Also, other pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilind_Electronics list articles, so I thought that it is okay to list articles when properly pointing them to the source, can I have those back? or can you tell me what is wrong with them, so I can fix.
I listed citation to the "one of the largest independent companies" statement, is Electronic Sourcing not considered a legit reliable source?
Also same page lists linkedin, facebook and similar links. so why were deleted from my page, is there a rule about this?
Please let me know, so i can improve the article properly. Thanks, Thadson (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey :). I'm afraid I am very busy with work at the moment, and can't promise a speedy response. Sorry! :(. Can I suggest WP:HELPDESK or somewhere similar? Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey :) I am SO glad someone appreciates it. I really feel for the article and had so much fun fighting vandalism and getting it protected and adding news as it got updated. thanks! Noopur28 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Jamietw's talk page. Message added 06:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
A user you blocked in March 2011, User:NYCSlover, has asked to be unblocked. As I am unfamiliar with the issues around him/her, you may wish to comment on their page. --RA (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time could you (as one of the few Wikipedia editors with a little knowledge of law) contribute to this AfD. Francium12 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know... in fact, I created them just to exist hoping that someone else would add contect. I did it basically to remind other wikipedians of the existance of the guys.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Chinese wikipedia, they have articles with sources. Unfortunately, I don't know chinese...--The Theosophist (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't notice, the only thing I wrote was "X (X-X) was a Chinese politician". I don't think that someone needs to speak the language.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not translate anything. I knew that they were chinese politicians. The only thing I took from the Chinese Wikipedia was the dates.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found sources at the Chinese wikipedia about the dates of only two of them. Now what?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, all have references about this and that, but only two about the date of birth and death. Would you like me to give you links?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had my (first) successful ANI, which leaded to a Check User request. See this. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to deleted templates? I would like to obtain content present in the Template:Pakistan ties, deleted sometime in 2010, and merge some of the links it had into Template:Foreign relations of Pakistan as I can't remember all the articles it had listed. Could you help? Mar4d (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Many thanks to you as well. It's great to receive positive feedback after writing a new article... --Mark91it's my world 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ironholds. I would appreciate it if you could help me out by moving these deleted articles to my userspace so I can work on them. Thank you kindly. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; you may have better luck with Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion :). I've gotta run to work and won't be available on this until tomorrow, optimistically. Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page. Message added 20:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page. Message added 20:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at GrahamSmith's talk page. Message added 00:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
May I ask why my page was deleted but the Oxford Law Society page remains?
ldesouza19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldesouza19 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very good question; it really should have more sources. I'll add tags to that effect and notify the creators. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) And is there anyway I can create a page for the society that is in line with the regulations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldesouza19 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you need to do is show that the society has been covered by third-party sources; newspapers, journal articles, books, that sort of thing. I appreciate it's a pretty high burden to set for a student society :(. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You concluded a speedy deletion of the article Akhbarona under WP:CSD#A7.
Could you userify this article for me? i'll put a {{db-u1}}
if I agree it is not notable.
if i disagree, are you interested in discussing my choices with me? Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; happy to userfy it. If you disagree we can discuss it, sure, but there's no claim to notability I can see. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I decided it wouldn't meet today's standards, and I have requested {{db-u1}}. I appreciate being able to see for myself. Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the article of Michael Szilágyi? I don't understand. Szilágyi was an important Hungarian historical figure and served as Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1958. The article had useful and relevant sources. Your step is equal to vandalism... --Norden1990 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by a banned user violating his sanctions; such articles have to be deleted. There's nothing stopping anyone recreating the article, as long as they aren't that user. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a sourced article is in readers' interest, isn't it? 79.117.210.62 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Providing an active disincentive for users prohibited from using our site from doing so is certainly in the projects' interest. Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So priority no.1 is to discourage banned users, even if the collateral effect is that readers are deprived of an useful article. The precedence is: 1. Annihilate banned users and 2. Take care of readers' interest. Very interesting I can say 79.117.210.62 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, I don't know why Iaaasi was blocked, but I don't care, to tell you the truth. However the article about Szilágyi met the criterias of Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Norden, "created be a banned user" is a valid deletion criteria. If you don't care, that's up to you - the community feels differently. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:SPIRIT is to focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing (suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page) 79.117.210.62 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the spirit is also an essay written by one guy. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, bring back the article to my sandbox: here. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the slightest. If I give you the article, one of two things will happen - 1, it will sit there, or 2, you will tweak it and then post it anew. If the second, it will include contributions from a banned user and thus completely undermine the entire point of deleting it in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with deleting contributions from banned users; I've done a fair few of those myself. However, I think if another editor is willing to take responsibility for the article, that is a reasonable thing. How much editing to the article do you feel would be needed, Ironholds? I came into this because the question was taken to Drmies's talk page, which I watch. My inclination is to grant the move to Norden's sandbox. There are reasons for banning which would make me more hesitant to do this though, such as as history of copyright violations. I have no idea if such is the case here. LadyofShalott 20:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Iaasi is merely a particularly prevalent sockmaster. To be honest, it's a pretty decent article - no editing is needed to make it survivable in the mainspace were it not for the WP:DENY concerns. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for marking the above as a minor edit. I meant to mark "watch this page", but got the wrong box. LadyofShalott 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get that... I deal with PolTx pretty frequently. Thing is, if the work is good, and another editor is willing to take responsibility for it, I have to think that's a good thing. LadyofShalott 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point :). Okay; no issue from me with someone userfying it and moving on. I'm afraid that I have some work stuff that just cropped up and so need to leg it and put my thinking cap on. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. :) I'll take care of the userfication. LadyofShalott 20:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, I didn't know Ironholds was Oliver. If I knew that, I would have here come and berated you myself. I'd never miss a chance to berate you. Sorry, Norden and I have some history, his request seemed reasonable, but I'm not an admin and didn't know policy, so I asked the admins that hang out at Drmies. You turned down the the rewrite of my wife program, so you I guess you turn people down all the time. :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Well, as said, it's not exactly my area of speciality. I did try once, but she kept throwing a fatal exception and I had to turn her in to the fuzz for attempted murder. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed about what happened, even though it is obvious that everyone acted in good faith here. I had proposed the article Mihály Szilágyi for deletion that you conducted , Ironholds. In the meantime a Ip sockpuppet of Iaaasi (Note that Iaaasi is from Craiova[3] ,using ip range 79.xxx) made Norden1990 (a Hungarian user who also had a minor contribution to the article) aware of the deletion process: [4]. Then, said sockpuppet of Iaaasi took the trouble to challenge you about your administrative action , Ironholds, by editing your talk page 8 times :[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Furthermore, said sockpuppet asked Norden1990 to restore another edit of his previously blocked sockpuppet as well: [13] ,which was also done [14]. Okay okay.. it may be that Norden1990 is unaware of who ip 79.xxx is..okay. And, now that the article is restored, Iaaasi registered one another sockpuppet to continue to edit the previously restored article: [15] because it is so obvious that
User:92andstillcounting is User:Iaaasi...
I know that Mihály Szilágy notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia....but it is time to reinstate a Ip range block on 79.xxxx. Because,if that did not happen, Iaaasi will stop at nothing.--Nmate (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and blocked 92and... as that seemed an obvious sock. I do not know anything about range blocks. LadyofShalott 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds, I'm reviewing the block of this editor. I'm a little perplexed as to the block reason, could you please clarify who you think they're a sock of? I've looked through long-term abuse reports to try and find an editor fitting his editing patterns, but I just can't find anything like it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 07:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; sorry, I was out all day :). The talkpage conversation seems to have moved on to point at things - as to whom, it's quite clearly a GNAAer. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, looks like it turned out to be Badmachine. All settled then! SeraphimbladeTalk to me 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :). Sorry I wasn't clearer with the initial rationale! Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
... hopefully sent to the right address. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I'll have a poke back tomorrow :). Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for granting me that user right:) However I'm not yet seeing a change in my membership groups. Just to check whether there was any mistake. Thanks again! ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Headdesk; I forgot, after happily sending messages and love, to grant it. Now done; I'll be over here pulling my boot out of my gullet... Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ironholds! Could you take a look at The Wedding Dance, an article I made on 4 June 2012 which I've nominated for GA. I would like your thoughts on it. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, when you email me, I get an email. When you drop a note on my talkpage telling me I've got an email, I get another email. Please do one or the other, not both. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I thought that was when you edit as Okeyes (WMF). Anyway, could you please take a look at the article and reply to the email? Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good; the text could do with some copyediting, but in terms of formatting and referencing it's fine :). Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a quick note, when you close an AfD you need to ensure that everything is inside the top and bottom templates - see this fix I did. Doesn't look important, but if you don't do it then Mathbot doesn't recognise the AfD as closed and it remains on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old so that it looks like it's still outstanding (I presume Mathbot looks for the template as the first line of the page). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Headdesk; sorry, it's been a while! Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing some tidying in that area, removing invalid links from the articles, though I may have clashed with someone else. Basic content has remained unchanged. The correct regiment name is 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery so was trying to delete as many variations of that not in use. The main article uses 29th rather than 29(check MOD site) - I would love to get that correct but is probably unrealistic since referenced in too many places. Andrewdeacon51 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can't stand unreferenced BLP stubs. I noticed that a page for this person had also been deleted over a year ago due to being an unreferenced BLP so it's nice in that regard to have it back in mainspace. Eshlare (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please revisit this review, which has been open for over five weeks, and respond to what has been posted in the interim? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Molwyn Joseph 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:Molwyn Joseph for things which need to be addressed. GoPTCN 08:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm? Not a single edit...--GoPTCN 08:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - bit unsure about this close ... the player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL (he's never played a game for a professional team) and everything in the article is purely match reports or local newspapers. That's not the main problem, though. Three of the four "Keep" votes were from the author User:Nelly 1975 (whose work on this article were their first edits since January), another account User:FishyPhotos with very similar editing areas which coincidentally was also making its first edits since January, and User:JesperBlomqvist (again with similar editing areas) making their first edit for 18 months. Very, very dubious! Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh, good points. I sort of go back-and-forth on it; On the one hand, they're all dubious newbs. On the other, they do somewhat have a point in terms of coverage. Tell you what; shanghai an uninvolved admin, you have my blessing to have them re-close it, as it were. Otherwise we have to either wait 7 days for DRV or deal with me humming and hawing ;p. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same bad feeling as Black Kite on this AfD. But isn't Black Kite an "uninvolved admin" that could reclose or relist the discussion? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically I am (although I did close an AfD about a similar player, with the same editors involved) - but I thought I'd talk to the closing admin first in case there was something I'd missed. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only me feeling generally leery :). Feel free to jump in, or poke someone else to do the same. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than the hassle of DRV, shall I just list it again? Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was my initial suggestion. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've read your message. I apologize for the same. HARSHTALK 17:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey :),
Well, I think I should just edit mainspace articles instead of patrolling recent pages & I assure you that you or anyone else wouldn't have to warn me for incorrect tagging. And Thank you for being a little less stringent. HARSHTALK 11:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that James Heller (Prototype) isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but it looks like the source material was licensed as CC-BY-SA. So I am surprised to see it deleted as a a G12. Am I missing something?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an eejit :S. Alright, restored; I was thinking of the Uncyclopedia debacle where they'd transferred CC-BY-NC content to Wikia, causing problems; my brain blitzed and thought it was Wikia using -NC, not UP. Ironholds (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem (except for the one I just created, now I need to figure out a better reason for deletion). I learn something new about this maze we call copyright, and wondered if I was missing something. I didn't know about the Uncyclopedia debacle, so I've learned something, and will watch for that. To be fair, I haven't eliminated the possibility that the material was copied from some other place, but I think it will be easier to prod or AfD.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Alright, thanks for being so AGFy on this; I'll keep an eye out for future Wikia-to-Wiki occurrences :). Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for speedy deleting Jit pal singal. It has just been recreated by the same editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is User: Sadie Louise Kane. Sorry about my brother. He's a geek. He doesn't know about computers. He's too much like dad. Sorry about him...
--Sadie Louise Kane (talk) 6:00, 21 June 2012
Hi Ironholds. I uploaded the [[File:Nysubwaytrain.jpg]] to the Wikicommons, but it's now asking for the author and source even though I provided the information in the template. Could you double check? Thanks. -Cntras (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh; this is very odd. I'll ask someone with more image clue than me to chip in :). Ironholds (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears to be from flickr, not the US national archives - and appears to be all rights reserved. :S. So it's quite probably a copyvio, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looks like that guy was copyvioing from [www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/3769848494/ this!] That makes more sense. *searches around for an images guy*. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I should have linked the image directly to the Flickr page, rather than stating that it's from the US National Archives? I'm assuming it's alright now? -Cntras (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know :S. As said, I'm not really an images person - tried asking on Commons directly? Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... has now taken to posting his spam on his talkpage, since he can't do so anywhere else; care to do the necessary? Yunshui雲水 12:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agents of Secret Stuff (2010) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18:19, 22 June 2012 Ironholds (talk | contribs) deleted page Coral Cantigas (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://cantigas.org/chorus)
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia. Last week I created a page for Coral Cantigas, where I am both a singer and member of the board. The page was deleted without mercy nor giving me time to react. Kindly help me restore it and guide me to correct the offending sections. There is a full section of choirs in the Washingtin DC area, and this one is missing from the list. We thought appropriate to include it.
So, the first deletion tag; unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia was created to provide a neutral body of work, without biases or advertisements one way or the other. The language in the article was very clearly promotional; phrases like "Cantigas provides artistic excellence in creative programming; educational workshops; and bilingual, cross-cultural and collaborative performances to national and international audience" or "through the joyful and transformative power of music" are not neutral in nature, and have no place on Wikipedia. If you want to solve this one, you have to cut it down to just the bare facts.
On the copyright infringement front, the text was taken from this site. The fact that you are a board member doesn't really matter in copyright terms; the copyright is held either by the person who wrote that text or, if it was written as part of the organisation's work, the company/legal entity of Cantigas. Since Wikipedia is an openly licensed site, all content has to be openly licensed as well, ideally under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) 3.0 license. The licensor has to be the copyright holder; the suggested mechanism is to have the copyright holder follow the instructions here.
I must warn you that even if these problems are resolved, you will still need to provide a ouple of reliable, independent sources (coverage in newspapers, books, journal articles, that sort of thing) to verify that the organisation is "notable" and worthy of inclusion. I appreciate this sounds like a lot of work :). Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iron. My mentor BusterD mentioned you might live near Chapel Hill, NC and be a good candidate to participate in the 2012 North Carolina PR & Marketing Seminar to educate PR professionals on COI issues. This is me and more on me here. You can seem some of my COI works here, here and here. They invited me to speak on a session on Wikipedia ethics for marketing professionals. Are you local to the triangle and potentially interested in participating? User:King4057 01:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey :). I'm afraid that, while an adopted tar-heeler by convention and choice of drinkin' buddies, I actually live in the UK at the moment; terribly sorry :(. Ironholds (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aww - too bad. Tar-heeler? User:King4057 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
when I look at your nomination statement and answers at the moment, they come off as insincere
I think you are seriously misreading him. He's not being insincere at all. However, there may be some communication issues that make him stand out like a sore thumb, which frankly I quite prefer. In other words, he's not like everybody else. Read between the lines. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd should also point out that in that RfA so far there have been more than a few edits suggesting your comments were unfair, uncivil and even plain rude. I'm sure that's not the way you wanted to come across, and I know you were battered more than a few times at RfA, but it might be worth revisiting your comments. WormTT(talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my intention, but I've clarified somewhat. For reference, yes I was battered a few times - it's one of the reasons why I try and provide detailed opposes when I oppose that explain the problem. If you're aiming at wiki-PTSD, you're aiming wrong ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WtT, have you ever heard the phrase "the cure is worse than the disease"? If not, you might want to look it up. Your snark is showing. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was an attempt at humour. Honest! (Remember, I voted in exactly one of your RfAs... and I stand by the statement I made there.) WormTT(talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha; remember the rule about humour on the internet! Smilies and exclamation marks help! :P (dammit, now I have no grammatical elements left to indicate that I get the joke in using both elements in this sentence. Curses). Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my clever use of an elipsis was... too clever? !! :P WormTT(talk) 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's one of the elements used not for humour, but for....DRAMATIC EFFECT! *Wilhelm scream* *Wolf howling* Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ironholds.After a long time on Wikipedia, I am willing to request for admin.But, as I'm not sure so I want your advice.Could you please take a look and made a nomination for me at WP:RFA, if you find me eligible.Cheers. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 14:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments on the authority control proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful offer regarding access to articles about the Zong Massacre. I have access to all the articles in the Zong_Massacre#References and Zong_Massacre#Further reading sections of the article -- but if you've found any other sources, perhaps you could send me the references (just the author names and titles is fine) on here. If that's too much work, drop me an email and we can sort out sending the PDFs (a Dropbox link would be fine if you already use it). Celuici (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have gotten the reviewer right and am helping out at the feedback page. I often notice that people put inappropriate feedback (flag as abuse). I was wondering about your take possibly penalizing people who do this, as the main goal of this project (I think) is to get feedback on how we can improve the article, not to hear perverted comments. Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hey; this is probably a conversation my "official" account should be having :). TL;DR; those people should be penalised, sure. We've made sure that blocked users can't post feedback, so if the community wants to expand the blocking rules to cover feedback or WP:BOLDly start applying the existing ones, I think that'd be grand - although obviously I can't really participate in that !vote :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that it would be a good idea to start an RFC about blocking users who abuse the feedback button? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure if it's necessary; current policy, when talking about blocking, doesn't reference actions. So "personal attacks" or "disruption" are personal attacks or disruption if you're doing it through editors, or the move action, or presumably the AFT action. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider abusing AFTv5 to be a form of disruptive editing, even though you aren't actually editing anything. I asked you about possible blocks after someone posted racial slurs about Obama several times. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed; I would agree with your definition :). The existing policies seem to cover it, though. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I had noticed him. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be in your talk page history - (same user?). ⇒TAP 15:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TAP, I had noticed him from my talkpage history. When a massive orange bar pops up everywhere you look, you pay attention. For the same reason, could you please keep the questions and messages until after we have finished dealing with this? Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could he be a possible sock of the WMF imposter from yesterday who claimed to be your "friend and colleague"? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you restored the article once, I thought I'd bug you. Article was deleted again. I did a revert in the past ~12 hours, but I guess they got at it again. It has been speedied three times and the vandalism reverted a few times. They just re-created it as a talk page. I put a speedy on it without realizing. Could you restore the article and put on some protection. Eh, you are probably too busy putting some lasers on sharks to get to the article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JohnCD just got to it. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet; sorry for the absence :). I'm thinking SP. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, he got to that too! Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Seems to be a glut of speedy-deletable stuff today... Yunshui雲水 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Just promise not to get hired by the foundation, eh? ;p It cuts into your CSDing time like you wouldn't believe, and we need good taggers :). Ironholds (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had good taggers - at least according to the Foundation - and I suspect that's the reason why they appear to have declined to help out on finding solutions to address both the poor tagging and the huge number of deletable articles that arrive every day. The experienced volunteers who have been systematically monitoring the performance of NPPers for two years reached very different conclusions concerning the quality of the NPP process. Ironically, it is sort of refreshing to see the WMF now claiming that we need good taggers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, the Foundation is building both a new patrolling system and a system for dissuading editors from creating poor articles in advance. Personally, the vast majority of tagging I've seen has been of relatively high quality, although I'll admit that because it's just me going through and reviewing tags, this is subjective data that shouldn't be taken too seriously. If you have some more objective information I would love to see it. Ironholds (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of patrolling I have seen is of exceptionally poor quality. I assume this impression to be due to the fact that for the last 2 years I have been spending spend 4 - 5 hours a day at random time zones, checking every new page including the ones that patrollers have tagged, mis-tagged, and/or passed, rightly or wrongly, as acceptable for inclusion. And I'm not the only 'intensive patroller patroller' to have reached this conclusion.
The WMF has developed a truly excellent new tool for experienced patrollers, but I have yet to hear about a project that will improve the quality of tagging, i.e. encourage more experienced users to the task, and impress upon the very young, very new users for whom it is a magnet that Wikipedia is not their new video game. That said, I took a Wikibreak for a couple of months, so I may have missed it.
Also, if there is a project in the pipeline to improve our user retention (a loss often directly caused by inappropriate tagging) and to enhance the information we provide to newly registered users and first-time page creators, I would welcome a link - it's possibly also something I ostensibly missed during my short absence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we've clearly been looking at completely different pools of patrollers :). The "truly excellent new tool" (thank you!) contains more opportunities for oversight than the last one, which should help, and a focus on novice patrollers (for example, including clarification and further explanation in things like the deletion part of the toolbar). We were also going to include a deletion tutorial, which would act as a step-by-step guide that would walk the new patroller through what tag was most appropriate for their situation. Unfortunately, we've had to roll that back - we have to move on to other projects, particularly (cue segue) the Article Creation Workflow project (I'd hesitate to call anything at that URL set in stone; I know Brandon wants to take another stab at the design and methodology). Essentially we're left with a choice between including the wizard and pushing back or having to cancel other projects in the same realm, or attempt both and create the very likely risk that both will be implemented poorly (which is, in some ways, worse than not implementing them at all).
Other bits and pieces in the new interface that help with the retention problem is the inclusion of the research Steven and Maryana did on templates into the design of our warning messages. They put a lot of effort working out what decreased, increased or had no effect on whether warned users would fix the problems, leave or whathaveyou, and have been kind enough to help us work this data into template design. Hopefully this will, even before we've finished ACW, help the issue. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is veering very much towards work; I would suggest you continue the conversation with my work account :). Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted the article I have written. I perfectly disagree with it and having contributed to Wikipedia in the past, I now no longer will. Therefore, I would like to ask you to help me eradicate my I account as it is of no more use to me. However, this shall teach me a lesson ever to positively contribute to anything again ... Akolyth (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. Kudpung, if you have an issue with the deletion you are welcome to revert it or provide him with the text. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, would you care to expunge my account globally? I don't need it any longer as I won't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. I've already started cleaning up by deleting my user page as well as the talk page. Akolyth (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once created, accounts cannot be deleted. (technically they can, but Wikipedia does not do so).
@Ironholds. I find this very strange indeed. The WMF is constantly reminding us of the importance of keeping and recruiting users - especially content providers. What happens when/if the WMF is directly responsible for loosing some? Who do they answer to? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an example of the WMF being responsible for losing users? I'm not here as a staffer - I'm here as a member of the community, and as you do, answer to the community. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds. You've done a great job at alienating a contributor who had created 9 articles - some of which were adopted by WP:COMP. Just go ahead, fella, you'll really make Wikipedia a place of unreflected atrocities. You are indeed the parochial and malevolent fella which the Gestapo needs. Apply for it! VictorVautier (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry; I certainly didn't intend to drive that user away. But I would ask you to mind your tone - I'm sure you didn't mean your last comment to be as rude as it came out. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):::::::I believe that the roles of some staffers on certain WMF projects, and as a volunteer on community-driven issues, may be too close for comfort. I would expect WMF staff to completely disassociate themselves from staff vs volunteer areas where personal ideals, and WMF general policy may possibly be in conflict. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an example, please? Are you saying that as an editor I should never go anywhere near an area of the wiki that could involve new editors, because of my role on a team looking to improve the way editors are handled? This seems illogical; a sense of perspective on how the system currently functions is necessary to do my job, and can't be obtained merely as an observer. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note; I have now restored the article; mea culpa :). I did extend the offer to Kudpung above - evidently he's busy, and it seems silly to wait. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An automated Media Wikimail has reached me ... Now, I appreciate your demeanour. And I admit that I was sover-reacting. No hard feelings anymore ... If you could provide some guidance on how to rewrite the article, I should be happy to do some teamwork with you. As I could see, VictorVautier has already made a few changes, but I shall check and improve, nevertheless. Regards and respect, Akolyth (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I wasn't 100% sure if I should restore it or email it, so I asked for a second opinion that I didn't receive yet. It's now moot, but I'll help with advice to clean up the article if I can, if the original creator remains retired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I'd like to take you by your word. Irrespective of the quality of VictorVautier's changes, does the article already meet Wikipedia's criteria on copyrights? If not, I would like to ask you to give me an idea into which paragraphs I shall have a look. Akolyth (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a tool you can use to look for things that are directly the same; try this (it should bold any section that is present in both articles). There's a slightly wider issue with close paraphrasing, which can't be automatically detected - might I suggest you talk to User:Moonriddengirl? She's pretty much universally acknowledged as the expert on copyright in the community. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I will use the tool and I shall ask User:Moonriddengirl for guidance. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have been of assistance :). And apologies again! Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need to quit for today, but I will roll up sleeves again by tomorrow. Good night, Akolyth (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung asked me to take a look, so I left a fairly detailed comment at the article talk page about what I think needs to be done. And checking some of the other articles, i see some similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite busy this week which is why it has taken me until now to re-word the paragraphs in question. I have used the tool that you and DGG ( talk ) have recommended this and I think that the issue of paraphrasing should now be closed. There are still 8 matches left, but when one has a close look at their nature one will find out that they should be acceptable. Firstly, two are (alphebetical) enumerations which cannot seriously be considered as genuine work. Secondly, one should be aware that technical language very often makes use of compound words which the aforesaid tool considers duplications (e.g. transputer-based parallel system). Thirdly, it is customary to use terms power supply and cooling precisely in this order. I have no explanation for this. It might be because us engineers consider power and cooling as less fascinating (irrespective of the fact that thermodynamics is one of the hardest subjects at university). To sum up, I think that the question of close paraphrasing should be had another look into, and I would like to invite you to erase the tag "close paraphrasing". And as DGG ( talk ) was the nominator, I very much would like to learn about his views on the revision. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sir.May I ask you why it shows that my account is blocked? It shows your name and says that it is blocked because of personal Attacks.Whom did I attacked and what mistake I did? My account name is as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.180.58 (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sir. It was my account.but I forgot the password.So, I had no choice but to create a new account.Also sir, I have written the comments in hindi language.As per your name, I am sure that you don't have knowledge of that language and therefor you must have made a wrong interpretation of my comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.180.58 (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I know people who speak hindi and urdu. I doubt you switched because you forgot the password; I think you switched because I blocked your initial account. And yes, that comment was not in and of itself a personal attack - but it is quite clearly from the same guy who made the first comment, which is creepy and harassing as hell. "I've seen your house"? Really? Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I think you have to improve your Hindi.I asked if he was editing from house or school.not like "I've seen your house". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.180.58 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey vaibhav.It would be best..if we discuss this matter tomorrow at school.not on this website.I don't want to discuss this thing in public.OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.180.58 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for additional creepiness. Last warning; disengage, or I will block your IP as well, and keep blocking until you get the message. Ironholds (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sir.I am discussing with Vibhijain.I think that now this dispute will be ended by our chat at my inbox.So, After the discussion at my inbox is page is finished, then you may decide yourself.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.180.58 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my page sir.This user is attacking at me and deleting my comments.If you block me then it is your duty to also block him. 14.97.180.58 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Ironholds won't have to deal with that conundrum, since you've already been blocked (and talk page access removed) by someone else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, I'm paying attention to it - just spoke for 90 minutes, so a bit eeeeeh*collapse* right now. Ironholds (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working recently on this High Court judge's article; as you may know, his sentencing policy was basically "if I don't like you, you're going down". Despite his apparently stern attitude I came to have a grudging respect for the man's integrity, and it encouraged me to start a few other articles on senior legal figures, such as Wintringham Stable and Robin Dunn. Anyway, I know squit about the law, so it may well be that I've missed out a great chunk of the stuff on Melford Stevenson necessary for his article to cover the major topics for GA, so if you could spare a few moments to cast an eye over it and let me know what you think I'd be very grateful. MalleusFatuorum 00:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Sorry; reviewed it, then forgot to reply. It looks great! I particularly love the wide range of sourcing; a lot of the 'murrkun legal writers tend to just snarf primary sources and be done with it. Grr. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've not quite finished yet, still need to get my hands on one more source, but I hope the article does the man justice. MalleusFatuorum 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving this note with you as you blocked Heymister14. Heymister14 blanked the sockpuppet note on User:TheUserPageRecreator without giving an edit summary, so I reverted him w/ Huggle. He left this note on my talk: diff: "Can we please forget about this whole sock puppetry thing? ..." Should I blank it again, or tell him to leave it alone? Reply here, if you wish. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked him? His account appears block-free :S. Ironholds (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
. 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:Molwyn Joseph for things which need to be addressed. GoPTCN 08:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
; see Talk:Molwyn Joseph for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoPTCN 20:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
!! :P WormTT(talk) 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 12:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
