User talk:Ironholds/archive12

*waits*
*drum roll to build tension*

I can barely look. -- Ged UK  10:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ehh, well it is obviously going to fail. Still, things like the last-minute support from B-man certainly mean something, at least. Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i know, and you can look at a 2-1 support ratio, that's pretty good in any 'election'. -- Ged UK  10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

*cuddles* Awww too bad :P Hey, so what if you didnt get to mop the floors, you got featured on my page!!! Lucifer (Talk)  22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not John Oliver! I just look like him, act like him, got a letter read out on The Bugle, follow the daily show obsessively and met the man a couple of time- alright, so I might be :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * congrats on making wp:100, sorry it didn't work out this time.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ehh, tis fine. I'd rather pass in a year unanimously* than now under such a cloud. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * discounting all the "omgz too many RfAs" people

Request for adminship
On this occasion, your request for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, the majority of editors commenting did support you becoming an administrator, and I considered that it was not far from the level of consensus required to succeed. Warofdreams talk 11:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As the RfA was close to consensus and may prove controversial, I have added a brief explanation of my reasoning in closing it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3. Warofdreams talk 11:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well. Next time you'll have it if you can be a bit more civil between then and now! -- Ged UK  11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  :P Oh well, better luck next time, IH! &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate :). Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. BTW, I'll have a surprise for you in a few hours. :) &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee Ironholds, I'd say you are Dylan's next "Wikipedian of the Day"! Congratulations in advance. :D  iMatthew //  talk  // 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * iMatthew, are you psychic?! :P &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
Sorry for not coming back and giving a more full supporting rationale, I've been a little busy for a little while. Needless to say, I had mixed feelings about that RfA. You garnered an impressive amount of support (despite the closing crat's comments) and you faced a good bit of silly opposes. Most unfortunately, your RfA probably failed for the exact same reason your last one did. Someone made an early and persuasive sounding oppose with a diff that a dozen or so people grabbed on to and used to rationalize an oppose. That has to be pretty frustrating (along with the RfA itself). Take care and come back in 6-9 months. With enough time on the pond opposes grounded in 1-2 offhand remarks look sillier and sillier (more and more silly? Who knows, I'm less a content writer than job security for the copywriters guild).

I have no doubt that you are adult enough to draw your own conclusions from that RfA, generate some lessons learned and improve yourself based on the constructive feedback left there, so I'll spare you the banal list of placed to avoid or frequent. I do, however, want to remind you that there are folks here who appreciate your work and enjoy having you around. It is hard to see that because those folks quietly supported--the noisy opposes are much more salient. Take care and don't forget to enjoy yourself. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). The level of support was to me, incredible, and some really meant a lot; yours, for example, Balloonman's (or whatever name he is now going by) last-minute thing, Acalamari who was the "early and persuasive oppose" last time, so on. It is rather unfortunate that people jumped on that, but to look at it optimistically if that and the "too many RfAs" issue were the only things they could find to jump on it does kind of indicate I'm moving in the right direction. Glass half full rather than half empty, sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!. iMatthew was correct, this was the surprise I was planning to give you. :) Even though your RfA failed mere hours ago, I still endorse everything Daniel said when he nominated you, and I firmly believe you would make a great admin. You have always struck me as a helpful, experienced, and intelligent user who is a fantastic net asset to the English Wikipedia. As such, I hereby declare that 24 March, 2009, is your day. Extra congratulations on WP:100! :D &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A nice nom, WP:100, a support from Balloonman (or whatever he calls himself) and this. Wasn't a pointless exercise after all! Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

About an SD request per A9, non-administrator closed by you
Yes, I read carefully the A9 criterion and indeed Epilepsy Is Dancing did not meet it. I noticed after putting the tag. I left it because I wanted an admin to confirm that it didn't. I do thing the A9 criteria is very lenient though. I will not AfD the matter, as I just casually picked the article up in the new editors contribs. Thanks --Legion fi (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Military campaigns under Caliph Uthman
Hi, actually the section Military expansion of Caliph Uthman's article was too long, and therefore i decided to make a main article by the name Military campaigns under Caliph Uthman. I have copied all what was under the heading military expansion in Uthman's article to the new articleMilitary campaigns under Caliph Uthman, and i am going to format what i have copied to new article, from Uthman's article. hope you will understand what i am upto. regards Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, fair enough. For future reference it is best to make some kind of heading beforehand, and you do now need to cut down and remove the relevant section in the article on the Caliph. I have removed the prod tag and also added a reference section for you. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Meanwood redirects
Thanks for picking those up... just a couple of "senior moments" while trying to sort out a bit of a mess involving copyvios etc. PamD (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, that is fine. Everyone gets forgetful moments like that; mine always seem to be when I correct typographic errors in articles I write. I always seem to spell the edit summary as "eror" or something, kind of a foot-in-mouth moment. If you need any help with things like copyvios in future give me a poke; I might not know much about copyright law but rewrites are my thingIronholds (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ghoshes of Kolkata (has been moved twice!)
Hallo again! You said on the editor's talk page that you were speedying this ... did you change your mind, or just miss it? PamD (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me the heads up! No, he recreated it for a third time and doesn't seem to have got the hints from the last two deletions. We're even for the senior moments thing, then :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield
The article William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, 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:William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield for things needed to be addressed. Ray Talk 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Bit overzealous, I'm afraid - I'll try and slow up a bit. (No worries, by the way; I'm at a letter break, and I have a little cleanup to do yet.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should you apologise for enchancing wikipedia's coverage? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, shucks, thanks. *blush* I do a lot of hole-filling; it's fun and informative. As to the quick response, apparently I'm quick on the draw in more ways than one; my coworkers marvel at the fact that I type as quickly as I do. Strange talent, I suppose...


 * Anyhow - it's going to be long going with those moths. With luck I'll be done sometime tomorrow. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I surely will. I think they're going to be staying like this, though, for a while.  To be honest I'm helping a couple of other folks out with the stubbing - they've been doing it manually, so I offered to do it this way and save some time and effort.  I'm not entirely sure what they want right now; I think they'll be leaving the stubs as is for a while, until some more genus lists are filled in.  I'll be sure and pass the word along, though.


 * Anyhow - I think I'll shoot for filling in "C", and maybe "D", before I head off for a bit. I'll try and slow 'em down, though. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. But you'd be surprised at the arguments I've gotten into on the subject. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here? Not so much with these.  But take a look at List of Lithuanian painters, or List of Swiss painters.  All filled out pretty much in the same fashion - User:Dr. Blofeld did them.  Basically, he started a variant of the old translation Wikiproject; basically create stubs with a tag asking that they be expanded and translated from what's available in another language.  Personally, I think it's a great idea; there's a ton of content on other Wikis which could be transferred over.  And a lot of it can help fill in some redlinks.  But there were a lot of complaints; people said that stubs like that basically pollute the encyclopedia.  And one of the arguments was that it is preferable to have redlinks, which I don't agree with in the least.  I find that redlinks frighten the casual user; giving him something to build upon, like from a foreign language, is much more welcoming. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...I'll grant you that he's harsher in his response than I would be. And as to the second part, he and I are making an effort to put a little more than a line of text in for starters.  Thing is, in the process I've encountered people who seem to think that anything short of a paragraph isn't good enough.  And I don't agree with that - mainly because I've seen a lot of good work go into some of those two- and three-line stubs to turn them into something far better. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I do not - all I know of is that link to the Natural History Museum database in the reference section, and it's frustratingly useless in some ways. (Not the only one, I fear - there are some online databases that remain annoyingly thin in the amount of information they provide.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. For that, you win a prize!

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
 * Looks very nice. I'm about 200 away from finishing up the C's.  I swear, it never ceases to amaze me how many species there are out there.  To me, a moth is a moth is a nuisance.  Makes me glad I majored in art history... --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought they were made by people who don't know what they're talking about.


 * Oh, wait... - never mind, sorry. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I tell my friends, who can't fathom that it does work. Although I must confess, it's something great to put on my resume.  "Oh, I created an entire encyclopedia's worth of articles on anonymous medieval European artists, complete with references.  And then I saved three more articles from deletion.  What have you done to further mankind's knowledge of the world this week?"  Not that I'm gloating, no... --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He hasn't done much. He is just one of those people who criticise. Most of his contributions are in project and talk page space.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I use it all the time. I have to deal with airports and people's places of birth a lot - and the airports are given to me with their three-letter code.  Wikipedia allows me to check them all against what I've got to make sure I have things straight.  Helps with keeping airlines straight, too.  And I've wowed my relatives with the article I wrote on my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's house. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote about both my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and one of his exploits, in addition to his house. I also have, apparently, a distant cousin with an article, though I know nothing about our relationship.

Thanks for that link, by the way - it'll be most helpful in expanding some things. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, "C" is done, and so am I, for the moment. I don't think I'll ever view moths the same way again.  Thanks again for all your help! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply offended by your comments, So much so that editors like yourself are forcing me away from wikipedia when they think I add no real content to the project. I spend hours of my time adding content and references to existing articles and trying to improve existing content. It is clear that people like yourself have no idea what I actually do on wikipedia, you always pass me off as creating useless stubs. I am also deeply offended by your unjust comments that I don't talk to other editors. The response to my rather short Lithuanian painter articles prompted me to add more to my initial articles I'm transwikying. I have trasnwikikied hundreds of articles with good initial content. Yet all shallow editors like you do is criticise. I "sub stubbed" the genus articles however because of the sheer content missing. My time is clearly being wasted helping a project which never shows me an ounce of respect in return for my efforts except for a few who actually get what I do. What you are too shallow-minded to see is actually I expand a lot of the articles I create later or somebody else collaborates. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I therefore find your offensive comments that I only create articles with no content a VERY misguided claim. I find it very hurtful that you regard me in such a low way. Its not surprising you;ve failed RFA 3 times, many others have left the same feeling "Conduct towards other users is a bit too disrespectful". Pretty good summary. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 09:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And why shouldn't I create stubs that can be expanded in minutes by anybody? How do you think wikipedia has developed articles on Xinjiang Medical University and Fishing in the Maldives etc if it wasn't for editors like me. I've been more productive in terms of content on wikipedia than you have ever been. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that all you did was create such stubs; I know you've written a lot of useful articles. In my experience you aren't big on contact with other users; the few times I've spoken to you I've been brushed off. There is no reason to make little snide remarks like "its not suprising you've failed RfA 3 times"; I'd suggest that you calm down. Your reaction is incredibly over-the-top when you look at what I actually said, and some of your comments are referencing things I never actually said. Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'd agree with the comments about Blofeld's work in that he creates masses of near-useless stubs and refuses to talk to anyone who disagrees with him" is hardly the mostl civil of comments is it? It was equally completely unneccessary of you to say them. I have no idea why you got that impression because I am generally very helpful towards other editors and enjoy discussin things with them. What you don't see is how a lot of my discussions with other users are very positive and encouraging like this and a lot of my work is expanding existing sub stubs like An Phú District and creating hundreds of maps in the commons and making flickr agreements to greatly improve the quality of some of our articles.

From what I recall I could have sworn I gave you consdierable encouragement to improve our law articles on here, perhaps I'm getting you mixed up with someone else. If people are polite towards me and kindly ask we to add something or alter something I will gladly accept. If however I feel that the editor is criticising me as an editor who is basically not helping to expand the content of wikipedia or visits my talk page in an unfriendly fahsion saying things like we don't want these stubs etc or bad mouthing me at ANI I get very offended as I have done here. There just seemd a distinct lack of respect for any work I do on here which is always intended to be working towards expanding the encyclopedia in the long term. If you sum up the entirety of my edits I've had a massive influence on our current content on wikipedia, even many stubs I created in the past are now developing. Sure I create a lot of stubs some of them initially too short I know this but when you are working towards something on the scale I'm working on then initial quality is often compromised given the limitied time I have to edit things. I don't think I should have created those Swiss and Lithuanian painters like that, it is best to add at least a little, I acknoledged that that wasn't the best way to create them and all of the articles I've created on translated things since have been much fuller. Even as it is sure there are a lot of lacking articles we have now but the first person who comes across the article is free to expand it. If you see any initial stub I create in terms of a future perspective rather than its present state then you'll understand more of why I create such articles. I have no ill feelings against you and I don't know why you had to say those things about me. If you ask me nicely to do something I'll be more than willing to talk and cooperate. If however people talk behind my back and bad mouth me at ANI and on talk pages etc that I am "spamming" or create useless junk then I get understandably annoyed. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never complained about you at your talkpage, ANI and so on; please don't tar me with the same brush as the rest. I don't need another essay about how your contributions are useful; I know they are, I just have doubts about how useful the sub-stub work is. As mentioned, I don't want to get into an argument over something like this, so lets just both calm a bit. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I can satisfactorily perform the tasks required of a coordinator for the next six months. – Joe   N  01:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

question
Why's it vandalism? I haven't got any answers from Dayewalker. On www.kenbruen.com it says, "They're about to start filming London Boulevard...Oscar winner William Monahan (screenwriter of The Departed) to write & direct. Colin Farrel and Keira Knightley to star!! "

( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )
 * Because you are an obvious sock? Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mac Mac
Many thanks for the appreciation. Discovering the rich lives of these Victorian politicans is very rewarding. I note another editor is following me down the 1885 list and picking up my lower priority MPs so hopefully we will get the whole lot done soon. Regards Motmit (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - I don't have acces to DNB, so any contribs would be welcome. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just added Stanley Leighton who is probably even more interesting. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:OUTING
Hi Ironholds,

I have responded to your reply on WP:AN/I. WP:OUTING is rather straightforward regarding previous knowledge of user information:
 * It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found.

Or am I interpreting this the wrong way?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 30.03.2009 12:12
 * Yes, but I'd say this was an exception; "old identifying marks" isn't the issue, rather that your name was made available through the username change and usurpation logs. Acting in the same way is a different thing from clear diffs of "user X is user Y". Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get your last point... So since I requested a change in username, I do not fall in the category of "editors who have requested a change in username"? Could you please explain this a bit more clearly?
 * Cheers and thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 30.03.2009 12:18
 * That the logs created by the change of your username made your name clear to anyone who cared to take a glance, and that since the information was made readily available (by you) WP:OUTING doesn't apply. Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I specifically asked to get my user pages scrubbed (here). The fact that my old username remained on administrative pages was beyond my control -- or how should I have proceeded then, or should proceed now to get that scrubbed too? In any case, isn't that what "old identifying marks" refers to anyway?
 * Cheers and thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 30.03.2009 12:29
 * Ahh, I see your point; ignore my earlier comments then, heh. No, old identifying marks refer to a particular style of editing. If you ever ran into say, Kurt Weber you'd know that certain users have very...distinctive styles, and it would be almost immediately noticed if they returned. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this still doesn't solve my problem. I deleted all the traces that I could because I wanted them deleted. The only references that remain are those that I could not delete myself (or anybody could see from my edit history where I came from). The editor who posted my original user/real name knew all this and posted it anyway. And how is this supposed to protect people who want to vanish? What is then the purpose of the quoted part of WP:OUTING?
 * Cheers, pedrito  - talk  - 30.03.2009 12:47
 * It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found.; it protects users who have changed their name but use an editing style so distinctive anyone can still tell who they are. I'd say after thinking about it you probably are covered by WP:OUTING, but that bit doesn't really apply. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And what makes these editors more worthy of protection than those who's old user/real name has been found out by other means than writing style? You also still have not told me how I should have scrubbed this information... And how am I covered, but the policy doesn't apply?
 * Cheers, <font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.03.2009 13:05
 * No, that particular section doesn't apply; the rest does. And they aren't more worthy; the policy is designed to protect all users. The only real exception is if a user has publicly posted their name/whatever information is being revealed. Also, please don't add an extra :::::: bit just to sign your name; it creates unneeded lines. Simply signing at the end of your post is enough. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

$$\leftarrow$$ Ok, we're going in circles here... I have two distinct questions: Cheers and many thanks for your patience, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.03.2009 13:20
 * If the policy is designed to protect all users, including "editors who have changed their names", why doesn't it apply to me? What is the point of the quoted phrase in WP:OUTING for then?
 * How should I have gone about removing all traces of my old name on Wikipedia, to make me eligible for protection from WP:OUTING?
 * 1) I said above that it should protect you.
 * You did as much as you could. I never quoted that phrase, you did; I've tried to explain what it is for. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I just noticed now that you're not an admin, so I guess that explains why there's no oversight or sanctions happening... Would you mind posting a correction/extension to the thread at WP:AN/I so that the admins don't think it's been dealt with? Anyway, thanks for your help! Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.03.2009 13:41
 * Just saw your correction -- thanks! <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.03.2009 14:14

Talkback
- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Great tagging work, btw. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing your organization design,
Hey, I was wondering if I could borrow your organization design on your user page. Basically just the

Talk | Awards | Contributions | Created Pages | DYK's | Sandbox | Sandbox 2 | Sandbox 3

part. Of course I probably won't use all of those sections.

Let me know if it's okay. Thanks Dunnsworth (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, absolutely fine. Add a "nicked from user:x" bit if you want, or don't, I don't mind. Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Duck, You Sucker!
I have moved this article back to its original location; to leave it where it is is a violation of the copyright license used on Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you figure that? --NEMT (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the GDFL requires that people be given credit for that work; on Wikipedia that is done through page histories. Your move was simply a cut and paste, which did not copy the page history across. If you want to move the page I would advise asking an admin to actually move the page, history and all, instead of just copying the text and redirecting the old title. I would point out, however, the policy at WP:MOSTCOMMON. That version of the film is most commonly known as "a fistful of dynamite"; as such it should stay at that title. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you can move it, I didn't know the move function was open to non-admins. While your dead policy link is compelling, the fact remains A Fistful of Dynamite is not the most common title, and a clear consensus had been reached on the talk page regarding the move nearly a year ago.  --NEMT (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be sarcastic. The move function has always been open to non-admins (see the little "move" button next to "history?" that one) but since you've created redirects and whatnot an admin is now needed. WP:COMMONAME is what I meant to link to. "Consensus" was three people, and as you said about a year ago. fansites, rotten tomatoes and so on seem to consider the US film to be titled "A Fistful of Dynamite" whatever the translation of the original would be. Ironholds (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB and the English language DVD releases of the film disagree with the fansites and RT. Regardless of what an aggregator of critics from ilikemovies.be and whatnot claims I think the more traditional sources should be deferred to. --NEMT (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would recommend that you seek a more up-to-date consensus to lessen the chances of further discussions like this; as you say, the consensus in question is over a year old. Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this: Talk:A_Fistful_of_Dynamite
 * Yup, saw it. I'll not comment (involved party in the dispute that started it and all that) but I'll be interested to see what happens. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tis the season of randomness
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Jenuk1985 |  Talk  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DJ BCA
thanks for deleting all my work again. after having a bunch of admins say the page was fine and actually say i did good work the first time around and then to wake up and find this out? again for the 19th time, THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT. IT IS AN INFORMATION BIO. I've already written my response about wikipedia, and done with your service. I got deleted for myspace links too. Why is it that every other DJ has their myspace link and has similar articles as the one I wrote. I happen to work for company who is thankfully going to let me write about this wikipedia experience. So thank you..really. 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Music27 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry? The closest admins have come to saying it is fine is tagging it with tags indicating that it is full of peacock words. I didn't delete it, an admin did, which would seem to indicate opinion is split on the matter. I hope you enjoy reporting back to your company; we have a very short fuse for people writing articles for advertising purposes, as you have obviously done. Writing a biography laden with peacock words about somebody you work for.. and you are saying it isn't an ad? Ironholds (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Wikipedia is not your "service". <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) (review) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
More information - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Badpuppy: Problem solved. He just posted on the article talk page "Hello, I'm the owner of Badpuppy site". That plus the promotional tone plus the attempt to come off as a disinterested reviewer earned him a quick db-spam. I'll go discuss on his talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Page Marked for Deletion
This is in reference to Long Tail Magic, a page you decided to mark for deletion. Long Tail Magic is a product similar to Google Analytics, and other web analytics products used by internet marketers to be aware of where their traffic is coming from and a lot of other information that helps them do better business. Sure, it is not developed by a company like Google but it does have a standing in the industry. I am sure you have your reasons for marking it for deletion, but I strongly feel that it is an entity in itself and should be listed on a global resource like Wikipedia. Now, my question is what do you want me to do, so it meets the expectations of the audience. I have explained the product and its functionality very specifically. Any help on this will be greatly appreciated.

Blokhra (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to provide evidence that the software is notable; evidence of any awards won, references by third parties, so on. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Alteration
I archived the thread, so do not touch my own comment. I left your comment intact.--Caspian blue 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
... for illuminating my ignorance and correcting my edit to the article on Lord Denning. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no need for that; I learn new things every day :). It is my fault it ever came up; I was sure I'd bluelinked it before, but I must have missed it. Thanks for the work you are doing on the article, anyway; I assume it is in response to my peer review request? Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy: Judee K Burgoon
Hello, I have removed your speedy deletion tag, as I do not consider the article blatantly promotional. In its current form, I do not even consider it a candidate for WP:PROD, but your opinion is appreciated. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy: Sanaya Irani
Hello again, I had to remove another one of your speedy taggings. This article has a credible claim of significance, and therefore does not meet WP:CSD A7. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy: Rati Pandey
Hi, sorry to bother you again, but I have removed another one of your speedies, for pretty much the same reasons as Sanaya Irani. May I politely suggest that you use WP:CSD A7 a little more judiciously in the future? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:AccessInt
I'll have to remember "while your dead link is compelling", but that's not why I'm here, I'm here to learn something. My feeling is that when the username is the same as the company name, and the article about the company is more or less a list of stuff the company has done, and I can't determine notability from given links or a quick search, then I'm happy to go ahead and db-spam it and uw-spamublock the account. On the other hand, when it's a guy talking about the family business he's run for over 20 years that does give the appearance of having produced good stuff, I'm inclined to compensate by leaving a nice note and trying to hook them up with other editors who might assist them. What I think I gain from db-spam as opposed to db-inc is that it goes better with uw-spamublock, and it saves me an argument later over exactly how notable the company was; a list of products is just as promotional for a company as an uploaded resume would be for a person, so that lets me bypass the more difficult db-inc arguments. That's my thinking at the moment, but I notice you're tagging some of these things as db-inc, and if you really prefer that, I'll try to evaluate them as db-inc's instead of just deleting as db-spam. (Watchlisting, even though your talk page breaks my watchlist. So respond, dammit!) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. On another subject entirely, I just noticed "I'd rather pass in a year" above ... surely you don't need to wait that long. Are RFA voters really such troglodytes? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea, but I figure if there are any issues maybe a year is enough to get them out of my system. The problem with speedy tagging is that different admins have different standards; NawlinWiki is an IAR kind of guy, some admins wouldn't consider a list of products to be spam, so on. I think I'll stick with db-inc just because it is a safer bet, and if things go badly.. well, AfD exists for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned WP:ER in the current bottom thread at WT:RFA ... you know, this is another reason to have RFA-regulars (or people who think they're regulars ... everyone is a regular on their own list, I suppose) hang out at WP:ER, so that people don't have to take wild guesses about when to return. I'm starting to get passionate about this, but I really want to get some CSD issues straight first.  As you say, db-spam criteria vary; and that's not good at RFA, where candidates can learn how to do things by following one admin and then find out at RFA that they're failing because they didn't learn it "right".  That's just wrong.  Back to my question: even if you've tagged something db-inc, do you have any objection if it looks like spam to me and I want to delete per db-spam instead? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, sorry, I misunderstood; normally I'm a follow-the-rules-to-the-letter kind of bloke, but if an article (in your mind) fulfills both criteria then there is no reason to be picky for my sake. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
From a transplanted barrister to a future barrister - nice to meet you! – ukexpat (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Although your Oxford background is a bit more prestigious than my own :). Do you write much about law? English law projects on Wikipedia are horribly understaffed. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete tag query
Hi there - you tagged Environmental monitoring for speedy delete. The creator - User:Velela has written "(start of a layout for the article)" in the edit summary when it was created. In those circumstances, is it appropriate to speedy tag? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that. I'll remove the tag and watchlist it, tagging it again if nothing happens within a few days. Cheers, Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bassolini" nonsense
Hi. Normally, I wouldn't do an end run around a proposed deletion, but I'd deleted that same bit of nonsense a few minutes prior to its reappearance. Thanks for caring enough to tag it as the nonsense it was. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; I figured from your deletion that you'd probably done an IAR on it. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equation for happiness :)
User:  +      =

Happy April Fools Day :) Steve Crossin : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 03:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA seriousness
Hi Ironholds,

it looks as if you are trying to improve your self, and I commend you on that. I should have answered on the request page at the time, but by the time I got to look, the request was already closed.

So the reasoning was that instead of answering the questions directly, you have a bit of fun to go with them, extracted below: 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Ohh, where to start! There was the Nobel Peace Prize, the Gabor Medal, the- oh, Wikipedia work?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't really think of anything in the last.. well, lots really

It sounds as if you were being playful, or slightly tricky in the asnwer. I think that an administrator should be serious. Pranks and misleading explanations should be avoided by administrators. Since you are giving a bit of an example of how you work when you answer the questions, I would think it would show how you would perform your work. Good luck with Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4 ! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I didn't intend it to come out that way, but I guess I should have put some extra thought into it. Thanks for the speedy response. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)