User talk:Ironholds/archive 34

Paul Lendvai

I will probably restore the protection later today given the discussion at WP:ANI#Admin engaging in edit war, violates three revert rule, then locks page. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've started a thread at ANI about this, given that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And if my actions get support, then with two such incidents getting support we can then do something about WP:INVOLVED citing those actions. I'm hoping you will support such a change. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure; doesn't look like you need my assistance with this, but give me a poke when it moves to WP:INVOLVED and I'll chip in. Ironholds (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lawyer up!

I made a suggestion at Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_In_the_news regarding the Apple/Samsung legal dispute which has halted the sale and distribution of the Galaxy Tab into the EU. The front page calls it a patent dispute, whereas the injunction is over a community design. Is the current hook incorrect? - hahnchen 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Now replied; industrial design right != patent. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes

Please be advised of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see response at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm following it. Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Pascal (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup; I've got rather delayed by RL shit, but I should have everything to you by Saturday at the latest. Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. Hope It didn't seem like I was pestering you. Pascal (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Naw, it's cool; I just got diagnosed with yet another (*sigh*) annoying digestive disease, and dealing with it is taking up my time. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn that sucks. I hope you get better soon, I really do. I'm basking the glory of my summer break from uni, and becoming addicted to wikipedia is not how I was planning to spend it... Pascal (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I know the feeling :). Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay; should now be in your inbox! Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:The Good-Morrow

There are still three points (the first and the last two) to which you have not reponded- any chance I can hear your thoughts on those issues? Those three were really the big ones. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Morgantown

I appreciate your concern for new editors; if you knew about me, you'd know that I have helped and actively mentored many.

This person, however, lies and bullies, and I'm surprised you haven't left a note on his own talk page about the outrageous things he has said and the way he has behaved.

I'm surprised, too, you question my devotion after all my dedicated years, and the warm accolades I have received on my user page from fellow editors.

Incidentally, you mischaracterize my point to him about conflict of interest. I never said simply being from the town was COI. As I wrote to him: "Being from a town and adding dispassionate facts about its history or geography is neutral. Adding promotional material about your town, such as a listing of awards, is not." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever questioned your devotion. What I'm questioning is whether your attitude is helping or harming the wiki. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I "need to leave" Wikipedia? "[T]reating newbies like something to be scraped off the bottom of their shoe"? I believe you're being emotional and hyperbolic. I'm sure you can see how that doesn't help discussion.

And conversely, being new doesn't excuse someone when they behave abusively.

May we tone done the rhetoric, please?--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"then this will inevitably only end one way"? I understand you're an administrator. I don't think it's proper for an administrator to use threatening language that automatically presumes guilt and sentencing. If you sincerely believe the entirety of my service warrants banning, then I believe I have right to defense myself in proper proceedings.

As to my competence, my peers will vouch for me. Please see the awards cabinet at my user page. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You linked to the page banning legal threats. I never made any legal threats. I never made threats of any kind.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• and again with the "due process". You accused the guy of slander multiple times while making it clear that you knew you were accusing him of breaking the law. Calm down or I will take this to WP:ANI, where we can see if your peers will vouch for you. Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, Tenebrae, but I'm with Ironholds on this one - you accused him of law-breaking. Part of the problem I personally have is that the other guy is still a newbie - OK, he's quite a feisty newbie, but he's still a newbie, and he doesn't (yet) know the rules on talk-page behaviour. But you keep drawing people's attention to your length of service, and all the good stuff you've done, and what that really means is that you are Old Enough To Know Better. Your responses were OTT, really they were. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• +1. Ironholds (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I see you haven't been notified. Please be informed that there is an ANI thread that involves you: WP:ANI#Speedy delete gone bad. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was notified; I simply scrapped the relevant talkpage sections to avoid saying something I regretted. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• No problem (although I do note that he mentions he notified me). Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW

Hi, Ironholds. I am little bit confused for your decision to close the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW as no consensus by changing decision of user:Cerejota to relist it which probably could lead to the consensus building. Also, saying no consensus is a quit questionable as there was one user arguing for keeping because it is a stub and therefore there is a room for improvement (but saying nothing about notability which is the main concern here), two user supporting deletion based on the lack of notability and WP:PUTEFFORT, and one user not saying keep or delete, but saying that this is one of many articles from the same editor about specific industry standards, none of which seem to meet notability standards. Therefore, I can't agree that there is no consensus, but probably relisting would be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• AfD is not bean-counting, and one delete said nothing about notability, instead going for "ooh, it's a made-up cutoff!". However, I did not see Cerejota's relist (or rather, I assumed it was a week-old one given that the AfD was listed as "unclosed and expired") and that may be a better way to go; I will revert myself now. You're free to disagree that there's no consensus, and I'm free to disagree with your disagreement, and so on. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely not a bean-counting. At the same time, consensus is not a same as unanimity. Beagel (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think I said it is; I'm simply saying that, from my point of view, both sides have so far provided utterly useless arguments. I am not asking for unanimity, I am asking for somebody to say something which is worth the bytes it's carried in. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making The Good-Morrow a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bad_faith_while_using_admins_tools. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Because you getting your way and me disengaging sometimes just isn't enough. Please stop posting on my talkpage, and please leave me alone. Ironholds (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Time to reaction (law reviews)

Hi Ironholds. I've been working on an article recently about a recently decided Supreme Court case, Mayo v. United States (2011). There are already a fair number of law review articles that discuss the case in detail (4 in Lexis). I was just wondering if you knew how long I should wait before I could reasonably conclude that no more law review articles would be published about the case. NW (Talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, to be honest, about a year. You're going to have lots of quarterly publications, plus delays in reviewing time...it can be quite a while. Do you have HeinOnline access? If not, I do, and there may be stuff there. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do have access, but I have never used it before and can't even figure out where the search button is. NW (Talk) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Scratch that, I figured it out. Thanks. NW (Talk) 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM

I gather from Henrietta's comments she has left that article. See [1] for the source of text she alleges is plagiarised. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup; saw that thirty seconds ago; reverting now, slapping anyone who has a problem with it with a wee hammer. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

as the last admin to post on the bottom of ANI...

... can you take a look here please? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2011_Battle_of_Tripoli its a copy&paste rename issue.--Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done. Hope you don't mind, Ironholds :-) Regards SoWhy 22:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Naw, it's cool :) Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour

I'm sure I'm not doing myself any favours here, but I feel compelled to tell you that even if you are an admin I don't think you should be calling other editors "idiots" as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Henriettapussycat#FGM_again, that's not assuming good faith and is highly disrespectful. Its certainly not something that non-admin editors could get away with I don't think it sets a very good example. We all act in the manner we think is best for Wikipedia, and though we all may not be right (or right in your estimation) that doesn't make us "idiots". A polite, educational warning goes a lot farther toward preventing or stopping a behaviour you disagree with than calling another editor an idiot. As you can see from the post I made on Henrietta‘s talk page, I am not opposed to and in fact agree with the edits she made. But that does not change that she did not adequately consult her fellow editors, give them time to respond, or investigate the claims she made. What she did was as improper as removal of the tag, exasperation is not an excuse for ignoring the consensus from other editors. Vietminh (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Vietminh, when two editors are throwing out a copyright warning from a long-standing, good-faith editor - a warning about things with legal consequences for the foundation - one with the rationale that breaking copyright is fine and one with the rationale that because evidence wasn't immediately apparent, these legal concerns should be discounted - they are acting like idiots. Assume Good Faith does not mean I can't state that actions are stupid, and is not a suicide pact; the AGF page specifically states that "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either". When there is active evidence that users don't intend to comply, because they don't understand what the problem is? that's idiocy. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By saying what you are saying you are essentially implying that I am a bad faith editor, which is against wikiettiquete. I don't think violating copyright is fine, but I do believe that you have to present evidence before you make a claim otherwise it is utterly baseless, you also have to give time for other editors to review your claim or else it is without merit. You also can't fix a problem by making it worse by turning a copyvio into a false attribution. Assuming good faith may not constrict you from saying that an action is stupid or idiotic (although the choice of words is in itself highly questionable), but you didn't do that. You called me and Santiago an idiot for the actions we took, and that is an attack on the editor which is completely unacceptable. I understand the problem in question and I have indicated my intent to comply on several occasions to Henrietta, I simply asked her to follow procedures when making the request she is making, and to give other editors time to review (and find evidence for, since she didn't provide any) copyright violations. Her impatience is not an excuse for not following the rules, and getting emotional or rushy about a situation isn't useful either. Lastly, you shouldn't play favourites with editors, her lack of respect for proper procedures is as bad as deleting the tag, if not worse because she has created a situation where none existed prior. As for legal consequences, I don't see it, plagiarism implies intent and is legally judged on severity and damages incurred. No academic journal is gonna sue Wikipedia for a copyright violation because we didn't put quotes around a passage by accident, likewise what are they going to sue in damages for? It is not as if this article lifted content from a source without attribution, we're dealing with a missing pair of quotation marks or a citation needing to be inserted or moved into place. That is not worth a copyvio tag and is not worth you calling other editors idiots over. Also if you're going to threaten to ban someone you should post a comment on their talk page indicating the error in the actions they took, and asking them to discontinue. Posting warnings on article talk pages isn't liable to get their attention. All in all I would say you handled this entire situation very poorly, and I don't see how you can square being an admin with having a bad attitude. Vietminh (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this disruption. Ironholds is doing the right thing, and any escalation of the situation would lead to other admins reviewing the situation, and they will agree with Ironholds, and will ensure that further disruption does not occur. Wikipedia is not a forum where endless discussion about things which editors do not understand occurs. If the copyvio claim is shown to be unfounded, the tag will be removed. Until that happens, please work on something else. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do Johnuniq, but I am not going to let another Wikipedia user personally attack me (even if they are an admin) and threaten to ban me even without a proper warning. This issue is entirely separate from copyvio question to which I do not dispute action needs to be taken. I'm not hinting at other admins getting involved as Santiago did, I am simply asking Ironholds to follow the procedures as he is supposed to. Vietminh (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Although using terms like "idiot" is perhaps not the best way of doing it, Ironholds has cut you more slack than I would have. If I were you, I'd drop it and work on looking for possible copyright infringement so that it can be fixed or the tag can come off. We have to be incredibly careful with potential copyright violations—even if we don't get to the stage of lawsuits and damages, it's much easier to scrutinise an article at this stage, and admins, OTRS agents and WMF staff don't have to waste many hours of their time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks HJ, John. Vietminh is right; using the phrase "idiots" was unnecessarily rude, and for that I apologise. It is important to note that when copyright infringements turn up, the gloves come off; the priority is a quick resolution that minimises the harm. This does not excuse my behaviour, but hopefully the urgency such situations need to be treated with does go some way towards explaining the speed of my actions. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

May I just add, that another editor other than Henrietta (ie me) reviewed her claim and found that it did warrant investigation. You removed the template again after I added it - and despite a warning that this was one template you should never remove. HJMitchell is quite correct, you could easily have been blocked for your actions. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• In future, possibly, but I don't see any other actions which indicate Vietminh is anything but a good-faith editor trying his best. I'm sure he won't mess around in this fashion again now that the issues have been pointed out to him. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For info, [2] he was warned that removing that template risked a block, his reply was to accuse me of revert warring. Anyway, glad it all turned out alright and thank you for acting promptly. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• No problem; I'm sure he's got the point now. Thanks for intervening when you did :). Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Saw your comments

About behavior at Talk:Morgantown, West Virginia on Tenebrae's talkpage here, thought you might like to know I posted an extensive Etiquette reminder on that talkpage earlier today. Hope it helps improve the general atmosphere there. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fair dealing in United Kingdom law

The article Fair dealing in United Kingdom law you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Fair dealing in United Kingdom law for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cool; will get to it in a few hours when I'm off this blasted train. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy neighbor

Hello Ironholds, The Utahraptor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I thought you might like this. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Er. Thank you? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Shon Meckfessel or Sean McFessel

If you search for Shon Meckfessel here on Wikipedia, you'll be redirected to this page. Mr. Meckfessel was not a former member of the band CAKE. The introduction of the CAKE article lists "Sean McFessel" as a founding member of the group. This is why the change was made to the article.

Metsguy234 (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As I told the IP, the San Francisco Chronicle, when covering the hikers' seizure, notes that they are the same person. Ironholds (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fair dealing in United Kingdom law

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just spreasing Wikilove....

....like an STD!!

Now, turn that frown upside down mister!

Theo10011 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

...o_O sonia♫ 23:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For context, see my previous contributions. Theo10011 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I heard u liek wikilove. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now this is just silly :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, the phrase is: "So I herd you liek wikiluvs?" Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Close enough. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure...

...you meant to block a long-standing editor after just two reverts and no warning?  Frank  |  talk  18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, particularly since he asked me to do so to minimise any complaints about even-handedness. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that request on-wiki...and I find it unusual, not that it matters. I don't think I would have complied with such a request anyway, but...to each his own. For the record (and again, not that it matters), I think it's bad precedent to block editors who haven't done anything wrong just to avoid complaints from others. This isn't kindergarten. At least, I don't think so... Maybe I'm missing something.  Frank  |  talk  18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, but it's pretty good practise to block users who are engaging in the same behaviour as other blocked editors, particularly when said user is not properly discussing it and, as an established editor, should know better than to flip back and forth communicating via edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with frank, bad idea. A year from now people will only see the block log, and since there's no onwiki request, there's no way to prove otherwise. Kind of a silly move there, Ironholds. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. It's perhaps a reasonable argument that Fox should have engaged differently, but that doesn't make two reverts a blockable infraction. To me, it gives credence to the too-often leveled complaints of cabal-ism, eliteism, and general misbehavior by admins.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. And it is folly to operate in fear of giving weight to conspiracy theories. People who are convinced WP is a cabal will continue apace regardless of the decision to block an "established editor." Protonk (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; my decision to block an established editor and fellow admin gives rise to cries of elitism and cabalism? really? So the appropriate thing to do to dispel rumours that us admins are all scratching each others backs and applying rules when and where we want depending on how much we like the user in question would be to see a personal friend and fellow admin behaving inappropriately, and to turn a blind eye. Rrrright. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins as a group are often accused of capriciousness or its equivalents. Fox's status as s fellow admin (a fact I ignored as irrelevant) or friend is not the issue; blocking any editor for edit warring when that's not what is going on is the point. Again - Fox arguably could have approached it better, but two reverts don't constitute an edit war, especially with no discussion on either side to see what's actually going on. No, 3RR isn't required for a block, and admins are expected to exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis...but what I see just wasn't an edit war.  Frank  |  talk  19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the goalposts are moving in this discussion. what is the actual problem? Protonk (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "problem" is too strong a word. I'm questioning Ironholds' block of an editor for edit warring when - to my eye - there was no edit-warring going on.  Frank  |  talk  19:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see it as an edit war. I did see it as an edit war. You agree there were problems, but not enough to justify a block. I believe there were problems, and problems enough to justify a block. Clearly, after 15 comments stretching over an hour of discussion, we're not in agreement. I appreciate that you have your own beliefs and lines and that they are no less valid than mine; nevertheless, it seems we're not going to agree, so what precisely do you want, other than to register your disapproval? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you've summarized things sufficiently. I've said more than I intended given additional participation in the discussion, but it's probably true there's nothing more that needs to be said.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• And in a year, nobody will care. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Heck, that might only take a day...but I still think it's ill-advised. It certainly doesn't reflect well when a potentially controversial move is defended by saying nobody will care in a year.  Frank  |  talk  18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Roux brought up the "in a year" thing, so I replied to it. This doesn't make it my defence or justification for the move, it makes it my defence or justification for his comment. I made a fairly clear point up above as to why I think this is fine; you might want to reply to that. Ironholds (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; the indenting/outdenting wasn't obvious but I've replied above.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I came here to comment on these blocks as well, not having seen the thread above as there was no discussion on the users' talkpages beyond the block notices. (User talk:Fox is on my watchlist—I don't remember why, but the most likely explanation is that I posted there once, and I have my watchlist set to add pages I edit.) In my view neither of these blocks was necessary. This was a good-faith editing disagreement, Fox had just two reverts, the other editor had slightly more but the issue did not appear to be continuing, neither editor had a history of problematic editing to the best of my knowledge, and I see absolutely no reason that the better approach would not have been a mild warning to each of the editors rather than rushing to block. Blocking should not be a first resort in this sort of situation and I am considering taking this to ANI for further discussion. Please consider unblocking both of these users. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This block seems like a good thing to me. This editor has been a bit quick on the trigger lately, even with admin privileges. The disruption created by deletion of the article on the recent Virginia earthquake wasted time and effort. A 24 hour breather seems like the least that this editor should sit out and take a breather. The length of time editing and fact that this person has admin privileges does not excuse bad behavior.--RadioFan (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm deeply unsure as to how taking this to the village stocks will resolve anything. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might get Fox and Mlillybaltimore unblocked, is the principal thing. But in view of Fox's view on the matter (see his talkpage), I'll wait to see whether Mlillybaltimore posts an unblock request. (Hopefully he won't just leave altogether.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It might do that. It might do a dozen other things as well. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what dozen other things you have in mind, but if what you mean is that discussions on ANI are not always well-focused and decorous and sometimes spin in odd directions, you have a point. For better or worse, though, we don't have another public forum for discussing disputed blocks. (A few years ago, an admin in my position might have just acted on my own as the block-reviewer and unblocked unilaterally, but as you know, that's not considered good practice any more.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't considered good practice anymore because it has been flagrantly abused to protect "established editors" when they do something a new editor would be flogged for. I'm not suggesting that is what is happening here, but I also know you (in your position) are intimately aware of how that all works. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of cases where unilateral unblocking was misused; I'm also aware of cases where (what many considered) a bad or excessive block stayed in effect for far too long. In any event, let's see what Ironholds and for that matter Mlillybaltimore have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds capital. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, back; I was afk. I'm not going to unblock because I feel that the block was the right thing to do - as does one of the blocked parties. Brad, if you really had a problem you could have just unblocked the both of them; the same applies to any of the other admins who have chipped in. I do not appreciate the "or else" inherent in "do it or it goes to ANI"; you know, I know and everyone else knows that ANI is the wiki-equivalent of prison; in a good thread, you get lube, and in a bad one, you don't - but either way, someone is getting fucked in the arse. The fact that anyone would choose to bring something up at ANI when they could resolve the situation themselves reflects poorly on them. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points here—one specific to this particular block, one more of a meta point. As to the former, as noted above, I'll see whether either of the blocked users requests an unblock (I note that Fox has specifically said he isn't) before pursuing this further.

On the more general point, per my exchange with Protonk just above, it's pretty much settled now that unilateral unblocking (meaning Admin A blocking, and then Admin B unblocking, either without consulting A or over A's objection) is pretty much frowned upon. The policy page specifically states that "[e]xcept in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Although I disagree with these blocks, they aren't "unambiguous error," so taking a questioned block to ANI for more discussion if A and B disagree is what's supposed to happen; in that light, "I'll take this to ANI" isn't a threat, it's just the next step in the process. (And your description of ANI discussions, while pithy and attention-getting, is (to use a Posnerism) gratuitously indecorous.) If you think the policy should be that B as the reviewer should be free to overrule A and unblock, there is surely something to be said for that approach, but it certainly isn't the usual approach at the moment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Gratuitously indecorous is not "wrong". The policy page specifies the administrator's noticeboard, not ANI; the distinction between the two is quite clear. In future you might want to make accurate predictions of where things should go and actually read the policy; your statement of what policy says, while pithy and attention-getting, is (to use a Baconism) an example of someone failing to remember that Non est interpretatio, sed divinatio, quae recedit a litera. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight. You blocked a good-faith new editor for edit-warring although he'd had no warnings at the time of his last edit; you blocked a good-faith editor who's been here for five years with no incidents based on some vague conception of fairness and his telling you on IRC he'd accept a block, even though he hadn't done much wrong at all; you've given no explanation for why either of these blocks was useful; instead, you claim that my raising my concern here rather than unblocking both of them unilaterally reflects badly on me, and we're now reduced to quibbling over the admittedly unclear and vexing matter of whether the better forum for an unblock review is AN or ANI? I'm signing off for a bit; perhaps some others can provide some input on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure the fact that it links to AN makes things pretty clear. Also pretty sure that if you want others to provide some input, you can raise it there; I'm going to bed. Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • And for reference, no; I complained about how you raised the issue, not the fact that you did. If you have a problem with that, either change how you interact with others or I'll take you to ANI (oh wait). Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, guys, before this ends in screaming and rent garments, allow me to summarize: Ironholds made a non-clearcut, but still potentially acceptable, set of blocks which he (and Fox) feel was warranted, and which some others don't. He has now been thoroughly trouted for this action, and is aware that no less than a sitting arbitrator feels his action was hasty. Now Ironholds and the arbitrator are quoting Latin at each other in some sort of indecipherable lawfest, when they're not debating which venue drama is best created in. How about this: everyone take a deep breath, do what Newyorkbrad already said he's doing, and close this tab. If Mlillybaltimore requests an unblock, an uninvolved admin can review that and unblock if they see fit. If he doesn't, we can all come back to this tomorrow evening, when the blocks have worn off and tempers are perhaps less heated, to see if we can hash out some idea of whether these sort of blocks are something that should be happening. If the matter becomes intractable after that, then we can go off to one of the dramaboards. Yes? Good? Good. Now everyone go have some tea. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would anyone object to making both of these blocks "time served" and making it clear in no uncertain terms to both parties that bold, revert, discuss needs to be followed the whole way around? This is a bad show of newbie biting, to leave a warning, have no other bad behaviour occur, and then a block notice delivered. Courcelles 01:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward Coke

Congratulations! Passed GA with flying colours. A future FA candidate in my view.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Agreed - it's my magnum cokus :p. Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That was terrible. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• That was WONDERFU- oh, you meant the pun, not the article. We're in agreement :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	For all the amazing work you do in bringing articles up to GA status, I award you this GA barnstar. Your contributions are wide and varied, and your efforts are relentless. Thank you. – Quadell (talk)

Thanks muchly :). Working on more as we speak. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Hi there, I wonder if you would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. The results will almost certainly not be published to the public, and participants will be anonymous if requested. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Much more information is available if you are interested. Please reply here or on my talk page. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, sure; have you run it past the Research Committee, out of interest? Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I've not run it past them as it is undergraduate work and will almost certainly not be published. If it is submitted for publication (which will only happen if it's deemed top of the class - very unlikely), I will need to meet full ethics committee standards, and will likely have to change a lot of the methodology. Let me know if this is a problem - if you are interested in taking it (and there's more information on the questionnaire itself) then give me your email or send a message to johntdf@gmail.com. Thanks! Thedarkfourth (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can use the "email this user" function; I more meant "if you run it past RComm they can help you with technical support and gathering volunteers and give Foundation-level support, and then publish it for you if you want". Give me a poke if you find that interesting - I know a couple of chaps. Ironholds (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes that would be really useful if they could help with gathering volunteers - though I don't have a huge amount of official bureaucracy or anything to show them (as I say, it's undergraduate so the university doesn't really care about me enough to make it more than an informal project). Don't know if they need that stuff. As for 'email this user' - I don't see it anywhere. How do I do that? Thedarkfourth (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Ironholds; if you want to briefly write up what you're planning to do and the research methodology, I'll put you in touch with Dario and we can work something out (he owes me favours ;p). Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kidandali page deletion

Hi. I noticed you speedily deleted the page I wrote on the Kidandali music genre without even trying to notify me using the no thanks template as stated under criteria for speedy deletion G12. I honestly do not think that was right. The information from which i sourced the content is in fact free information and yes, i had permission from the original source owners to create the article. I am requesting the undeletion of the article. I await your response. Chris.Gido (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you have permission, please get the source to email M:OTRS as soon as possible; until then, the content will not be undeleted as I have no way of proving (or indeed, no evidence that) the content is appropriately licensed. I do apologise for not informing you; evidently the default settings for Twinkle alter when one becomes an admin to assume that you don't intend to inform the page creator and simply intend to arbitrarily delete that - I'll keep an eye on that in future. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Will try to get them to do that. Problem is I have no clue how the whole thing works so f you can elaborate how to send that email, it would be appreciated. Thanks Chris.Gido (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• get them to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org confirming that they are releasing the information at [url] under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have notified them and they have confirmed that they have sent the email. So I just need to know whether it has to be you to restore the page or anyone who reads the email will have the ability to restore it and if there is any other procedure am supposed to do? Waiting for you reply. Chris.Gido (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, any admin can do it as soon as they get a confirmation from the OTRS team. It'll just be a matter of waiting, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. No problem. In closing though, I would like to reiterate that I am still shocked at the way you just delete pages people have spent hours and days trying to put together and the attitude with which you have dealt with this whole issue. Its important to not assume someone guilty of an offense even before trying to contact them. They might even be ignorant of what they have done! It really discourages anyone from adding more contributions to this Wikipedia. Like me right now. I really hope next time you first try to contact the author and allow them time to modify their page or state their position. Regards Mr Iron Holds. Chris.Gido (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have already apologised for the technical error that led to me failing to contact you; I have already explained I will not do it again. Regardless, the deletion of the page was always certain - we do not keep copyright law violations around for days on end on the promise that somebody will at some point email in and confirm it is kosher. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Vio Query

Quick query. If a copyright problem is removed, do you need an admin to remove revs that contain a copyvio before removing the template? I haven't dealt with too many of these before. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty sure it's not mandatory, but I've consulted with Maggie, and we're both in agreement that it doesn't really matter ;p. We're talking FGM, right? Just do it in whatever order. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nooo, I kept well away from FGM, I could see there were a couple of alpha males with ownership issues. Falkland Islands Wolf, I had some guy edit warring to retain a copyvio whilst I was still trying to fix it. As a result there are a number of revs with the same copyvio in. There is a fresh version with all the copyvios removed in a sub-page ready to roll, assuming thats OK. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Gotcha; shove it in, and if you need an uninvolved admin for the revdels, just leave me diffs for the copyvioing version and I'll get on it (sorry for the delay - commute home from work). Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Revs with Copyvios [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. If I see someone edit warring to keep copyvios is a 3RR report tge right way to go or should I have handled it differently? Ta Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done and done. In future, personally, I'd block any toerag stupid enough to think that copyright violations are things it's acceptable to restore to the view of the public - a 3RR report is, however, acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Avenue_X_at_Cicero

User:Avenue_X_at_Cicero is re-requesting rollback at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Avenue_X_at_Cicero. As the admin who removed rollback from that user, you may wish to comment at his request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Thanks for letting me know, dude. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this, there is something in which I would like your reply and not HJ or Reaper's: Regarding "Rollback should not be given back to somebody who remains unable to understand why it was taken away from him in the first place." From what I understand, you removed my rights saying I was "not using them correctly" which, if I correctly decipher, translates to "misuse of rollback rights." As I have already nullified that, the reason maybe because I warned the user for vandalism but on an incorrect page. Your summary does not say at all that you removed my rights because "I fail to understand VAND...and should not be trusted with scissors." Considering that was the reason why you removed my rights, I unfortunately cannot give you the benefit of the doubt, just because of an edit summary. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither Ironholds nor HJ nor Reaper, so perhaps you don't want my input, but I thought it was pretty clear on your talk page at the time why Ironholds removed your rollback - he said it was because you misunderstood what constituted vandalism, and that someone who didn't understand what was and wasn't vandalism cannot have rollback. I have no particular insight into Ironholds's thought process regarding giving and removing rollback other than that, but I would guess that if you can make it clear that you now do understand the difference between vandalism and non-vandalism, he'd be more sympathetic to a request to regain rollback. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I wanted (and still want) to learn, is why did Ironholds change his rationale of removing the rollback rights from the one he provide in his summary, right when I confronted him? The fact remains that his edit summary didn't say so. It said "not using them correctly", considering he did remove it per the concern above, and provided a similar edit summary, this wouldn't have gone this far as the only reason why I was requesting rollback was because I clearly figured out that it was removed due to an alleged "misuse", not because what I know of vandalism. Yes, I had a misconception about vandalism (and other editors have too, [22] [23]) remains, and I do think that editors learn about something new if they have a misconception.

Yes, I even do know that I may get WP:NOTTHEM as a response, I would assert that the users mention was not to get him de-sysop-ed or have his rights removed. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Avenue, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say "I have no idea what the hell you're saying". Structure your questions in proper English and I'll respond to them; until then, I'm quite frankly unable to. Ironholds (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an irony in using using "I have no idea what the hell you're saying" to criticize someone's use of language. As for threatening not to particpate, that's your choice. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AVenue, take the advice you've been offered by an ever-increasing number of people: drop this and revisit it later. Otherwise, you're going to exhaust everyone's patience and you'll end up blocked—which is the worst case scenario, not having rollback or an entry in your block log over something that, in perspective, is really insignificant? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting input

Please consider commenting on this grassroots proposal. It would be great if we can earn your support by knowing and addressing your concerns. Be bold if you see an area to immediately improve. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently editing an article

Hi there. Would you mind having a look at the article on curious directive currently being edited at User:Ben Canning/work area. Any thoughts would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Ben Canning (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• It looks good! You need a lot more citations (for the text, for example) before it's going to be okay in mainspace; I've got full access to LexisNexis's news archives. If you drop me an email, I'm happy to go through, look for articles and send them on. Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Userfication

Discussion brought from: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Warrillow

We have a difference of semantics. I say userfying is deleting the article. Regardless, there is no clean way of userfying. The essay says move the article to userspace and put up a speedy delete for the redirect. The problem being is what if the article's main editor objects? There are no guidelines on what to do next. Redirect (I think of as a semi-delete) is also another messy scenario with no directions. What do you think should be done after an editor declines?

Keep or delete is not the only outcomes of AfDs. Redirect and userfy are also outcomes. Personally, I think the best option is suggesting userfication first before taking it to AfD. If the main editor contests, do take it to AfD, state why it should be deleted, but also state userfication was declined, and then let others decide. I did this exact thing with a [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica|current AfD]] in which I suggested a redirect. Article is on a political candidate. These types of articles usually get redirected if the subject doesn't pass GNG. Editor declined the redirect, so I took it to AfD.

The other admin you want to give a trouting... admin is a she and not a he. When I wend to givve her a piece of my mind on her talk page, I noticed several other messages on her bad behaviour in other articles. She got her fish slapping and then some. Bgwhite (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sure; I'm not saying that the outcome of AfD cannot be "userfy", I'm saying the purpose of nominating an article at AfD is to have it deleted. AfDs do not start out with the intention of gathering wider consensus on what should be done about it, they start off with the intention of gathering wider consensus that the article should be deleted; the nominator's intention should be deletion. If the nominator prefers userfication or any other outcome, the process should be to shove up a third opinion or RfC tag on the talkpage. AfDs start with the principle that the nominator wants it gone. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Talk:Female genital mutilation.
Message added 20:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Dannymex

All of his contributions so far are copyvios. Returned tonight and did the same again. See [24] and Talk:Ankole-Watusi (cattle). What should I do, he isn't listening to posts on his talk page or elsewhere? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've indeffed him; are all his contribs copyvios? I need to know precisely what to revdel. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I checked, every contribution is a straight cut'n'paste from other websites. All have been reverted so revdel wouldn't affect any articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

All now gone; thanks for bringing them to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		The Sims 3 has been nominated to be a good article and we couldn't have done it without you. Let's hope it passes! Zach.vega1 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Santiago84 again

Hi Ironholds. Could you do something about this? I think referring to another editor's "mental condition" is a clear and egregious personal attack. There doesn't seem to be much point to warning Santiago, given his reaction last time... Jakew (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page

I have personal reasons why I want my talk page deleted (along with my profile), but it has to do with the area I work in, and on my profile I did reveal the area I work in. I don't want these things connected--Henriettapussycat (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay; so, are you exercising WP:RTV, or do you just want specific edits removed from public view? Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RTV--Henriettapussycat (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Okie-dokes; mind dropping me an email explaining the issue in a bit more detail? Just so I can make sure everything is kosher. I'm genuinely sorry to see you leave; hopefully you'll return some day. If it helps, I can't see Santiago being long for this project at the rate he's going. Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi, I sent you an email request for an article on JSTOR. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk

… Fo' shame, Ironholds. AGK [•] 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re West Wing Week

Hi Ironholds,

Thank for the notice, will do synopsis edits as soon as possible, given the length of the article it will take time. Thanks for bringing your concerned to my attention.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

hahahahahahahahahahaha! Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dannymex again?

I think Dannymex is back editing as an IP, a lot of unsourced material directly lifted from messybeast.com has been added to Falkland Islands Wolf. Could you take a look for me please? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now blocked *salutes*. Let me know if he returns and I'll just SP the page. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

According to User:Messybeast it was a colleague of his who didn't know what they were doing. Maybe we were mistaken and the block could be reduced to time served if he has learnt the lesson? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Has OTRS confirmed that Messybeast is legit? Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so, it was an account established in 2005. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmn. Well, I'd ask him to identify through OTRS before you take his word for it, just because I'm a suspicious sort. It's probably fine, but... Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Meadows

Hi, you protected the Tim Meadows article because of the recent vandalism. Unfortunately, it's started back up again. Would you mind watching it and if the IP's keep it up semi the article again? I don't mind a revert here or there, but these folks can get fairly determined. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now done; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wish me luck!

Ironholds,

To let you know I'm running for WikiProject Military Coordinator. It'll be a BIG step forward for me on Wikipedia. Wish me the best of luck! Adamdaley (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR

I was looking for help from someone with access to JSTOR, are you still in a position to access JSTOR? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indubitably! Email me with what you need. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Afds and Images

Please keep your personal observations to yourself. Most of this stuff was added years ago, when no one seemed to care. Now some anti-picture and anti character deletionists are going on sprees and littering my talk page with automated notices. I don't need YOU added more crap to my talk page. Look at the l;ast image notice posted to my page. A picture of a Transformer character I added to a pagge FIVE YEARS AGO. Last month some guy decided that the article doesn't need the picture, and removes it. I get a notice. I realize you may intend to be helpful, but you are are not telling me anything I don't already know. Mathewignash (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have over reacted, but I'm a bit fed up with the mad deletionist types here and the pages long automated message they leave me. If you were just being friendly, that's cool. Ignore the mad rantings of someone who used to enjoy Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

'State Data Centres' Page creation/deletion

I am an undergraduate student studying 'e-governance' in India. I want to contribute to Wikipedia by creating a wiki page on 'State Data Centres'. Unfortunately, due to lack of knowledge about Wikipedia and copyright issues, I posted some disputed text. I am sorry for that.

Now I have thoroughly revised the text by reading Wikipedia guidelines and have recreated the page. Please have a look at it. Please let me know if there are still some more problems. I assure you a prompt response of mine to rectify any errors in the page. Please help me in contributing to Wikipedia.

12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Saurabh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.catch (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• The text still contained copyright violations, and I have deleted it; please do not post it again. This is not about Wikipedia, this is about copyright law - by putting it on Wikipedia you are putting Wikipedia at risk. I would recommend you read WP:COPYVIO, if you have not already, and then try building an article from your own words. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have come up with a new version of the page in my own words. Should I continue with page creation? Saurabh.catch (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Could you show me it? Is it in a sandbox somewhere? Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saurabh.catch/sandbox Saurabh.catch (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide your feedback. Saurabh.catch (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• No; large chunks of it are still identical. If I google individual phrases, I come up with the same phrases in things like this; how can you claim it's in your own words? Ironholds (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as 'matching phrases' are concerned, they have to match as the keywords like 'NeGP' , 'State Wide Area Network project' , 'data centres' , 'budget', the name of states like 'Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh' have to be the same. I can not change the names, furthermore some terminology should be consistent with the official documents to make the article easy to understand. If you read the article carefully, I am sure you would find that these are my own words (although the keywords have been taken from official documents). This article is about facts. I request you to go through the text and I will be more than happy to make changes based on your advice. 180.149.52.42 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes; when you say "Comprising of 27 Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) and 10 components, was approved by the Union Government of India on May 18, 2006" and the source says, well, exactly the same thing, I'm sure it's all your own words. The draft is virtually impossible to understand due to the amount of marketing speak and internal terminology it's filled with; I appreciate you think you're making the article easy to understand, but that's not the case. My advice is this; until you find some third-party sources for it (not official reports) your article won't be accepted anyway, even if the copyright concerns are cleared up. Find those sources and use those to rewrite the article to get rid of any leftover copyright problems and to make it readable. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Criminalization

Hi, I'm starting a law degree shortly and so will hopefully contribute to UK law more widely, as I notice you have. In the meantime, I was having a look at the above page, and have found a problem that I'm not used to: it's a sort of rambling, but yet hard to get rid of, prose. I was planning (and not all plans come to fruition, particularly for freshers!) to replace it with something of which User:Grandiose/sandbox2 would be a part (except with more sources, obviously). Does that sound like a good plan? Can you help integrate the two? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not directly my thing, I'm afraid; I tend to write law articles in their entirety rather than amend or replace bits of existing ones. I would honestly suggest tacking it on to the end of an appropriate section - or starting a new one yourself. What sort of areas are you studying? I've got a couple of things I'd really like to get GAs on (particularly in contract law -groan, boring, I know) that you might want to help out on :). Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To start with, Criminal, Roman and Constitutional. Feel free to send things my way, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman? Very hoity-toity :P. Re constitutional, I'll be working on a few things - we'll see if we can collaborate. English or Scots law? Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you guys want some assistance with anything Constitutional, please give me a shout. I have limited wiki-time at the moment, but I've got an itch for some content work at the moment (especially since beginning to help at the timesink that is this). AGK [•] 15:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

English. Yeah, that's Oxford for you. (At least you can get old editions of the books for it!) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• AGK, stop stalking my pages :P. We could work on something constitutional with both English and Scots aspects, then? Any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • :'( AGK [•] 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't read up the subject yet, but open to ideas for the future. Needn't hit this too hard. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the new pages Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 is a bit of a mess (I'm going through the FA delisting process; it will be). So it'll be an opportunity for a clean start, with some material there but the potential for good coverage of important legislation. Thoughts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See, personally I think they should have their own dedicated pages as well, but yeah! I've got a couple of biographies of Bonar Law, which cover the background to the 1911 Act - along with all the journal articles and standard books. My dissertation, before I graduated, was on challenges to the Diceyan orthodoxy, so I've got a load of stuff lying about :). AGK? Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Cabal is watching...

They saw this!

Plip!

(Just kidding!) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The cabal needs to get out more :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tomas M Fleischmann

Could you please explain how a Holocaust survivor's page is deleted and other articles which are blatant advertising are not? As a new editor, I just don't understand how an article with significance can be scrutinsed when there are other pages which have absolutely no notability end up orphan pages and will never be deleted. Any assistance would be appreciated. Droopyjaz (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, most likely because we simply didn't notice the other articles. As you say, they're orphans - meaning they aren't linked from elsewhere, and are thus hard to find - and since we're a volunteer organisation there's always more stuff that needs checking than people to check it. If you can point out any specifically egregious examples I'd be happy to look through them and review.

On the Fleischmann front; Wikipedia strives to be a neutral encyclopedia, and a verifiable one. Because of this, we can't base "notability" on "importance" (otherwise we'd be instantly biasing the content in favour of those things which white, early 20s, college-educated men consider important, since those are our main userbase) and instead have a policy based on the principle that if an article's subject is covered in multiple, reliable sources, the article can stay. This is quite nice, in that it means we can avoid making judgment calls ourselves (allowing for neutrality) while simultaneously ensuring we have sources (allowing for verifiability). I appreciate that the downside is that people who are important but who haven't got media attention do get excluded; I'm afraid I can't change that :(. If you want to throw articles past me in the future, I'd be happy to check so that they don't get deleted again; I also have full access to every major news article since 1960, so if you're unsure about something and want to see if there are sources available, do give me a poke and I'll be happy to send them over. Ironholds (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Copyright concerns

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Mar4d (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Parliament Act 1911

Now created. Most notably it's missing detail of what it actually did, which I felt may have been better served by a book that devoted more than three pages directly to the bill. The background I expect you will want to increase considerably, hence the large number of duplicate references so you can cut it up as necessary. I thought someone had to get the ball rolling. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome; I'm a bit low on free time at the moment, but I can send you some sources through, if you want? Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No need, I've got my Freshers' week coming up, no chance of time for me either (and no rush). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. An alternate idea; how about Parliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom? As it's a redlink we can draft it up in my userspace or something with no issues or time constraints. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I would find it hard to nail the scope of such an article (with the capital "S"?). If you could possibly find the time to trash out the "Background" section of Parliament Act 1911 that would be very helpful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Noted; I'll maybe work on it meself, then. And sure, I'll get around to that. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My book actually has a chapter "Parliamentary sovereignty" so I'll see what I can do at some point. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Codelobster

06:22, 6 May 2009 Ironholds (talk | contribs) (3,535 bytes) (Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of User:Codelobster. using TW)

Why my page was deleted? It contains descriptions about real functions only. Here are links of independent reviews: http://janaksingh.com/blog/codelobster-php-ide-drupal-development-158 http://review.techworld.com/applications/3212761/codelobster-review/ http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/WEB-Design/Web-Design-related/CodeLobster-PHP-Edition.shtml http://www.brighthub.com/internet/web-development/reviews/85098.aspx http://www.pctips3000.com/codelobster-php-edition-3-7-2/

What changes should i do for publishing my article exactly? Thanks. Codelobster (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Uhm. That was in May 2009. You created it in userspace rather than as an actual article; if you want it republished, you need to write a version which passes WP:N and includes multiple, reliable sources (not blogs). Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Pepper v Hart a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Great job with that one, nice to see an FA on a law article!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

SanctityOfTheTraditionalFamilyUnit

I just declined his unblock request, but he has a point: He really deserved a genuine final warning and should have been notified on his talk page of your block, per policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies for the lack of a block template - must have been in a forgetful mood - but on the warnings front, anyone who makes the edits he made and then claims he didn't have sufficient notice that what he did was wrong falls under hanlon's razor (that's him, not you :P). Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Moral rights in United Kingdom law

Just in case you haven't noticed, the GA review is here. Malleus Fatuorum 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; I replied to it and made fixes, but evidently forgot to let you know. Eep. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)