his thoughts and queries about notability and COI are in the other half of the conversation, on my talk page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Awesome! I've left a brief note - it's great to see another law nut here. you I'll keep an eye on; providing information that detailed and readable to a new editor is something few people do, and it is appreciated :). Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


H ironholds

this is mike siris, us atty, here. would like to talk to you about doing some legal writing/editing bc that is an area i wouldnt have to bone up on. i know wk discourages bios of people you know, but i know of an atty worth of publication, is there a way i could put up bio and indicate i know the subject?

also, do you want to contact me directly? if so, pls write to either mikesiris@gmail.com or msiris@solomonsiris.com

thks

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesiris (talkcontribs) 13:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG For undertaking a considerable review of UK Copyright laws for an article :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal question for you[edit]

I came across a historical text that was talking about a case held at a peculiar court in Thame in 1696. Am I correct in assuming that "peculiar court" is another term for the Court of Peculiars? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I'm not sure; I'm not a canon law nerd. Sorry :( Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright investigation?[edit]

Hi, Ironholds. Given copyright concerns you found in Statute of Anne, I've had a glance at the material and found issues as well in Copyright and Copyright law of the United Kingdom. It's some of the same material in both, but copied from a different book than you found (the book you found is not visible to me). See example at talk of either article. You might want to think about running a WP:CCI on this fellow, as unless we can verify that the sources he's using are public domain or compatibly licensed, we've got a problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know at least some of the sources are neither - I discovered the problems because I own the books, which are most definitely copyrighted. I'll apply for an open investigation now. Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

user:Iaaasi[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask you a question. This information would help me greatly. Did you receive any communication, or requests from user:Iaaasi? This user is known for soliciting users in email and IRC, and he is primarily targeting administrators. This whole issue was only revealed because administrator Diannaa, who shared this information [1] indicated that Iaaasi sent her emails along with other users [2] as early as 2011 April. It is now obvious that he has tried to solicit a lot more admins and editors since then for various purposes. I need your help in determining whether you were one of the users contacted by Iaaasi. Thank you for your reply in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not directly; he constantly and consistently asks for an unblock or an explanation on IRC in the public channels. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Re IRC, he's had several private chats with me (maybe he thinks I'm an admin?) in which he's repeatedly come up with the same concerns; he's never emailed me. In chat, bearing in mind his apparent distress, he's always been entirely reasonable with me, but I have no way of knowing whether or not he's taken any steps to follow my advice. I've tried to steer him in the right direction, and (assuming good faith) see the possibility that there might, in fact, be some grounds for his major concern, which seems to be that other people are possibly impersonating "socks of Iaaasi" in order to keep him perpetually blocked. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for another / others to do that, I don't think - and it would be a very good way of keeping him perma-blocked. Don't know if there's any way of categorically confirming or denying this, but suggest that it may be productive to at least attempt to do so. Adding: he's never, ever asked me, personally, to edit on his behalf - just sought advice. Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

NPP[edit]

Hi Ironholds. Many thanks for volunteering to code up my survey. Howie tells me this should ready today or tomorrow - remarkably fast work, I must say. Let me have a link to the Beta as soon as you're ready, and by then I should have the list of targets ready. Thanks again for all your help, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • No problem; yeah, should be finished in an hour or so. I'll forward it to Howie first just to check I haven't borked anything, then we'll bring you in. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Where is the Lime hosted - at the WMF or on your own server? I was thinking of installing a copy on my own server hardware for future use. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Neither; at Geoff's suggestion we've actually taken to using SurveyMonkey. If you plan to use your copy to run WP-related surveys I'd check with him first, since Thailand may have some of the same wacky legal problems which make it difficult for us to use Lime's servers (they're hosted in the EU. E-Privacy Directive. Nuff said.) Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well good luck - AFAIK SurveyMonkey is only available as an online service, and it's very expensive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it was around 20 bucks, actually :). We'll see how it works. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Lime is a dowloadfable package - not dependent on an online service. Why can't it be hosted on the WMF servers? Anyway, looking forward to seeing what you've done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Good question, actually; I was wondering myself why they didn't have something locally hosted. I'll check with Howie when he gets back to me. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary sovereignty[edit]

Just to conclude I am now more well informed and will have some time to allocate to this subject area soon. If you are happier on a more specific Dicey-related article, then we could run with that. big article might just be too much. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We could run with the big'un! I just started a new job, however, so I'm not sure how my time will play out. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Hello Ironholds, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalski@wikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1[edit]

Going forward, let me do the striking at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I ever indicate differently? :S. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Tony, this edit summary is a bit of a clue as to who was doing the striking, and it wasn't Ironholds... BencherliteTalk 21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to the future[edit]

Hi Ironholds. Thanks for the note. I'm really, really looking forward to any thoughts/ideas you may have. I'm just a tad bit upbeat about this, in case you can't tell. Face-grin.svg Please keep me in mind if you need any help and thanks for keeping me updated. It's much appreciated. All the best. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Same back to you - if you have any ideas, keep me in the loop and I'll help in any way I can :). Ironholds (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ironholds. I think mw:Article creation workflow has a lot of potential. Specifically, mw:Article creation workflow#Workspace Editing may be able to save new users along the same lines as your New Pages project. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 05:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RE:2011 Challenge Casino Lac Leamy[edit]

The page is cited. Please be patient in the future, as I literally created the page and was working on it when you slapped the citation tag on it! Patients is a virtue! Sirrussellott (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah; my apologies! Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Ironholds/archive 35! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Ironholds/archive 35! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your Signpost interview[edit]

I came over here to see what you're up to. Apparently, you're doing a bit of everything ... are you sure you don't want to try something simpler first, like unifying quantum theory and gravitation? Please pass along to the WMF that they made a good hiring choice, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahah! That made me genuinely laugh out loud :). Thanks a bundle for your good wishes - I'll hopefully make a positive improvement. And yeah, I'll let them know...probably at my pay review :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If I can help, give me a holler. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, dude! I'll let you know :). Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ironholds. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Peaceray (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The things I find[edit]

The things I find on wikipedia that make me go WTF: Li Bao Qi. Hope all is well. --Narson ~ Talk 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a ...special...article. Things are great here, mate :). Will be popping up to the old town with Herself in 5 weeks or so. And you? Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Irc comment[edit]

What was that last comment? I saw it go by just as the window closed, but it was too fast to read. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your bits are gone, but I've granted you subsidiary rights (filemover, rollbacker et al). Why are you dropping the bits, if you don't mind me asking? It's a shame to see a hardworking admin go. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Frustration, basically.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that :(. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well overdue in my opinion. I hope that Sarek won't go begging for his bits back any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I love you too, MF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Conduct unbecoming", MF! [Pesky applies gentle remindatory slap]. Pesky (talkstalk!) 09:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're evil[edit]

Or so says an IP. See the <IronHolds is being paid by the WMF?!> section at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That IP 140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs) acts like a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone who's second edit is to WP:ANI? A sock? never! Trusilver 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am fairly evil. I'm just amazed it took you all this long to work out; was the smell of brimstone not a giveaway? Or the horns, and cloven feet? Surely my tendency to cackle maniacally gave the game away? Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A little light entertainment, m'lud?[edit]

OCD This user appreciates the huge benefits of having OCD

Use or delete, as appropriate. And don't forget to click the link. :P Pesky (talkstalk!) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have OCD! :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
They always say that ... heh! Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination of Trinsey v. Pennsylvania[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, I've reviewed your GA nomination of Trinsey v. Pennsylvania and placed it on hold pending a few changes, Talk:Trinsey v. Pennsylvania/GA1. Monty845 14:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom[edit]

I've now created this page. Obviously, there are still holes: it is overreliant on a single source, it fails to discuss implied repeal, and the prose needs improving. However, I do think it's a good start. Perhaps if you could find time to elaborate on the Diceyan notions of PS to the extent of a long paragraph, that would be great. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best; I just started working for the Foundation, however, so I'm afraid my availability is a bit limited :(. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaboom[edit]

Remember, remember, the 5th of November! Gunpowder, treason, and plot!

→ ROUX  19:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I like to think of it as a rolling mustache-off lost by the dashing spaniard. First he lost the game, and then his head! And then he got his intellectual property superseded by Moore. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin to Admin incivility[edit]

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that Elen of the Roads, another admin, engaged in name-calling with me during a disagreement we were having with this message, in which she called me a "tool". Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay; as a WMF contractor, I'm not doing any kind of admin actions these days. Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues[edit]

You have not responded at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't replied because I have very little free time these days, and, well, because your questions seem, by and large, irrelevant. Yes, the frequency of impropriety in the house is important - if you like GAs with synthesis issues, of course. Yes, knowing how often state governments ignored the population is important - if you can indicate a source which covers it. It should be determined if John Stockton has a biography - something typing his name into the search box and confirming he isn't a professional athlete would have determined. I have a large pile of sources on the seventeenth amendment. I have used these sources to write this article. For article text relating to the sociopolitical relationship between state legislatures and their population in all 37 (as it was then) states, biographies of minor 19th century American political candidates and a comparative analysis of corruption in both houses of congress during the 19th and early 20th centuries, you will have to look for a different writer, with different sources. As far as I'm concerned, these questions are irrelevant, and I can't answer them because I don't know the answer, having not decided to brush up on any of these subjects before writing a law article. If you have a different opinion, feel free to fail the GAN; as said, I don't have the time to work on much these days anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wanna make a content creator's day?[edit]

While swimming around in the New Pages sea of dubious drinkability this morning, I was a bit surprised to discover that User:Bmclaughlin9 has not yet been granted autopatrolled status. He's an excellent content creator with more than 50 article starts. I was wondering if you might consider doing honors in granting him autopatrolled status. I know it made my life better and I still appreciate the fact that you did it for me back in 2010. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do! Your recommendation is all I need. As it happens, I've similarly been swimming in the sea of dubious drinkability - writing up this survey report :). Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, looks like someone else got there first. Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi There[edit]

Hey Ironholds, i been not active in wikipedia for a while and now i'm back . Went through my initial mytalk archives and found that you have helped me so much . Thanks a million. -SubashChandran007 ׀ sign! 04:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You just made me go "awww!" out loud :). Thanks! I hope to see you around soon :). Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure :) Will reach out to you if i need any help -SubashChandran007 ׀ sign! 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How do i Watchlist a Page ? -SubashChandran007 ׀ sign!
  • If you're using the new interface, Vector, there should be a star-shaped icon on the bar of buttons at the top of each page. Click on that button, and the page will be added to your watchlist. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberty of Ely[edit]

Do you have historically-accurate language to hand to help with Ely, Cambridgeshire#The liberty of Ely? See User talk:Senra#Ely. My feeling is that if Coke and Blackstone hedged their bets about whether it was a county palatine, then it wasn't, and they were trying only to indicate some of the implications of the remaining medieval rights to laymen. There is no article about "franchise" in that sense, but I suppose liberty (division) is a good start. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Coke was, on occasion, rather self-serving :P. I'm not aware of Ely as a county palatine, but it's not my area. Sorry! I'd advise going for the current wording - in the absence of any conclusive evidence, present both sides. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
How about Royal Franchise of the Isle of Ely? This phrase is noted from Ely Chronicle 8 November 1822, reproduced in part here --Senra (Talk) 11:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tb[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Talk:Inchoate offences in English law/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acceptable sources for Supreme court case articles[edit]

Hello Ironholds! I was referred to you by Demiurge1000. I am expanding the stub for Stanley v. Georgia, and am now looking for sources. Demiurge1000 and I had a discussion on whether the original text of the case could be used as reference. I know that articles should be based on secondary sources, and not primary sources, but then how can I write the article? It seems like secondary sources are sparse, and would serve best as an addition to the primary text when expanding this article. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so any clarification or explanation would be much appreciated! Drozycki16 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to just use secondary sources - see Trinsey v. Pennsylvania say - but others find primary sources perfectly acceptable for such things. I have full LexisNexis and HeinOnline access to all their journal articles. Would you like me to do a search for secondary sources covering the case? It'll have to wait until Wednesday, I'm afraid; I'm in SF at the moment :). Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Just to say I'm drafting what will become Non-fatal offences against the person in English law (non-sexual), should be ready in the new year (needs a second reference work). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Centijimbos[edit]

Hey Ironholds, I thought the centijimbos userbox was cool so added it to my talk page. Problem is, it isn't doing the right number, wondering if some sort of syntax fix is needed (says I have 1.2, when I have 3.5). Help? Montanabw(talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really my area, I'm afraid :(. Ironholds (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mukharjee talk[edit]

Hello there, just wanted to infom that i have tried to recreate one of the deleted articles of yours: I am provising you the link as you nominated it for deletion, please have a look and if aplicable advice sujessions User:Mukharjeeauthor/Dishman Pharmaceuticals Group, The artilce needs lot of work and i expect experienced users will do it. Have look and if aplicale plase create it on deleted page with any applicable chages. your reply will be highly appreciated. Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs a bit of copyediting, but much improved! The new references mean it is unlikely to be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

reply: Thank you very much for your reply! I am very happy on first deleted article success! Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN of Inchoate offences in English law[edit]

You thoughts wanted there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Sorry; I'm completely blocked with work and won't be able to get to it - feel free to just fail the GA. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not really the situation at hand. Not sure if you've seen, but I did everything for you, got in a second reviewer who appears to be happy but would like the original nominator's check on my revisions. I think that's the only thing remaining - to tie up a somewhat unusual story of my increasing involvement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Exchequer of Pleas[edit]

Just AFTER I did the Wikimedia editor survey one of my edits is reverted. :-) I have replied to your note where you made it. Cheers, Nurg (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Billy Hathorn[edit]

Want to do a checkuser on:

??? This account was created six days after you blocked Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs). Just a hunch. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, I'm afraid :(. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think that you were, but since you blocked him I thought you might want to review his edits and ask for a checkuser (not do it yourself). > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

commoners' prerogative[edit]

Hi, you may not have been aware of this. Do you want to launch another RM there? Talk:Royal_prerogative#Requested_move. Tony (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this device of Google's: here Tony (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, interesting; okay, fair point. My sources are evidently in a minority then :). Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Have a great Christmas[edit]

Figgy Pudding with flaming brandy.jpg Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talkstalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Hey! Remember me ? :P

I just wanted to drop in and say Hi -- I've taken a leave of WP for maybe six months now (with school and all), but I've finally had a break in the work to get back on the wiki! I see you have a fun new job, but feel free to help me out as I continue my Supreme Court case project! :-)

Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

William Garrow[edit]

This edit of yours [3] is being discussed on Talk:William Garrow. Did you really mean 'stop criminal law reform'? I did another batch for the feedback tool. See you Saturday! Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both, Doug! I've now responded to him. And yes, I owe you a pint or some other drink of choice. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-fatal offences against the person in English law[edit]

I've now created this article, as I mentioned above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow! It looks awesome :). Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC on Friday[edit]

Sorry, I can't use IRC (it's blocked where I do my computing), even if I were free during that time period. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Denning[edit]

Which exception are you referring to? In particular, I don't see a rule that the first part of the article title of the peer (referred to as the "personal name" in the guideline) should ignore the name they actually used (indeed, given that Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury (not "Christopher Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury") is given as an example, it's abundantly clear that that isn't the case). If he hadn't been made a peer his article would certainly be at Tom Denning. Are you suggesting that upon ennoblement his article would change not only by adding "Baron Denning" but by changing to an absolutely unknown first name? (And in any case it's obvious that "Tom" is short for "Thompson", not "Alfred" - if you're going to insist on formality it should be Thompson Denning, Baron Denning.) Proteus (Talk) 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmn, I swear it had a line relating to personal names. Nevermind, then, I guess. Still, WP:BRD is what it is; I suggest you start a talkpage discussion if you consider the change worthwhile. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Avenue_X_at_Cicero[edit]

FYI -FASTILY (TALK) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar notice[edit]

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For your closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue. Ever thought of becoming a High Court judge? Stifle (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hah! What was it that gave it away; the references to ancient history, the complaints about the advocates, or the fact that my close was really long and dull? :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talkcontribs)
All of the template's talk page archives have been marked for speedy deletion per G8. What should we do with them? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
They should probably be deleted too; sorry I missed them :). Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you came to the wrong conclusion but kudos for making a brave decision. See you at the DRV. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that a notification-of-intentions-to-open-a-drv or a thank-you with menaces? ;). Ironholds (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is a DRV, can someone please canvass me so I can participate? Thanks.--Milowenthasspoken 13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe there should be a DRV but have no intention of starting one. The idea that a template and a group of people improving articles that should be kept rather than deleted are a threat to the project is a rather strange one (templates don't rescue articles, people rescue articles). If individuals are abusing that, then deal with the individuals but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a rather strange way of dealing with the alleged "problem". However, its nice to see an admin prepared to take difficult decisions, too many seem to avoid them or fudge the answer to avoid unpopularity. But you obviously made the WP:WRONG decision.  ;-) BTW I don't do menaces, I'm Glaswegian, we shoot people over ice cream. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hah! Ice cream sounds a bit healthy for Glasgow (actually, I love the city. Excellent curry places in the town centre, and the buildings are all pretty). And yeah, completely agreed on the "threat to the project" issue; I made it pretty clear in my closing that people are welcome to claim that, but they best be able to prove it if they want to be taken seriously. I'm one of the people who didn't take them seriously, and the close was for the (more substantive) issue of irrelevance and supersededness (is that even a word? It should be). Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Just wonderful. Such an awful, awful template. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 MBisanz talk 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, a DRV was started, and though that nominator did not formally discuss with you first, i guess this subsection was sufficient notice of discontent.--Milowenthasspoken 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed; the string of "endorse" comments at the DRV paints a slightly different picture, but we'll see how it works out in the end. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Benzband#MotD CSD's talk page.

Again. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II[edit]

Hi Ironholds, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Need an objective viewpoint[edit]

Hi. I'm having a bit of trouble with 76.119.76.228 regarding WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc. After he left an uncivil message on an article talk page, I politely cautioned him on his talk page. He responded with more of the same on my own talk page, and I've tried to be polite in explaining to him how this is not acceptable, but his name-calling continues. I'm hoping (and assuming), and following my most recent warning on his talk page this will not continue, but just in case, I thought I'd refer this to you, so you so that an uninvolved admin can decide if whether to intervene now, or wait and see if this behavior continues. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thread at VP/M about the A.F.T.[edit]

Please see this thread. I'm cross posting it to your other account as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Rescue[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Rescue. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CallawayRox (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally, I wouldn't respond to any more of the votes in the DRV. You are starting to come over a bit shrill and, while I can understand why some of votes are concerning you, I'm sure you can understand that you have no hope of changing minds already set against the deletion of the template. The outcome of the DRV is clearly assured so there is nothing to gain for you. Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed. It's more that I'm tired of having people tell me I took X into account, or Y into a count, or failed because I should have ignored the comments that I made clear I was ignoring. I know precisely what I took into account; people saying differently are, quite simply, wrong. But yes, I'd already made the decision to sit back and watch. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Spartaz. Your effort in the TfD closure was laudable; the thing shouldn't be at DRV in the first place, and even with a few recent "overturns", it will probably be endorsed. That being said, I think it'd be better to let others defend your rationale rather than constantly defending it yourself. Continuing to defend it might hurt your standing as an admin, and God knows we need you Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    Yes; see "I'd already made the decision to sit back and watch". Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    Lol...and then you didn't. If you're worried about these guys, just wait for the boomerang...they'll get theirs before you get yours (and don't worry, you'll never get yours) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For the difficult task to close the Template:Rescue TfD with a well-balanced argument. Diego (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your closing rationale was overall a good work. I'm being picky at the DRV only because I'm concerned by how it will influence future debates about the ARS project, which are really heated lately. Cheers! Diego (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable :). My aim was to try and 'dissuade ARS-bashing; hopefully my treatment of the canvassing allegations show that :). Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescue DRV[edit]

Thanks muchly for letting me know about that; typical that the ARS would try to sneak that in under the radar at their noticeboard (twice). Regards Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was intentional; if ARS members had wanted to hide it, then the same members also wouldn't have agreed to let me notify everyone. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ[edit]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Er. Thanks? Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My views[edit]

I replied to you with all of my views. Normally I just give short details of it and give more when people respond. It makes for long AfDs and whatnot, but that's how I've always discussed things online. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough :). Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I just thought that a better (in my opinion) TfD discussion will help it, but I could be wrong. I might start something, but it's kind of worrisome. I had an RFA 2 year ago, thought it would go well, but apparently I am too deletionist, have poor communication (like I described here), did a self nomination (it wasn't), and am clueless about notability. My views on Malleus' arbitration evidence were very unpopular so I removed them. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure[edit]

As a frequent closer of difficult XfDs, would you consider watchlisting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and assessing the consensus in some of the difficult close requests there? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do! :). Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A message of thanks from zictor23[edit]

Dear Ironholds,

I'm very happy to read that you like my additions. I promise that I'll let you know if I need any sources for other laws I may inclde information about. It's wonderful to get such great feedback. I hope that my contributions help people. Zictor23 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) zictor23 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

!?[edit]

Here you go! --KFP (contact - edits) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov[edit]

Just wondering why you put a full protection on the page after the request to protect was declined?--Львівське (говорити) 02:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

TL:DR; the decline was wrong. We're dealing with slow edit-warring over content in a BLP, here; protect, then ask questions. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:Billy Hathorn[edit]

Ironholds, Billy Hathorn is making an unblock request and I believe is misrepresenting the situation (based on my reading of their talkpage archives). Would you agree? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing Edward Coke's page[edit]

Sir, I am twice a descendant of Sir Edward Coke. My contributions are in no way meant to vandalize his page. I do not understand why you would delete the portrait of Coke's wife, Bridget Coke, unless you have a better one to replace it with (e.g., in color). If you prefer to have Coke of Norfolk's portrait listed ahead of Bridget Coke's, I would be happy to change the order. The posting on his election as High Steward of the University of Cambridge I also cannot see as an act of vandalism. He was very proud of this appointment as contemporaneous entries into his personal ledger show. Correcting the fact that Frances had no children is something that is reported both at www.thepeerage.com, www.ancestry.com and on Sir Robert Howard's wiki page. How is that an act of vandalism? Mentioning Coke's descendants from his second wife, as is mentioned for his first wife, is an act of parity, not of vandalism. Please reconsider and let us resolve this item by item, rather than in through one stroke of a pen, as you have done. User talk:ekvcpa Ekvcpa (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in accepting the majority of my changes, I now see wherein your main objection lay. As to the comment you left about thePeerage.com not being reliable, I have generally found it to be quite reliable and have seen it quoted throughout wikipedia. Moreover, the existence of Frances Coke's son Robert Villiers/Danvers is further referenced by thePeerage to Charles Mosley, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition, volume 2, pages 2095 and 2288. But I agree that perhaps a more prolix approach would be to report this issue on a separate page dedicated to Frances Coke which I will work on as time permits. Thank you once again. User talk:ekvcpa Ekvcpa (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem :). Drop me a note if you would like me to search through my library for sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: stumbled upon this thread, and I don't believe it's Darryl Lundy (thepeerage.com) who has a few copyright traps mixed in; I believe that's Leigh Rayment (leighrayment.com). Darryl's site is a bit of a mix; some of it is sourced to RSs like Cokayne, Burke's, etc. and some of it to personal correspondence, but I think he's fairly good about showing his sourcing for any individual. It would be nice eventually to smoke out all those refs and replace them with direct references to published peerages, but I'm bound to say I don't find it a very high priority. Choess (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Argh, you're right, I'm confusing the two. Headdesk. Ironholds (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking to help new editor evaluate some sources[edit]

New editor ChristineShaw asked me for help understanding the tags on an article about Roschier Attorneys Ltd. that she's working on. Most of the advice I've given her so far is about how to improve the article's sources/references. However a few of the souces are ones I know nothing about. I'm especially wondering about Chambers and Partners (I see this being used in a number of articles about law firms) and Lex Mundi (association for independent law firms). I'd appreciate any input. Cloveapple (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources :). Chambers is the standardised reference book for firms and individual lawyers, for example; both are acceptable. I'm happy to do a LexisNexis search if she wants more refs to work off! Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. I'll let her know about this conversation so she can decide whether to take you up on that generous offer. Cloveapple (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue[edit]

Could you perhaps handle this template as was previously done with {{Expand}} by using {{Deleted template}}? This will avoid breaking old page revisions and will allow us to preserve other stuff such as the talk page, documentation, /sandbox subpage, etc.

Good idea; now done. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, that template is typically used along with the original template. For example, see Template:Expand. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Eagles24/7 is correct. I had also hoped you would restore the edit history as well. {{Deleted template}} will allow old page revisions to function correctly and show {{Rescue}} for how it was prior to deletion, but if someone tries to use it for new edits past the revisionid where it was "deleted", it will instead display a notice in red and also add the page to a tracking category. On the template page itself, both the original template and the notice are shown. For those who may try to follow {{Deleted template}}'s logic code, be careful, it will give you a headache :) --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I pinged Rich Farmbrough since you mentioned you were swamped and took care of restoring the talk page and edit history. I'll see if I can figure out what the deal is with the documentation page later once I get some spare time. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD[edit]

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Aardvarks[edit]

Voluptuous aardvarks are waiting for your call. Only 15 cents per pico second. Please note, all calls are recorded for blackmailing purposes. --Narson ~ Talk 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Rescue[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Rescue, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Quistclose[edit]

In Quistclose trusts in English law, I really don't understand the sentence in the final section that reads In Quistclose situations, it could be that if the lender claims an equitable interest in the money after it is used for an incorrect purpose, this could be "unconscionable". What's unconscionable? For the lender to claim an equitable interest? Surely not, but that's how it seems to read. Should it read something like this?

The third main theory is that Quistclose trusts could be constructive trusts, which are created when the future trustee uses the money in an "unconscionable" manner. In Quistclose situations, the requirement of "unconscionableness" could be met by the borrower using the money for a purpose other than the one for which it was lent, allowing the lender to claim an equitable interest in it.

Or something like that - I'm not a Lincoln's Inn man, after all... BencherliteTalk 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I ;p. That sounds a lot better, though; feel free to tweak :). Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I put something on your radar?[edit]

[4] regarding Antonio Rivero. Hard core Argentine nationalists have constructed some elabroate myths around this character, these are debunked by Argentine historians - there is a link to Destefani in the article. I have one IP editor persistently changing the article to remove historical facts, including Destefani's rebuttal and inserting the myth instead. I'm a bit loath to take it ANI as the cursory glance problems usually get there it will be dismissed as a content dispute. A request for page protection has just been declined. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Declined? That seems...well, stupid, really. I'll keep an eye on it, sure. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Ironholds,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Rescue}} being discussed at AN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:Rescue". Thank you. DoriTalkContribs 06:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Still granting reviewer rights[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Ironholds&page=User%3AUtar – Why are you still handing out the reviewer right after Pending Changes was removed from every article? Was it a mistake? What did you mean by "will be useful in a bit"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Because we're using the reviewer userright with WP:AFT5? Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Special:ListGroupRights – Sorry, I wasn't aware that additional rights were added to the Reviewer group. Thanks for the information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing because I saw another admin handing out the reviewer right, just for the heck of it, as far as I could tell. I wasn't aware it was being "re-purposed" for use with the article feedback tool. 28bytes (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for them, but TL:DR, we threw it at the community in an RfC and they thought reviewer was a logical extension of rollbacker, admin etc. Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'll post a note on WP:AN to get people's thoughts on it. 28bytes (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

iDangerMouse[edit]

Dude been getting all these vandal stuff on my ISP, freaking annoying whats going on ? Give me the IP addresses or whatever proxy, and the logs. I ll trace him Cheers iDM. Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The only logs are in this page's history. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok I'll look at it on Monday, holiday today. Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
119.155.121.244 - Islamabad PTCL , Sector F area, not Karachi, SIndh.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can geolocate too :P. There's no need to bother; it's probably just a set of proxies. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Okkkkkkkk by the way 22nd Feb, watch the news pretty awesome court hearing by Video-Link, in Pakistan Embassy in London to the Supreme Court here... Ahsan there too in Islamabad defending the PM. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover edit[edit]

Jlyster (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Hello Ironholds.........I just noticed your mesage on my talk page. I have had this initial edit tidied up a little and it is on the Herbert Hoover bio talk page. The version that you saw on my own wiki user page was my original effort............so I am leaving it there, as is for now, and comparing it to how it ends up. Pls check the HH talk page and let me know what you think. Main changes are some "wiki stylistics" and tidying up the citations. I'm hoping it is almost there by now.....with the help of "eyeseren" and "Rjensen". Now in the interests of transparancy I would like to inform you that I am the grandson of a Mr. Fleury Janmes Lyster, a component of the re edit that I hope to make on the Herbert Hoover bio, under the heading "Mining Engineer". Herbert Hoover, future US President, got his professional start as a mining engineer in the Western Australian Goldfields in 1897-8, before becoming involved in a Zinc production company in the New South Wales Zinc, Lead, Silver mining town of Broken Hill during the first ten years of the twentieth century. During this time, he lived in China and England as a director of the UK Mining company, Bewick Moreing. He did not live in Broken Hill, instead visited Australia every couple of years until 1907 before settig out on his own company. Now while he certainly played an important role as an investor, financier and organiser in some of the major mining processes that evolved in Broken Hill at this time, I do not believe that the wording of the present public bio do fairly relate this role. It was people on "the ground" in Broken Hill who had a major "hands on" role in achieving this. FJ Lyster was an employee of Herbert Hoover's company, Zinc Corporation, and his achievnments were critical to the commercial success of Hoover's company.

I feel that my edit is now on track and am happy to hear your input.

One question I do have is to ask about uploading an image to the page. There is a nice one of Hoover taken in Perth, WA in 1898, when he was 23 yo. I have asked others for a bit of advice. [5] and the link to the source at the State Library of WA. [6]

Questions are two fold in relation to this image.
1-the technicality of uploading any image to the Herbert Hoover wiki bio.
2-the SLWA have indicated by email to me that they are happy for me to upload the image with an acknowledgement. They have said that they can sell me a full copy of the image for $25 which includes a "free publication permit" I am not sure if they are fully aware that the wiki license means that anything uploaded can be then used, even for commercial gain.

Questions;
 - Would this be suffient to have copyright to upload to wikipedia?  Would wikipedia still require their own SPECIFIC copyright 
    license?   
 - The image does actually go back to 1898, so does it actually require any license anyway? Might it be copyright free now? How does one
    find this out? 
 - I have actually already downloaded a 23kb thumbnail image........... would it be OK to upload this under "fair use"?
    (depending upon the quality of how this appears, this might be all I bother with before I bother to pay for a full image)

regards, John Lyster

  • Honestly, you can probably get away with it under copyright law generally. If the photograph was published before 1923 in the United States, it's public domain :). Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thx for this. The image is Australian and comes from an Australian Library, so I don't know if this 1923 date applies. I'll ask the Library if they know about when Australian published images become public domain. But you would have to think that something from 1898 was now public unless we have some weired law here. Where does one find out about copyright laws apart from just asking around?

Any advice on uploading the image onto the Herbert Hoover page pls? Jlyster (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I have managed to upload the image of Hoover..........thankyou for your help. The SLWA confirmed that it is no longer in copyright and in any case the thumbnail image looks to be of sufficient quality. Please review details on the link of the photo. I hope I have it right now. I also uploaded the article edit. Thanks for your helps, cheers John Jlyster (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK Thx for your feedback and help with abbreviations.......since uploading the image I have had this copyright tag bot thing ask me for a copyright tag to the image. I have done my best to sort this out. I'd appreciate it if you could please check this image's data details and see the change I just made and correct if necessary. I have a flight to catch. all the best John L

Jlyster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

  • Thanks very much for your help and advice...........looks like my Herbert Hoover edit is OK now Jlyster (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Ghyathmograbi[edit]

Re your message: When I first saw that in the block notice, I was a bit confused, too. When I looked into it, that is what WP:ARBCOM#BASC is for (lucky them) when editor's can't make a normal unblock request. I suspect a few editors are using unblock-l for their appeals. I revoked Ghyathmograbi's talk page access because they were spamming with their talk page. I noticed them when I ran across User:شركة حراسات أمنية حراس أمن spamming and then recalled Ghyathmograbi adding something similar a couple of minutes earlier. A bit of Google translating showed it was spam. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. We really do need to have a better way of dealing with unblock requests. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
A group of four admins (oooo, a cabal!) is working on a new unblock tool. I haven't looked it yet. See beta announcement. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Black Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Black Act at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Taliban[edit]

Tom Paris has recommended you as having a good record at closing fractious RFC's, would you please consider doing this one [7] as it has been in limbo since ending three weeks ago. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but it doesn't appear to be structured as a proper Request for Comment - unless someone removed a previously present RfC tag? Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought a BOT removed the tag once the RFC had expired? It ran for the full length of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool beans. Okay, I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Now closed. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you missed to include Noleander & Night w's views in the discussion stated at the end. Also, I could not understand, you do agree about the NPOV and state the consensus of such but then then say the original version is narrowly supported but more discussion is needed. Do you mean either can not be included till attribution is discussed? Given that the support is already narrow, what effects do NW's oppose have? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I included both; see "users who had a problem primarily with attribution". Night W didn't actually comment on the validity of the text, merely the attribution problem. I don't make any judgment about NPOV; I simply state that while consensus is narrow that it is NPOV, consensus is there. I would feel more comfortable having attribution discussed - with such a narrow consensus my gut tells me this issue is going to be a recurring one unless people can make whatever changes are necessary to strengthen that consensus. So, TL;DR: there is narrow consensus to include the content. You might want to discuss attribution so we're not back here discussing the same issue in ~3 months. Ironholds (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.. I was the only one who actually presented a solution for the attribution. Don't know where ever that stands. Thanks anyway, but I'm sure this will come up again. if the original text is added. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Black Act[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Anne[edit]

I have taken on the GA review of Statute of Anne. For the moment I have read it through once, but will give it a more thorough scrutiny in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing Article - Charities Act 1993[edit]

In converting a reference over to using a UK-LEG template, I note that there doesn't seem to be an article on Charities Act 1993 on English Wikpedia currently.

As I seem to recall you saying trusts law ( to which charities are related) was within your field of expertise, I was wondering if you would be interested in writing a stub ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look it up :). Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


RE:Lost Nigger Goldmine[edit]

[ struck by author.....apparently I need better glasses!  :)

Heh! No problem :). Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

whack![edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

sonia♫ 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lost Nigger Gold Mine[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Query about article feedback tool[edit]

Oliver, I've not kept up; but I've been sampling a few of the old-style ones on my travels. Is the new scheme going to be cumulative rather than limited to a certain number of past entries—was it 30? The statistician in me wants to take ever-larger samples for the sake of robustness. I never understood what lay behind the limit. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be cumulative, yep :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD re CREWE[edit]

RA notice[edit]

This notice is to inform you that there was almost a discussion at Wikipedia talk:RA regarding a matter with which you may have been involved. The relevant thread is Ironholds. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are a cruel, cruel man :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh God, that's amazing. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And you are a cruel, cruel woman but we knew that Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Interview[edit]

Hi, my name is Jaclyn Nagel. I am a student at Michigan State University, working with Jonathan Obar on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I would like to thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. I would love to set up a time that is good for you to have a Skype or email interview. Please let me know of some times in the next two weeks that would work, Sundays and weekday evenings are preferable for me. Also feel free to contact me with any questions on my talk page! Nageljac09 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, I would love to talk to you soon about setting up an interview. Initially you requested a Skype interview but if you would prefer an interview by email that would not be a problem. Either way I would appreciate a response on here or my talk page with your Skype ID or email address if possible so we can set up an interview. Thank you again for agreeing to participate! Nageljac09 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey sexy! You're wanted![edit]

... and isn't it nice to feel wanted? ;P Seriously, we have some good discussion going on over at WT:CIV at the moment. If i had been given a remit to hand-pick a team to work on cleaning up and clarifying the civility policy, you would have been on it, for many reasons. As and when you can spare the time, please join us; you have insights on so many different levels, as well as your scrummy command of the English language, that you would be an invaluable member of said team. Pesky (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've spotted my, ah, unique qualification on that list of characters :P. I'll take a look! Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wheeeee! Tacklehugs! Mind you, the moment you join in you'll be lumped together with the rest of us fruitloops ... Pesky (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Need an RFC closed out[edit]

It is a little close in numbers to call so I am hoping you will close this one out. [8] Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Material heresy[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Material heresy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bwrs (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution[edit]

I have nominated the article May Revolution for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. As you made a review of the article in the past, it would be useful if you could check it again, as it is an obscure topic outside of Argentina and previous nominatons did not atract enough reviewers. All comments are welcome. Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Court of Chancery[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Court of Chancery know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 28, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Court of Chancery during the reign of George I. Painting by Benjamin Ferrers

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the administration of the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants. Its initial role was somewhat different, however; as an extension of the Lord Chancellor's role as Keeper of the King's Conscience, the Court was an administrative body primarily concerned with conscientious law. Thus the Court of Chancery had a far greater remit than the common law courts, whose decisions it had the jurisdiction to overrule for much of its existence, and was far more flexible. Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery was able to apply a far wider range of remedies than the common law courts, such as specific performance and injunctions, and also had some power to grant damages in special circumstances. With the shift of the Exchequer of Pleas towards a common law court, the Chancery was the only equitable body in the English legal system. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Any ideas for Hart-Devlin?[edit]

I've just been noodling around with the article on everyone's favourite 60s liberal jurisprudence icon, H. L. A. Hart, and his arch-nemesis Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin. The articles on the two of them are a bit crap, have almost no sources and are utterly useless, despite the importance of Hart-Devlin to... oh, understanding contemporary jurisprudence, ethics, politics, and the debates on abortion, prostitution, homosexuality etc. etc. You got any smart ideas for improving them? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Buy the relevant Hart biographies? :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please consider speaking with more respect on those occasions[edit]

"Enjoy your vacation"[9], haha, and the "short-sighted lemming" quip in the log[10], hoho? Hilarious. Do you always find yourself called on to taunt users when you block them, Ironholds? Bishonen | talk 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

More twee sarcasm than taunting ;p. You may want to review the tone of this message; hint to be less snarky, taken. But, y'know, such hints should not be presented in a snarky form if the presenter expects them to be taken seriously. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll learn from Bishonen's mistake, and phrase this in a non-snarky way. Please try to take less glee in blocking someone who has done a lot of good for the Encyclopedia in the past. I won't ask you not to block, because I know you have the rules on your side. But please hide your enjoyment of the block a little better.

I've blocked my share of hurt and angry people, and blocked some with a lot of edits. I may have even taunted someone I blocked, because I'm imperfect. But if someone pointed out to me that I'd done so, I pray that I'd be suitably mortified and apologetic, rather than smirk about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I...did not intend to come off as "smirk". If I did, I apologise. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the "short-sighted lemming" was was not intended to be derogatory, but the Block evasion was simply inaccurate:
  • "An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked."
The editor who owns these accounts is not blocked. The earlier accounts were globally locked because the password was made public. Go ahead and check: there's no block to evade. --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Then can soembody please sit down and write out, in *one location* on the wiki, exactly what this saga is and what restrictions this person is under? Last time, they were blocked. Then they were unblocked under some conditions. Then they were reblocked because the conditions were withdrawn, or they violated them, or whatever. Now they're blocked but simultaneously not blocked? And allowed to use multiple undeclared accounts, potentially in the same areas, without issue? I have no idea if I'm coming or going, and with all respect to the (evidently well-informed) admins and users above, I can't be the only one. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That's an oversimplification, RexxS. Bottom line, he's restricted to use one disclosed account. We could now discuss all the intricacies and how to go forward from here, but we did that last June, and the way how my discussion with Jack went over the last days I'd say it's rather pointless. Amalthea 07:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It needs putting simply, because I'm sick and tired of knee-jerk reactions that tar a good contributor with the same brush we use for Grawp and his ilk. I said this about the Jack Merridew account, and I'll say it about Alarbus: Just look at the talk page and see how many other editors came there to thank him. Amalthea, you understand as well as I do that Jack/Alarbus just wants to improve the wiki, and has done for the last five years. So I ask all of you, do you see your purpose here to make it increasingly difficult for a well-intentioned editor to edit or are you wiling to put the effort in to help him to make the positive contributions that he can? If you can't tell the difference between Jack and Scibaby, here are a few links to help you learn:
Now I don't care if you criticise Jack for being proud, stubborn, obsessive, or any other similar personal vice that we all possess. But calling him a disruptive editor and denying his bona-fide desire to make this encyclopedia better is beyond the pale. No wonder he complains that this is a toxic environment. --RexxS (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't deny his desire to improve the content, Arbcom did. If you have a problem with the restrictions, get off my talkpage and on to WP:RFAR. Until then I prefer to be told off for things I've actually done wrong, not things you think someone else has done wrong that I've followed. Can we cut the conversation here, please? It's clearly not going to go anywhere productive. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it here. If you don't still think that you got it wrong with
  • "If you are Jack Merridew, you're evading. If you're not, you clearly lack the common sense necessary to edit non-disruptively. Either way, enjoy your vacation."
then no amount of my explaining to you that ArbCom never called Jack disruptive, you did, will make any difference. Feel free to have the last word. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
RexxS, please read what I wrote. There were two options there; think of them as an elseif statement. If $user=Jack Merridew, then he's evading. Else, $user=clearly an idiot impersonating Jack Merridew, at which point he or she is disruptive. At no point did I call Jack disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Amazing that an admin and WMF employee has to be asked to behave in appropriate ways even when blocking people. Plain odd that someone could achieve such positions and still continue with civility issues. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Otelemuyen's talk page.
Message added 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bubble text for question mark in new AFT[edit]

Hi Oliver, I recall you're not all that keen on dashes, but the community was just about unanimous in wanting a dash as a separator on the sentence level. I wonder whether you could tweak this: "Wikipedia would like to hear what you think of this article. Share your feedback with the editors -- and help improve this page." to this: "Wikipedia would like to hear what you think of this article. Share your feedback with the editors – and help improve this page." Actually, you could almost dump the interruptor altogether and use a comma: "... editors, and help improve the page". ("the" might be more natural than "this", too ... not sure.)

It's looking like a very good tool. I really like the colour scheme and the simplicity of design. I had a slight reservation that some people might be turned off by the prominent statement "By posting, you agree to transparency under these terms."; I can see that it's essential, but I've got no better ideas about placement or wording. Ah, but I see the "Post your feedback button is greyed until you type something in the box. What about greying out the "By posting ..." text too? Once you've got someone typing in that box, you've got 'em captured, I'd say. The hard thing is to get them to decide to type first off. Just a thought. I like the Yes and No text that pops up in the box, and the fact that you don't have to click those options to type feedback. Nice. Tony (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll pass this feedback back to the devs and designers! Our designers, however much they pretend to be badasses, always love getting positive feedback :). Proposed wording changes and interaction tweaks I'll throw around in an email, but don't hold your breath for a quick outcome :(. We've got really far behind on development due to some issues with our external contractors, so optional and tiny tweaks will probably be put off until the main work is dealt with. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't understand the mentality that easy fixes can't be done in a jiffy, though, and aren't important. This attitude by designers makes it difficult for people (including business clients) to work with them. Tony (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it does actually make sense. Lets say there are, I dunno, 10 easy fixes. These fixes need to be coded, which is simple, but then also need to have the code reviewed. This is more difficult than you might think, if only because most devs utterly hate code review (and because our nominated code reviewer is spending early next week on a plane getting to SF). Once code review is done, we've then got to wait for a dedicated deployment session - Wednesdays are our normal deployment window. Deployments invariably result in the deployment of fixes that break more stuff, which lengthens the deployment window, and of course the priority with such an extension is fixing the newly-deployed-but-slightly-buggy-because-there-was-this-unknown-dependency stuff rather than the tiny fixes. So the end result is that we have a couple of bottlenecks in timing which mean we have to prioritise some fixes and changes over others. This week, for example, we could solve aesthetic stuff with the feedback form. Or we could get the patch we need to get research done, which has been waiting for 2 weeks in various forms, deployed. Or we could sort a logging issue that is peeving the legal department. There's a lot to do and a limited period of time to do it in, and (understandably) the Product people would like to get it working first and polished later rather than the other way around. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

William Negus and Raymond Negus[edit]

Would you have time to suggest or find sources that could answer a couple of niggling questions I have about a late-19th to early-20th century solicitor called William Negus? He was the father of Victor Negus and he and his wife Emily (nee Ewings) are named in sources detailing the life of Victor Negus. These sources also state that William Negus was a solicitor, JP and "Lieutenant for the County of Surrey". The engagement announcement for Victor Negus in The Times in 1928 states that he is the son of the late William Negus, and uses the postnomial DL to refer to the father, i.e. Deputy Lieutenant. The ODNB entry for Negus only gives a year range (1924/5) for the death of William Negus. However, there is a death notice in The Times in 1926 that gives details of the death of a William Negus at a memorial service while in uniform as a DL of Surrey. What I was hoping is that there might be more details in legal sources from that era.

The other legal angle is it seems one of his sons (at least) was also a lawyer. The ODNB entry for Victor Negus states that he was the youngest of three brothers. Victor had the middle name Ewings (his mother's maiden name). There are death notices in 1946 and 1950 for a (William) Martyn Ewings Negus (sometimes just Martyn, at other times the full name is given) and a Raymond Ewings Negus. Given the dates and the Ewings middle name, these are almost certainly the other two brothers (Martyn is also described as the eldest son of William Negus, and both are described as the sons of William and Emily in their engagement/marriage notices). Raymond Ewings Negus is mentioned in the London Gazette in 1919 as being made Attorney-General of St Lucia. So I was hoping that some legal sources might have more on that as well.

What I'm looking for is enough to be absolutely certain that Martyn and Raymond are the two brothers, and that the father (William) died in 1926 (I'm hoping a longer obituary appeared in legal sources compared to the brief death notice in The Times). The final question I had was whether it would be more accurate to link to our article on Justice of the Peace or our article on Magistrates of England and Wales when referring to JPs of the 1870-1930 period? Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really can't find a thing! It's very, very strange :S. If he was a judge I'd have a load of miscellaneous paper sources to tap, but no dice :(. And I would link to the Magistrates article :). Ironholds (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Pity. I was convinced that the bit about his son being Attorney-General of St Lucia would lead somewhere. I guess that is not as impressive as it sounds. I did see references to the father (William) being chair (or something) of the bench (or something) in Kingston, which is not far from my area of London, so there may be something in local records, but probably not going to follow this much further. Thanks anyway, and also for the advice on linking. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You've probably already found this, but see [11], which points at the 1891 census for Walton, Surrey and the Paddington St Saviour birth registers as possible primary sources to stitch together the family. And I've found a citation from Google Books (snippet view only): The Law Times, v. 162 (1926), "Mr. William Negus, solicitor, died suddenly at Hersham, on the 7th inst., at the age of seventy-five years." That's one part taken care of, anyway. Choess (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I had seen that, yes (the genesreunited board post), but while that is good enough to convince me, I don't think it is good enough for use in a Wikipedia article. And the death notice for that William Negus in The Times had already confirmed the death year of 1926 (and the death date as well). What I don't have is something definitely saying that this William Negus was the father of Victor Negus. What it comes down to is how likely is it that there were two people called William Negus (one stated to be the father of Victor, and one that died in 1926), both solicitors and both having been appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of Surrey? This is why I was looking for an obituary that stated explicitly that the William Negus that died in 1926 had three sons, with the obituary also naming those sons. Anyway, as I said, it's probably not worth pursuing further. It is clear in this case, but there are plenty of other geneological cases where it is not so clear, so it doesn't feel right that it might be OK in this case, but not others. It boils down to whether it is OK to go from: (i) ODNB entry states father was William Negus and died in 1924/5; to (ii) The Times says William Negus died in 1926. The full quote from The Times (dated 8th November 1926) is:

"Mr William Negus, aged 75, Chairman of the Kingston County Bench, died suddenly at the conclusion of a memorial service at Hersham Parish Church yesterday. Mr. Negus, who attended the service in his capacity as a Deputy Lieutenant of Surrey, was in uniform, and he collapsed as he was about to inspect a party of ex-Service men, Territorial troops, firemen, and others who were drawn up outside the church."

It is a small part of the article (all I want to include is the death year - arguably the only relevant bit is that the father was dead when the son married) and I don't want to spend too much time trying to sort this out, but I was hopeful that a longer obituary of the father was around somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Email[edit]

See the email I sent, Okeyes. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 20:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

TomTom, it's a weekend. People usually get weekends off. For context: by Wednesday evening, I had worked 34 hours of my 40 hour standard week ;p. I'll email you words to these effect tomorrow morning or so, but TL;DR version, we will have the data by Sunday evening, at which point I will distribute usernames/passwords et al. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding New Pages[edit]

Thanks for including me in the group i will do my best, where we will get the information about what new pages are included and need our support.--Sandeep (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Archive this shit. Also, have a kitten. Clearly you don't have enough cats.

OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Research Questions[edit]

Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Wikipedia. If so please let me know and I can post back to you. Here is a link to the project if you are interested Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar) , and if you have any questions please let me know. Ltezl (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)