User talk:Ironholds/archive15

That package
Hey man, it finally got through Royal Mail's infernal delivery system and turned up, so thanks. I'll see you on IRC and we can chat more - I should be in London in time for the June 14 meetup if you'll be there. Skinny87 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Regarding your edit summary...
We could have a long wikilawyerish debate about whether WP:IAR in fact applies to AfDs or not, and I'm not particularly attached to the 1911 point, though I tend to think there's a certain inherent notability about being part of a legislature with true power.

Regardless of all of that, I still tend to think (as I'm sure you know) that's it's instruction creep to write in this exception. I'd remind you of the following bits of WP:BIO.
 * "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" (emphasis mine). Note that it says "generally" not "automatically". The guideline is designed to handle special cases as just that.
 * And I'd suggest you take another look at the section on people who fail the general criteria but satisfy the specific criteria: "If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context." If I'm reading your suggestions correctly, then what you are suggesting is that articles on peers who fail the GNG should be merged into the article on the peerage. In other words, doing exactly what the policy already provides for.

In short, I will re-state my position that the policies and guidelines already in place provide a mechanism for dealing with this without having to start tacking footnotes onto our guidelines. As they say keep it simple stupid. Cool3 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make a proposal myself.Max Mux (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Principal vs. Principle
Just curious why you said "Principle" a couple times at WP:ANI? I was referring to Principal (school). Wknight94 talk  20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, a school's principles might be good info to include =) –xenotalk 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Ironholds's Day!

 * Thanks! :) Ironholds (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

thepeerage.com
I've seen that you have been instructing our mutual friend User:Max Mux not to use thepeerage.com as a source. I don't agree with you here. You're correct that it is self-published. However, it is extremely well-referenced using respectable sources such as Burke's and Cokayne. The material is also very uncontroversial, as it mainly consists of information on offices held, marriages et cetera. If we're not allowed to use self-publicized sources than we would also have to exclude leighrayment.com, which would result in us having to remove information from thousands of articles on peers, baronets, MPs, lists of MP, and so on. And the same goes for thepeerage.com, which has been used as a source in thousands of articles. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, and it is unfortunate. However, the policy on RSs and verifiability is quite clear at WP:SPS, particularly "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that is a very strict guideline. I think thepeerage.com may be seen as an exception as it is so well referenced. Rayment's phenomenal website (it really deserves some kind of reward) isn't so well sourced but if Hansard can use it as a source so can Wikipedia. I've been using these two websites on Wikipedia for over three years now and no-one's objected. If I'm forced to stop using them I'm afraid that's the virtual end of my Wikipedia career! By the way, well-done in keeping your cool when discussing things with User:Max Mux. He has now managed to create two articles on Frederick Ponsonby, 4th Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede/Frederick Ponsonby, Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede without noticing... Bibliomaniac15's award above is well-deserved. Tryde (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have heard, on the contrary, that Rayment has given permission for his work to be used on Wikipedia. I don't take very much part in Wikipedia politics or its administrative side, so I don't think I'll raise this point at Reliable Sources noticeboard. I am very surprised that questions over the reliability of these two websites have not been raised to me before. Anyway, if the point is brought forward we should probably claim fait accompli as these two sources have been used for so long! I will continue adding non-controversial information from rayment and thepeerage.com.


 * I was also surprised at your broadside against the British peerage system (in a comment to MaxMux). I thought you, like me, had this irrational fascination with peerage titles. Surely people in the UK care about it and surely it's not dying out (I am not UK-based, by the way). The Cash for Honours scandal shows that there are many people who are willing to pay a lot of money for the privilege of being called a lord! I thought it was also considered nice to have a lord as directors of companies to add a little bit of prestige. But their importance in national politics has certainly declined and is sure to decline further after the House of Lords Act of 1999 (I have noticed that even in the 1980's and 1990's a lot of hereditary peers held office in the Conservative administrations then in office - that would be impossible in the future). But what you're basically saying is that the people in the UK has gone from "Everone loves a lord" to "Nobody cares about a lord"!
 * My point wasn't that lords don't matter, but more that having a hereditary title doesn't make one "in the public eye". Neither do life peerages - the acts that get one a life peerage are the things that make someone notable. I have a fascination with the peerages system, and I'd like a peerage in the future myself, but I don't like the idea of hereditary peers being considered "better" people than us mere plebs. My argument is based solely on hereditary peers, so hereditary peers are dying out, hereditary peers are unimportant, I disagree with hereditary peerages, etc. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I'm talking to the future Lord Ironholds! Tryde (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Baron, I hope :P? Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But you can't do the one because of the other!Max Mux (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is not logical!Max Mux (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say what is and is not logical? ?Oh and i didn't wikihound you like you have me before... I noticed this reading through Irons talkpage--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Those articles Max Mux made
Do we really need all of them?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Don't try to trick me behind my back!Max Mux (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Max... how did you know i made this comment? as for, say ,the barons ect. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the almighty, I'm god, no I'm Chuck Norris. I know everything. PS: Just kidding.Max Mux (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jakezing: well if they pass the notability criteria, yes. And don't be stupid max - everyone knows god is Chuck Norris :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we sure they pass the notability criteria? Also, god can't be chuck norris, god isn't cool enoigh. plus, you see: Chuck Norris went back in time one day and created god so god could create chuck norris when the time was right--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at all of them, and the ones I feel iffily on have been sent to AfD. Yes, I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have done so again?Max Mux (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the ones I've already sent. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maxm, shut up, your opinion on them is moot as your the article creator--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude. The opinion of article creators never is and never will be moot. In an AfD discussion it might be discounted, certainly, but that doesn't mean that it is worthless elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior
I don't like it when you delete what I write! Please stop!Max Mux (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, you seem to be confused. Shiny Sparkly Lovely Unicorn Wiki is over thataway. We don't keep things because the user gets unhappy if we delete them - things need to conform to our guidelines and policies. If they don't, I'll tag them for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured he'd learned the lesson about talk pages earlier--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked you some times, Jazeking, whats your problem with me?Max Mux (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ass kissing
Hey Iron. Regarding Swabian salute AfD, what about the solution of just moving the article to the name suggested by S&M? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to keep things exciting for you! So would the article be moved to kiss my ass, ass kissing or  schwäbischer Gruß? What exactly does Schwabischer GruB mean? I was under the impression it was a related euphemism but not directly translatable as pecking cheeks. I'm quite surprised ass kissing isn't already an article. Clearly it's notable... Anyway, enough fun. But I agree now that I looked that there isn't much indication of swabian salute being the right title. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... The term schwäbischer Gruß translates (according to Google) as "Swabian greeting". I could see a merge if there were an article on the *cough* the broader subject involved, but I'm looping around to my original position that it's notable. I find it all very confusing really. Or maybe we should put it at kiss my ass and see what happens? I should ask S Marshall. He's a smart sort of guy for resolving these kinds of things. Leck mich ass would, I think, need to be translated to an English language title, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

caselaw infobox
Hi Ironholds, I was thinking of taking a crack at the caselaw template, and before I start, I'm wondering if you've already corresponded with MZMcBride, since he's the maker of the Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case? thx Agradman (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sally Lilienthal portrait 2.png
This image is on Commons, you'll need to nominate it for deletion there if you have an issue with it. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell
I might be miscounting, but excluding the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author this comes out as 7 deletes and 4 keeps - that doesn't read as "no consensus" to me. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I exclude the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author? In any case, I could equally exclude Phoes !vote as WP:JNN or Tryde's as WP:PERNOM. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Per nom: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'". You can throw Phoe's out, certainly, but by that logic you'd have to throw Max Mux's out with it, see the last line "Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." That'd still leave it, including the page creator and AfD nominator... 7 deletes and 4 keeps. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can find a solid consensus to delete on this one. Feel free to DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Verney
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * I have added another comment.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Something to work towards
I think I mentioned Stand in the Schoolhouse Door as a candidate for TAR in an off-wiki conversation, but I just noticed George Wallace appeared on Selected anniversaries/June 11 from 2004-2008 when there was no article about the schoolhouse door. He was only recently removed and didn't appear in 2009. A very convincing case for today's featured article next year if we get either featured. Recognizance (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whenever all the team slots are filled I guess. Dunno what your library access to books on Wallace is like, but the two bios I listed in the bibliography section are supposed to be the best. How did you make that notice for your talk page? (The one that appears when I'm editing it.) Recognizance (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll probably copy yours I copied part of User:J.delanoy's. Do local libraries in the UK do inter-library loan programmes? In the US I have access to the libraries of half the major unis in the country at both the city and county level, on top of normal uni access and ILL privileges. Recognizance (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I left you a note off-wiki but you disappeared. I'll hit you up later. :) Recognizance (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, Paying attention to what you're copying is a good idea. Recognizance (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Your law edits
Contract law is definitely an area in need of work, though tort law is severely lacking too. I'm probably going to continue with frustration and then misrepresentation for contract. This brings me onto a question: would it be a good idea to have a WikiProject for English common law? Guidelines and style formatting (as well as areas in need of work) are sorely lacking. RichsLaw (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought that may be the case. Are you a law student also then?  I thought tort was always covered in the first year! RichsLaw (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Mail Case
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

MacMux
Hello. How do we tackle the last batch of articles created by this user? Should they be nominated for deletion or should I just be bold and redirect them to the article on the peerage they held? The articles I have identified are:


 * David Davies, 2nd Baron Davies
 * David Davies, 3rd Baron Davies
 * Ailwyn Fellowes, 3rd Baron de Ramsey
 * Brian Henry Mulholland, 6th Baron Dunleath
 * Victor Brougham, 4th Baron Brougham and Vaux
 * Frederick Wills, 2nd Baron Dulverton (known as Anthony Wills) - may be notable - regular contributor in the House of Lords
 * Allan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness (contains one sentence in German)
 * George Crichton, 1st Earl of Caithness - probably notable as the recipient of an earldom
 * John Sinclair, 3rd Earl of Caithness
 * Richard Dunning, 2nd Baron Ashburton
 * Francis Denzil Edward Baring, 5th Baron Ashburton

He has also managed to move this article to an inappropriate article title - it can now only be moved back to it's proper title by an administrator.


 * Rupert Bertram Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale and Baron Mitford

MaxMux is currently blocked. Do you think it is possible to have a topic ban imposed on him, forbidding him from creating articles on peers. This is unfortunately taking up a lot my time here, so that would be useful. Tryde (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't move the article on Lord Redesdale, he created a new one with this article title yesterday. So we now have Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale (correct article name), created by MaxMux on 3 June, and Rupert Bertram Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale and Baron Mitford, created by MaxMux on 14 June. Sigh. Tryde (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please redirect these articles: Benjamin Ludlow Bathurst, 2nd Viscount Bledisloe, Richard Dunning, 2nd Baron Ashburton, Francis Denzil Edward Baring, 5th Baron Ashburton, Brian Henry Mulholland, 6th Baron Dunleath, Victor Brougham, 4th Baron Brougham and Vaux and Allan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness. I'm afraid of once again being accused of engaging in an edit war with MaxMux and thought it would be best if you took care of this. I have expanded some of the articles he has created, namely those on the 3rd Baron de Ramsey and the 6th Baron Ashburton and I will also have a look at the article on the 3rd Baron Brougham and Vaux. I don't know if you are his mentor now, but perhaps you can advise him that a 15th century Scottish nobleman such as the 4th Earl of Caithness should probably not be referred to as a British peer. Tryde (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm acting as a mentor, yes - I'll get on to that tonight (I'm at work at the mo). Ironholds (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't redirect them. It wuld be against your often cited policy.Max Mux (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which one? We've given you the guideline on redirecting pages, and your argument about WP:POLITICIAN doesn't work when dealing with Scottish peers. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Ludlow Bathurst, 2nd Viscount Bledisloe - Was a member of the upper house, as clearly shown in at least one link
 * Richard Dunning, 2nd Baron Ashburton - notablity clear but the article is a bit short. It should be enough for a stub
 * Brian Henry Mulholland, 6th Baron Dunleath - notable, I can't see see a problem here
 * Francis Denzil Edward Baring, 5th Baron Ashburton - see the second
 * Victor Brougham, 4th Baron Brougham and Vaux - some Links should be found here
 * Allan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness - i think there is still some work to do

Max Mux (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2, 3 and 4 are problems. Size is exactly the issue here, not notability - if you can only scrape enough info together to make a one-line stub then it needs to be redirected. Ironholds (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How much time can you give me?Max Mux (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to see how you do - remember that information must be well-referenced from appropriate sources. Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you taken a look at the articles in my BNI?Max Mux (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BNI? Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, in my to do list the first and second one.Max Mux (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in future could you just come out with that instead of posting nonsensical TLAs? Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are TLAs?Max Mux (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three Letter Abbreviations. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it is called so.Max Mux (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I work at more than one article per day under User Max Mux/... without completely creating it?Max Mux (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "more than one", yes. Eleven is problematic. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Our work together
I will make some suggestions.Max Mux (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me.Max Mux (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Can you have a look at my links if they are okay?Max Mux (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) a:And when you're at it can you check up the article as well?Max Mux (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This one: User:Max Mux/George Sinclair, 4th Earl of Caithness Max Mux (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Jakezing
Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakezing
Technically, you found out from Jakezing about Cody6, I just pointed to what he said on my talk page. Why he told me about it, I don't know. Maybe he just assumed I knew somehow, but I didn't. And how he got on my radar originally, I don't recall. But that voluntary admission just about hangs him. Four indef blocks overall? I can't recall running into any other user with that many. Although I don't keep track of those kinds of stats. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three, not four. He was blocked, unblocked, and reblocked all in a short span (as Cody6) on Pearl Harbor Day in 2007. That was just a technical action. Just one block. But three overall is still not good. He's also saying he switched to a new user because the Cody6 logon wouldn't work anymore. Hard telling what's up with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clear up that I did see where you notified Jake of the ANI, however I didn't see that you actually linked him to the discussion. I just assume editors may not know how to get to bureaucratic pages unless they are hyperlinked. Law type! snype? 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * S'allright. I just didn't want to get too much "credit". I was just fairly astonished that he owned up to it, in front of goddess and everyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia
Hello, Ironholds. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, and. 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup/2010 Signups
A polite reminder to choose a country, city, state or other place to represent. Your last choice was not one of these and has been removed (sorry, we altered the rules since then). Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Privity
I had a read and it seems very comprehensive! I made a few minor changes; one thing which I'm not sure on though, should case citations be referenced or inline? If they're inline, should they only be given once? I'm open to either idea, just not sure if there's a consensus. Good work regardless. Best, RichsLaw (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that for ease of browsing (and it's generally what I've seen from Wikipedia) that the case names should certainly be inline; the question is whether the case citations should be there too, or referenced? I wonder if there is a guide of style for law.. RichsLaw (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumford Prize
Well, before Nuero said that he and you were working on the Royal Society medals. I wanted to write about one, but they were all FLed already; so I took the next-closest thing, the Rumford Prize, and refurbished it. I'm hoping that after a polish it'll be FLC'able. Can you tell me if you see any issues in the article? Sorry if this is sort of random...Res Mar 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Sorry to bother you again. User:MaxMux inserted a number of red links to the Harmsworth Baronets article yesterday (about an hour after I edited the article). It would be good if you can make him aware of WP:RED, which states that "...when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first ... [and more importantly] Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles ..." I reverted a number of similar edits he made to peerage articles yesterday. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And by the way: David Pratt, 6th Marquess Camden. Never spoke in the House of Lords, as shown by this link. No other claim to notability. Would you redirect it please? Tryde (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how we should do it. There was no reason to do so. Max Mux (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How should we do it then? He failed the notability guidelines, he gets redirected per the guidelines - we've covered this. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The article and link make clear that he was member of the House of Lords.Max Mux (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we've told you repeatedly that this isn't enough on its own. Read WP:BIO, specifically the section titled "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria". "If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria ... Merge the article into a broader article providing context." A one-line article with inappropriate sourcing falls under that, and should be redirected. Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of it is right. But not all.Max Mux (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite getting what you mean - could you explain? Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles should ever be good sourced regardless of what it is about. But your other point is completely wrong.Max Mux (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should be well-sourced, yes - it wasn't. Explain, please, how my other point is wrong? You spent all of the last month arguing that part of that same guideline should be enforced to keep your articles! You can't just ignore sections because they don't agree with you. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Phillips v Brooks
I was thinking of trying to get Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson to GA; it's got more scope than Phillips v Brooks, being a pivotal decision in the area of mistake to identity. Plenty of journal articles on the subject and a lot of differing opinions from the judges on the issues at stake, as well as clarifications of 200 years of case law. Perhaps we could work on that? RichsLaw (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I think the first thing that's lacking is the different opinions of the Lords, with explanations of them. I'll write about those later. A summary of the cases up until Shogun (which I kind of wrote on Mistake in English law) wouldn't go amiss also. Following that some critique from academics. RichsLaw (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on improving the article. The C(RTP)A seems like a good choice to try and promote also, I'll help later. RichsLaw (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stilltim
Hello, just wondering if anything was ever done with Stilltim and his hundreds of forks? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know, but recently he seems to have moved on to greener and more productive pastures. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Genista McIntosh, Baroness McIntosh
The article is on my list whith articles that need attention and I will work on the next day. So please make no such edits.Max Mux (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I was correcting your mistakes - mistakes found in all your articles, and therefore ones I think you are unlikely to correct. I can edit the articles I choose. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What mistake? It looks much better if parted. And as I said I'm working on all articles from me that are incomplete.Max Mux (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but you essentially said I'm not allowed to edit your articles. It does not look better parted. Headings are to divide up articles into collected subsections to make them easier to read. Having subsections a line long is completely unnecessary and looks ugly. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)Thats why I'm going to add something.
 * 2) You are of course allowed to do so.Max Mux (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine - then don't state that I'm not. Add stuff, then use headings - don't complain to me when I remove styling that doesn't work as the article is now. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PRR/Septic Clit
Thanks for reverting rightphone's attempt to delete stuff on Jon Courtney's page. I want to ask you about his other edit - the Septic Clit quote. This reviewer, who is a lone wolf on a DoS account has a history of pointless vitriolic agressive reviews, and thus in my opinion no real credibility as a wikipedia source. I didn't realise that the quote had consensus already - but surely this should be reversed? I'm not opposed to a negative quote (even though the vast majority of Courtney's/PRR's reviews are positive), but this one seems very misleading and harmful to the article - I think it's an unwelcome leftover from the days when justpassinby and his sockpupets (probably including Rightphone) were atempting to make the article as negative as possible. Any thoughts? Thanks.Thedarkfourth (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Drowned in Sound - exactly how are "reviewers" qualified to comment? Can anyone with an account write a review? Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure but I think literally anyone can write an article, and the more views it gets the higher it moves up the DoS chart thing. Writers are definitely unpaid, I know that. I've posted comments on there and I'm not qualified at all!Thedarkfourth (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true then it should indeed be removed. Perhaps a query at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Ironholds (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maxy Muxy
You might want to explain to him that this isn't an ideal way of dealing with people... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate message, yes, but perhaps you should look at the entire contributions of said IP. I'll drop him a line in a tick. Ironholds (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look, but we have hundreds of warning templates, all carefully formulated so as to avoid contributors with a poor grasp of English delivering messages like that! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and as I said I'd drop him a line. My point was that while the message was inappropriate, I can understand the sentiment behind it. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I said, so can I. However, sentiments don't (or shouldn't) enter into it, as I'm sure you'll understand. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Wyrtzen
Before I could finish putting up the basic info you notified me - but not the article - that you are tagging it for speedy deletion. Please note the additional information on the Jack Wyrtzen discussion page as well as the article itself. This is an important link article to others on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Fk27jh (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Barron's Magazine
Please check the history of an article before you use a bot and boilerplate text to tag an article for speedy deletion. It took me less than 10 seconds to find the edit in the history where a user identifying themselves as Barron's PR added the 'promotional' text. You're an encyclopedia editor, not a machine, please take care with our encyclopedia's content.&mdash;Perceval 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject rodents
I noticed your name on the list of participants at WP:MAMMAL, and your interest in working on rodent articles. I have proposed a new wikiproject at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents. Feel free to comment there or add your name if you're interested. -&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote at Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot
Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Michelangelo24
I noticed the warning you placed on this user a while back. He might need to be temp banned for a week since he still seems to be creating non-notable items that seem to have a COI. Cheers. Calaka (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah my bad! I saw the RfA table on the top right of your talk page and I automatically assumed you were an admin. Where would I go about getting admin attention (I mean, should I see anyone specific (or any specific group) that handles these issues?). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those two links! On a completely different note; might I say a big thumbs up to all the bio articles you have been creating (Individuals prior to the 1900's!) It is a nice change to see articles of individuals that are not POV, are notable and are not present on Wikipedia just for the sake of publicity/profits. Kind regards!Calaka (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!
Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-)  and  --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Potential copyvio
Just a heads up. I've blanked three paragraphs on the Sarsfield Grenadier Guards with the copyvio template as they are copied verbatum from http://www.militarymuseum.org/SarsfieldGrenadiers.html. I'd appreciate you looking into this matter. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Frustration
I've finished Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and Frustration in English law recently (well, very nearly) and was wondering if when you have the time you could give them a quick look. Something I was wondering was.. how do you have so many contract books?? You cite an awful lot of them :P. Thanks, RichsLaw (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtney: Picture
Hey I have a photo that I want to upload to the Jon Courtney page - it's not mine but the person who took it has given me explicit permission that it can be used in wikipedia. How do I go about uploading it? Sorry to bother you, but I had to ask someone! Thanks!Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Aliensubbie.png
Thanks for the heads up. Please remember to use a ':' (without the quotes) when referring to File on WP on someone else's talk page. For example ] should be written as File:Aliensubbie.png in order to 'link to the File' and not 'link the File' in its entirety. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

More peers
I am thinking of redirecting these articles but would appreciate your opinion first.


 * Charles Montagu, 5th Baron Swaythling
 * Mark Tennyson, 5th Baron Tennyson
 * Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp
 * Randal McDonnell, Viscount Dunluce
 * Rupert Onslow, Viscount Cranley
 * Graham Wellesley, Viscount Dangan - businessman
 * Daniel Macmillan, Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden - designer and socialite, may be notable
 * Edward Tollemache
 * Ian Macpherson, 3rd Baron Strathcarron - probably notable but mostly written by the subject himself, reads like a promotional piece, poorly referenced
 * Benjamin Ludlow Bathurst, 2nd Viscount Bledisloe
 * Victor Brougham, 4th Baron Brougham and Vaux
 * Allan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness
 * John Sinclair, 3rd Earl of Caithness

I also redirected Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock today, thinking this would be uncontroversial, but this met opposition from some users. What do you think? Tryde (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, would you please have a look at these articles as well and give your opinion on whether they should be redirected or not. I hope you're not getting tired of me...


 * James FitzRoy, Earl of Euston
 * Walter Scott, Earl of Dalkeith
 * Hugh Grosvenor, Earl Grosvenor
 * David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk (in line of succession to the British throne)
 * Christopher Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire
 * Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay
 * Henry Mountbatten, Earl of Medina (in line of succession to the British throne)
 * Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington (in line of succession to the British throne)
 * Charles Innes-Ker, Marquess of Bowmont and Cessford

Regards, Tryde (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I decided to redirect Dalkeith and keep Mornington (someone would probably dig up a number of newspaper articles on his marriage to Jemma Kidd and claim notability). Tryde (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Howdy - I've obviously not finished the GA review today like I said I would; apologies for that. Real life's intervened somewhat, and the other GA review I'm doing is proving more time consuming than anticipated. I should have it done by the end of the weekend. And thanks for your kind words about my return - it's nice to be back, which I suppose is the only reason I am. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of swamped right now (on-wiki and off-, though mostly on - John Brownlee sex scandal is getting TFA'd Saturday, and I'm trying to get John Edward Brownlee into presentable shape by then, on the assumption that it will see some traffic). For the same reason, I might not get to look at the Claud again until the weekend - sorry I keep missing my self-imposed deadlines.  I might have a look at some of your others early next week, though I try not to review the same nominator's articles too often, just because I like to be detached. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi-ho
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1964. Recognizance (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delaware
What's the point of trying to do ANYTHING if you're going to revert EVERYTHING? Is it just that you don't know the detail of what you're looking at? I accept some border line stuff that could be revert back, but much is clean up and I have to do it all over again. May I ask that you think a bit about each specific item, as I do, and make a judgment please. I will upgrade my description of what I doing for your preference, but this is really trivia, clean up and consistency only. I feel like my mother is watching me making my bed!!! Am I that notorious? stilltim (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Other help
On a friendly note...Can you direct me on a path to help me figure out how to better present or organize the Joe Biden article. It needs help and someone watching and I'm willing, but need no fights...I just want to get it as good as all the experts think it should be. Can you help me figure the org and high level stuff? Should I sluff off pieces to a secondary article that someone else writes? How can a footnote come off every sentence and things still be right? Do I need to translate into my words then reference in general? Markles ignores me. stilltim (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delaware again
Professional and political - consistency and accuracy. Since virtualy all these paragraphs have both, including this one, the title should be broader. He, and most of these guys, were more than politician. My oversight in the past.

Congress connections- Access to the Congress articles is linked elsewhere in the article tables and seemed enough per other major criticism I received from other editors. I really don't care too must, but want to be consistent. My rule of thumb is to have one link for everything useful, beginning with the Infobox (most visible), then the tables (next most visible), and finally the article (least visible). I'm very open to other approaches that are consistent.

Some quote marks- I found some of these do nothing so I removed them. No idea what's going on but the result is the same.

Party shading- The design is to show the reader the color of the majority party, not the party of the subject. That way they can see easily if there in the majority. Maybe a bad idea, but again that's how I'm trying to show consistent.

Places of more information- Same information but once again trying to show it the same format as all the other Delaware articles (over 200 eventually), Seems like they should be the same, but don't really care how.

Connect to indexes, etc. Read my profile and you'll see I learned the hard way about the much too many index references, etc. Several designers and consulting folks like you preached the value of simplicity here. I heard and now think fewer is best and they should only be routes to other info, not just pretty display. I do need to make sure the connections are somewhere in the article, and hopeful have.

I really want good results and work with well with all of you. I hope you'll recognize that and appreciate the value I may bring and help me through the lack of understandings I certainly have. stilltim (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for fighting against bigotry and censorship here. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and FLs
Hi there. There's an important discussion going on at Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1 that may affect your Royal Society medal FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

English Law Project
I would be glad to help you.

The truth is, despite my latest article, I haven't the slightest background in English Law. I don't think that neccesarily helps me from helping. I could:


 * help with parts other than content
 * (for instance, I just went ahead and fixed some problems with the ref tags on one of your pages)
 * (BTW speaking of refs, would you like the short refs -Smith (1975)- linked to the full ref's -Smith, Joe; some journal; some chapter; some other stuff, 1975- as I have done in my article?)


 * read though it with an uneducated eye to make sure you haven't taken something for granted
 * do some research on some particular topic (thats how I was able to write my article)
 * and possibly help with other stuff too, if you have any ideas

BTW, about my article:


 * are you absolutely sure about it being Irving v Lipstadt, rather than Irving v. Lipstadt?
 * would you be interested in reviewing it:
 * either under peer review - Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1
 * or under GA nomination review - Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt


 * do you think the other two people working on this project with you might be willing to do one or both of the above?
 * is it possible that my article would fall within the scope of the project?

-TachyonJack (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering about the lack of a full stop after the V. For instance, this page has it listed with a full stop. Do you have a particular source for saying that the full stop is a mistake? --TachyonJack (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re on my talk
Inviting you to take a look at my reaction to your warning/advice on my Talk. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said: you're invited. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From ANI
There's alot of folks at WikiProject Ice Hockey, who are very concerned with SNIyer12's snubbing. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the 'archiving evidence'. Now it's certain, that he's snubbing the community. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I wasn't seeing your comments as criticism of my report. I saw them as helping my report. PS: I'll take you advice. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ted Baehr

 * It would probably be helpful if you explained the improvements you would like to see with the Ted Baehr article at Talk:Ted Baehr (or made improvements yourself). User:14Truth has removed the stock templates you applied for lack of comment. --Dystopos (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates
As you can see from the MOS (dates and numbering -full dates formatting), the italic version is perfectly acceptable and documented. In the face of that, please advise me of the documentation of the "consensus" you cite. I will apply any appropriate ruling. However, just because you and some of your friends say otherwise, nothing really changes things, including what seems to be your threats. You should note that the wording you use carries that tone, one that is contradictory to your own instructions and one I hope I misunderstand. I would prefer to work together, as we apparently must and as I have managed to do with others. You might find more agreement after discussion and expermentation than you imagined. stilltim (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As always I will keep my promises as quickly as I can, but there are 50-100 done so it will taken a week or so. stilltim (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
"... that although tasked with drafting the bills of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has only 61 draftsmen? Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)"

The page says that there are 61 lawyers and 25 support (assuming means 86 workers). The word "draftsmen" doesn't come up. Perhaps rework it to say that there bills of Parliament are written with the help of 61 lawyers or something to that effect? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United Kingdom)
&lt;delurk> Gosh, it is really almost two years? Anyway...

How odd. I am sure I wrote a short stub about this several years ago. A little bird in my ear tells me that the original article went something like:



The Parliamentary Counsel Office is a team of approximately 60 lawyers who draft legislation for the United Kingdom Parliament, principally government bills, but also certain Orders in Council and other secondary legislation.



The Office was established in 1869 as part of HM Treasury, then moved to the Civil Service Department in 1969. Since 1980, it has been part of the Cabinet Office. It is lead by the First Parliamentary Counsel: as of 2005, this is Sir Geoffrey Bowman, KCB.


 * ==External links==
 * *Parliamentary Counsel Office



As far as I am aware, that is not a copyvio, but I guess this would have been edited several times since I created it. Perhaps a later editor added the copyvio material, but the old version seems to have been deleted so I can't check what the original text says or view the old edit history. Did you check before tagging the article for speedy deletion?

Perhaps some kind passing admin might like to check the deleted history and restore the non-copyvio material. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the original version. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania–Romania relations
Did you have an opinion on Lithuania–Romania relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

War page
I got confused as to where the War of 1812 was. I put it in the wrong spot, then removed it. I also found another war that doesn't go there, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Johnny bread
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Johnny bread has been removed. It was removed by Plastikspork with the following edit summary ' (Per talk page comment) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Plastikspork before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Women's Royal Air Force
I might do the GA review on this, but for now, can I say the Ockham (1922) ref in the footnotes isn't in the biblio? Cheers :-) BTW, having read the whole article now, it seems a little strange (though perhaps understandable) that an article about a Select Committee never actually directly cites the Report, nor Hansard of the time. Are you able to rectify that at all? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Interjection from a talk page stalker): Secondary sources are to be preferred to primary ones. If Ironholds was able to cover all important elements of the Committee without resorting to primary sourcing, that's a good thing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is generally the case, but particularly with so few secondary sources apparently available, the article would be stronger if we were able to hear the committee's key comments or findings in its own words. Indeed, my view in general is it is better to have a primary source's words in preference to others reporting what a primary source says, and in a case like this I think the case is all the more compelling. Thanks for the reminder though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be correct; I haven't actually read the article. Best of all, I think, is when the primary source's words can be quoted from a secondary source, which gives you the best of both worlds: the straight-from-the-horse's mouth feel of a primary source, combined with the importance filter of the secondary source.  Anyway, I'll go work on my own damned articles now.  Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't actually get access to a copy of the report, more's the pity - online archives are mostly Commons only, and HMSO doesn't stock it because of the age. However, I do have a copy of the book Douglas-Pennant wrote about the incident, so I'll probably try and work that in when I have a moment (probably this weekend, if you can put off the review until then). Ironholds (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. I'd have thought the report should be available in whatever is the nearest library to hold a full series of parliamentary papers, but i don't know how much use that is - many may archive the series after a couple of decades - and in UK, maybe these weren't widely distributed - in Oz you can find at least one set in every capital city, and sometimes in the older uni libraries as well. :-) cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I live in London, so there's certainly a complete copy somewhere - the difficulty is getting to it, of course. Ironholds (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Akehurst
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Akehurst has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - based on http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Akehurst+surname+-inauthor%3AAkehurst&btnG=Search+Books the names appears to have sufficient notability - cleaned-up & expanded article) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Habeas Corpus Act 1862
This is almost at the "start" class. Please add more information and links. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See what you can get in the next few days, bring it up to start, get another review, and then you can nominate it for DYK. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have no such access to JSTOR; I work at a community college, not a research institution, and it is very expensive and not relevant to my students. :-( Bearian (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Borcherds
Hi. The extra sentence you wrote is accurate and well put. I think Richard might have even said something like that himself in the Guardian interview. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Schuster
Regarding the titles used in the article. "Lord Claud Schuster" is completely wrong, he was not the younger son of a duke or marquess. The correct style should be "The Lord Schuster". As far as I know the formal title of peers has always been used in lists and infoboxes on Wikipedia. "The Viscount Haldane" should be used in the infobox, although it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to him as Lord Haldane in the running text. Schuster's peerage title is also wrong, it should be Baron Schuster, of Cerne in the County of Dorset, not Baron Schuster of Cerne, in the County of Dorset, as shown here. His birth date in the infobox should also be changed so that it doesn't appear "American style". Tryde (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to tweak anything! As I said the formal style of The Viscount X and the Earl of X has always been used in succession boxes and info boxes. I couldn't find anything on this in the MoS for infoboxes. The guideline for succession boxes given at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage states that "Succession boxes for offices, when these are held by peers, should refer to them by title, masking a link to the actual article. The style used is 'The Earl of Somewhere', 'The Lord Elsewhere', etc…" (not Lord Somewhere or Lord Elsewhere). One example on this is given at Template:Succession box (Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis is referred to as The Earl Alexander of Tunis in the succession box). You are probably 100% correct that Haldane is called Lord Haldane in most cases (except where his full name and title is given), and this should be used in the running text on Wikipedia. I am just pointing out that the more formal style of The Viscount X is used in succession boxes and infoboxes. Regards, Tryde (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting the guidelines. This style should be used in all articles. You can raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage if you like. Tryde (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't see why the same guidelines shouldn't be used for both infoboxes and succession boxes. Tryde (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

H1b_crisis
You currently appear to be engaged in supporting nonfactual articles based only on opinions, thus violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view(NPOV). Please refrain from supporting people putting opinions on articles. Trentc (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to make corrections the article to be NPOV when there are 1 billion Indians that keep reverting the article. Suggestions? Trentc (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have done all that before. Put up NPOV tags, proposal for deletion, small changes here and there. It is all removed without comment. Even entire discussions deleted, or ignored. 1 billion Indians consenting on their own POV does not make it a neutral article. Trentc (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposal for deletion has been done a few times, and not just be me. They are always removed. The one I did was on for a day, and yes I put it up in the discussion. Someone came along and removed it with inline comment "I see nothing wrong with it" and tag was removed. The system refused to allow me to put it back on. I also put it in the community listing for proposal for deletion. Also if you look in what is left of the discussion, a majority of the comments indicate the article is POV and not based on facts, and either be fixed or deleted. Trentc (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * " 21:00, 27 June 2009 Trentc (talk | contribs) (5,596 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H1b crisis)"
 * "08:47, 28 June 2009 DGG (talk | contribs) (5,183 bytes) (seems well enough sourced, and factual enough.)"


 * See what I mean? Trentc (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook
Hi Ironholds,

Thanks for the positive words at WP:LAW. Don't worry, all contributions will conform to the MOS.

Anyhow, I created the task force, shortcut via WP:Hornbook. (I hope you don't mind this incursion on your ontological real estate; WP:UKHornbook is still available).

I'm about to copy-paste the text of this invitation to members of Category:Wikipedian law students, WP:LAW, and WP:SCOTUS. Before I do, will you take a look at the invitation, the task force, etc., and give me your feedback? Thanks.

Agradman talk/contribs 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PS Since I'm here, I'd like to get your opinions on the "task forces" discussion Istarted at WP:SCOTUS

I think sub-projects of WP:LAW should be take the form of "task forces," as I am doing now. One advantage is that all "logistics" will be handled out of WP:LAW; the children will only be responsible for their narrow "mission". Also, it will improve coordination. Even though WP:SCOTUS claims to be a child project of WP:LAW, it contains ONLY ONE REFERENCE to WP:LAW in the entire wikiproject -- i.e. we're in the law category! So I don't see how we can pretend to pay deference to WP:LAW when we're taking that attitude. Also, I think the "task force" model will help remind American Wikipedia editors to consider other legal traditions, an issue I know you've been fighting for. For example, WP:LAW would have a "Style manual task force" whose job is to develop legal style guidelines for all the children of WP:LAW; the British section would explain to Americans that in the UK "Regina v Jones" is supposed to lack a period(!)

Thoughts? Agradman talk/contribs 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Habeas Corpus Act 1862
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Impressed
I just wanted to say I found the way you handled the ANI complaint about User:Warm as ice to be very impressive. While I'm not as optimistic as you about the potential for such editors to become productive members of the community in other spheres, I think your faith is inspiring. I also wanted to say on a personal note that I deeply appreciated your sentiment regarding Palestinian land rights (it made me smile from ear to ear) and that if we ever do get any land back, I hope we share it with you and others like you. Cheers and happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I have to admit to hating Jerusalem just a little bit myself, the Dome of the Rock is one of the beautiful buildings I have ever seen too. I must have taken about 100 pictures of its exterior from a hotel window overlooking the Old City in one day. Just mesmerizing. Too bad about your own pics. Perhaps its time to come back for another visit? Do let me know if you ever do. Would love to show you around Nazareth.  T i a m u t talk 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting into the whole complex of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount is very complicated these days. As a Christian Palestinian, I have trouble getting in myself sometimes. Non-Muslims have to enter through a separate gate which is often closed. Sometimes its the Israeli security forces who prevent me entry through the gate for Muslims before I even get to the Muslim waqf keepers, and sometimes its the Muslims themselves. It doesn't matter that my husband is Muslim and I've had arguments with both sides about the inanity of the situation. The best thing to do is go with a Muslim, wear a head scarf and conservative dress and lie about your faith. (I know its terrible to have to do such a thing, but hey, I think God will forgive those who want to pay homage to a holy place.)
 * About the Holy Sepulcher, I do know some things but what I know won't help you to get it up to GA status. If you search for Holy Sepulcher or Holy Sepulchre in google books though, you will find a tonne of material. I'll put the article on my watchlist and pitch in what I can in the days to come. It would be relevant to an article on Architecture of Palestine which I am writing in my user space (See User:Tiamut/Architecture) so I would love to be involved in that effort.  T i a m u t talk 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The world is indeed upside down my friend. Anyway, a quick read of the church article reveals that it doesn't mention an important legend regarding Omar the Caliph of the Abbasid empire. The story goes that he refused to pray in the church fearing his disciples would transform it into a mosque . Another version of the story I've hear (that I can't yet find a source for) was that he picked a rock while outside the church and threw it and said that wherever it landed was where the mosque should be built. Anyway, whether true or not, it expresses a lovely story of tolerance and one has to wonder if we are not regressing with time rather than moving forward. But then I found you! And faith was restored. ;)  T i a m u t talk 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to Aviv. Can you believe I'd never heard of him? Just goes to show how little coverage is given to people who preach love over hate. So sad. My mother always use to say that we should never hate Jews, especially since our ancestors were probably Jewish. ;) My opposition to the political ideology of Zionism is often mistaken for Jew-hatred but it couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm happy to count a number of wonderful Jews among my closet friends and would have had a life so much poorer had it not been for my relationships with them. Anyway my dear, we could likely talk for hours, but I do have to get back to editing. So forgive me if I don't respond to your next note. And I won't be upset if you ignore this one too. It's been a great pleasure to make your acquaintance and I hope we'll see each other around more soon.  T i a m u t talk 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Meetup
A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested.  Majorly  talk  18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSLAW
In terms of guidelines we've got WP:MOSLAW, but that really needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Want to start discussing that on the moslaw talkpage in a tick? We can throw suggestions at the wall and see what sticks Sure. What would you like to propose? My preference is to propose starting a "styleguide task force" under WP:Law, because I think we're bordering on fragmentation. For example, over at SCOTUS there's an article outline which is being applied only to SCOTUS cases, which is silly because all common-law cases unfold according to the same logic; and there's a seething, unresolved discussion over how to cite cases to case reporters, veiled as a disagreement over which citation template to use.

Maybe the talk page for this "styleguide task force" could redirect to the talk page for WP:MOSLAW, or something. Not that we have authority to dictate terms to the whole of Wikipedia; but we certainly are the most reliable people to be consulting.

(By the way, I spent last night spamming 250 user talk pages with wp:hornbook/invite. What a pain ...)

cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

English legal history
Thanks for the message. It's been a while, but I did take papers in ELH for my Finals at Oxford in 1982 and one of my college professors is well known, if hot widely published, legal historian. I still have my old books at home, so I will dig them out and see what they cover. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

English law userbox / task force / sub-LAW wikiproject?
In the course of advertising WP:Hornbook, I've stumbled across a large number of people interested in British law. Usually, I figure out it because their userpage says "this user is a lawyer" and "this user lives in England".

Maybe you want to create a userbox/task force/wikiproject so you guys can keep in touch.

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do
Thank you so much for finding those things. I'll pop off an email to you right now. Just the kick in the butt I needed to get back to developing it further. My energies are a little scattered allovertheplace right now. Thanks again.  T i a m u t talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

proposing the "styleguide" task force
Hi,

Regarding our recent conversation -- I was not eager to rush into proposing a "styleguide" task force; however, User:Wikidea recently proposed some changes at WP:SCOTUS which User:MZMcBride reverted, and i thought this was as good an opportunity as any to revive the proposal.

Therefore, I revived the proposal at this thread on WP:SCOTUS, and that would be as good a location as any to support it (if you support it.)

Historically, User:MZMcBride has made fantastic contributions to legal articles. Therefore, I am trying to proceed with respect for his views, and I think a key strategy is that if we persuade him, this proposal will succeed.

Thanks ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)