User talk:Ironholds/archive 32

Getlenses
Hi Ironholds,

the page of getlenses.co.uk which has been incubated was the original few lines of wording. I had done so much work to this page with 12 references and a lot more text. Is it possible to get a copy of the code for the final draft of the page I did last friday?

--Linz131313 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on new articles
I deleted my "view" section since it was ill-advised to begin with and is just clutter repeated elsewhere. I also deleted your comment in the process, so just a heads up. Feel free to revert if you want to retain the removed comment. SDY (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your input would be (on the whole!) positive :o)
... over at WP:RFA2011. You're an intelligent and thoughtful sort of person, who has the ability to put ideas and brainstorming stuff into concise and readable prose. Care to join the Task Force on this one? The more brainy people we have over there, the better it will work out in the end. :o) Pesky  ( talk ) 10:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually ties into something I was working on. Catch me on IRC? Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (professional wrestling)
Two months later, after the dust has finally settled, I would like to bring up The Corre's article once again. I feel the group has become more notable. They've since obtained the WWE Tag Team Champions as well as having the Intercontinental Championship. They had a brief war with CM Punk's New Nexus and all of them were entered in the 2011 Royal Rumble. They've made waves mostly on the mid-card with Kofi Kingston as well as Big Show and Kane, forcing the latter two to team together, as well as having a (rather short) match at Wrestlemania 27. They also engaged in a sudden beatdown of John Cena and The Rock in the midst of their high-profile feud. However, I leave the decision up to you and possibly my peers in the matter of whether or not this article deserves a second chance at this point in time. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T 13:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Put some reliable sources covering the team as an entity on the table and we'll talk. I don't care what they've done professionally if you can't show reliable sources proving it. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Hellohello222
— mc10 ( t / c ) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
This is to inform you that there is an AN/I in which I have quoted you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

re: User talk:Bjmlacrosse88
Hello. Well sometimes it's clear that these users are only here to vandalize. Sometimes we block folks when their motive is clear, and this is why I chose to leave the final. Also, in this case, it looks like is also.

So they're just tag teaming the articles and in this case I just decided to say enough is enough. Thanks for stopping by. Dawnseeker2000  16:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Favour?
Can you help me out? Part of a liaison thingy between Wikipedia and some US universities, students are writing articles as part of their course.

And, they only have a few weeks left. If the project 'works', then it can attract a LOT more good editors (from uni's, and not just US)

I know...it's not exactly your subject area... but, please please have a look at two articles, and provide any feedback/comments etc on the talk page

Note: the main idea is to suggest things on the talk, to the students - it's fine to edit the page, of course, but the more important - bigger picture - is to help 'em get more from their Wikipedia experience...hence, if you can show them how to make it better...that would be superb.



Anything - any comments at all - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 03:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Get Yo' Ass Over this Way - you'll love it
radical reform idea with supporters

You are now needed. You really are. And it's a play area dear to your heart. Pesky ( talk ) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reducing newbie-biting ...... solution the other way up?
I know you're heavily involved in the whole 'make WP more welcoming to newbies' thing, and (as I'm an idle get at heart) I cba to go find the 'right place' to put this idea, but I know you'll know where it is :o)

One of the biggest problems seems to stem from the workload on NPP, making them stressed, snappy, irritable and hasty. Just too many new pages to patrol. So far, people seem to have been looking at hitting that list from the bottom end - i.e. only allowing autoconfirmeds to create new articles, etc. But, apart from the fact that it adds another hurdle to newbies who just want to dive in (possibly quite competently and with a great deal of passion), if someone's going to be a vandal / bloody nuisance, it really doesn't take much for them to become autocnfirmed. And, bearing in mind human nature, I think it's quite possible that a vandal would be moreprepared to jump through that hoop than a possible good new editor (who's maybe more liekly just to be pissed off by it and go elsewhere).

Sooooo ......

Turning the solution the other way up .....

If autopatrolled were to be 'handed out' to people who are clearly trustworthy, even if not prolific, the cumulative effect would be far fewer pages to patrol? I'm not suggesting a 'radical' reform here - just maybe it should be granted in the same kind of way as 'autoconfirmed' - maybe to people who've had either a DYK or GA on something that's clearly mainly produced by them, showing that they can 'do it' and be trusted. If one were to reduce the workload on NPP this way (and it should surely be possible to automate this) it might make for less newbie-biting just because of reduced workload / stress on NPP. The current 'you must have written 50 new articles standard' becomes ever harder to achieve for trustworthy people, unless they resort to going through the motions and creating a plethora of poorly-referenced stubs just to 'get by'. Which is wrong. IMHO, one GA should equal 50 pathetic stubs, in terms of 'trustworthiness'. I think it actually shows far more cluefulness about what actually constitutes a decent article.

Think of the cumulative effect of NPP's not having to go through up to 50 articles each for all those people who've had a perfectly good DYK/GA to their name. The idea is to remove a load of needs-to-be-patrolled stuff from the top end of the quality range instead of trying to remove it from the bottom end of that range. It might actually remove more stuff.

My main goal, ultimately, is to help reduce the newbie-biting thing and hopefully retain a few more new editors. Pesky ( talk ) 09:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed completely! Now to poke my pet data gimp :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from all the new users
I just have to take a moment and thank you very kindly for all the work you've been doing to help out the new users. It's been really wonderful to have such an inspired and dedicated admin helping so many people that may never know all the good you are doing. The work you've been doing on the Wiki Guides project has been great. Being the voice of new users in the Autoconfirmed RfC has been very generous of you. And starting the New pages project to help users that have trouble with their first articles means a lot to me. I just wanted to say that there are some of us that notice all your awesome efforts and I wanted to say thank you for all the people you are helping.
 * Thanks, dude! :). It's great to see people are noticing my efforts - not in the hope of plaudits, but in the hopes that they too will choose to get involved. Keep up the good work with autoreviewers and autoconfirmation yourself; Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador
Ruthy sue (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor survey
I have just completed the editor survey to which I found a link on my dashboard.

One section was about the attitude of other editors and I stated that they had mostly been friendly and helpful since I joined as an editor 6 months ago. However I felt bound to mention the one exception, the very offensive comments you made on my user page on March 16th, 2011. The next questions in the survey were about whether the unpleasant behaviour was ageist, sexist, racist etc. to which I replied "No" because I didn't see how you could have known that I was a 70 year old female who had never previously been sworn at or threatened with violence in my life.

I still think your responses to my original comments on the Great Backlog Elimination Drive were entirely inappropriate. Don't you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back, yes; they were dependent on context which I couldn't have reasonably expected you to be aware of, and for that, I sincerely apologise. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your apology is accepted! :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would note, however, that my actions were inappropriate regardless of your age, gender or life experiences. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-New page incubation
The aticle Capricorn FM has been tagged for assesment, when you're chanced could you kindly assess as per limbo. Thanks Otelemuyen (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Regards, Rock drumALT 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Court of King's Bench (England)
Hi. I recently came across this article and noticed that it uses the male nomenclature, unlike virtually every other such article that I could find. Is there any particular reason for this; should we not move it?  It Is Me Here  t /  c  13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Stalking) Presumably it's because the Court of King's Bench is a historic institution which only existed during the reign of Kings so was only hypothetically the Court of Queen's Bench. The other institutions you've mentioned have all existed through reigns of both Kings and Queens so get their current names. The similarly titled modern court (Queen's Bench Division of the High Court) is appropriately named. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted; I don't consider myself involved, and so will not comment - if questions are asked where I could provide a useful answer, feel free to poke me. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 

William Garrow (1760-1840) was a British barrister, politician and judge known for his indirect reform of the advocacy system, which helped usher in the adversarial court system used in most common law nations today. He introduced the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", insisting that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court. Garrow is best known for his criminal defence work, which, through the example he set with his aggressive defence of clients, helped establish the modern adversarial system used in most common law systems. Garrow is also known for his impact on the rules of evidence, coining the best evidence rule. His work was cited as recently as 1982 in the Supreme Court of Canada and 2006 in the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal. In 2009, BBC One broadcast Garrow's Law, a four-part fictionalised drama of Garrow's beginnings at the Old Bailey; a second series aired in late 2010. (more...)


 * Brilliant! Thanks :) Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I saw this on the Main Page, I immediately knew that it was one of yours. Well done again! ;) AGK  [&bull; ] 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet in June
Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather a journey - at this point, I may not even be in the UK past june. Ironholds (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be the case linked to on my talkpage, which I've already said I have no interest in and won't be commenting on, right? Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think...
that the article Alejandro E. Del Real is eligible to be salted.  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh. He's on a final warning - any recreation and I'll salt and block. At this stage, however, most recreations come from the same time-period; I tend to limit salting to where there is long term abuse, or abuse with multiple accounts. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?
No, that's flat out wrong, and trying to lecture me about it is just as bad. He was in clear violation of 3RR, and has a history of it, as well as this particular method of disruption. Just looking at his talk page makes it clear he has no regard for the concept of consensus, and has little interest in discussing matters, since this is the same disruptive pattern he's made on plenty of other articles. But aside that, protection is there to prevent disruption, which is clearly what he was doing by edit warring. The fact that it was protected on the version he favored should have made it clear that I did it only to end the 3RR disruptions. I only refrained from blocking because I'm terribly angry at the gross disregard of the consensus policy, and the 3rr noticeboard will take care of that. So you can take that self-righteousness and shove it, dear Ollie, I won't be talked down to by a man who defends a bully.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Protection is there to stop disruption, but that doesn't mean that it should be hammered down with a single user disrupting things. Again, you used your tools in a situation you were involved in. If you can't see a problem with that, I suggest you hand them back. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly involved. I reverted a disruptive edit, and continued to revert the same disruptive edits when they were repeated. I have been involved with the article in the past, but take a look at the history and you'll see that it's been a long time since I've been there. The editor made it clear he intended to keep being disruptive, and freely admits to using force to get his way because it's worked in the past. Like I said, a block would have probably been better, but those are mor controversial and I recognized that not everyone would have thought I was being objective in my anger... and from the discussion on WP:AN3, even that might not change his hard-headed ways.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)"
 * That makes you involved, Bahamut0013. You were involved in that dispute, and it would have been wise to let AN3 or another noticeboard handle it.  And note that both of you passed 3RR - no matter who passed first.  And do note, that many policies do state that inclusion is discussed, we do not leave possibly violating material stand, that even goes for material where guidelines suggest against inclusion, let alone policy, or possible, decrees of the board or law.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being rude to you earlier. I know you were just trying to give me a wake-up call, so for my part, I don't have any hard feelings. You might not feel the same...  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all - assuming you now accept that your actions were incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a stubborn man, so I can't say everything was wrong. But the basis of why you felt the need to go to ANI, yes.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
I've left a few observations here, and the review is now on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool beans; I'll go handle it now. Ironholds (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question for you at RFAR/Racepocket
Hello Ironholds, I have directed a question to you on the workshop page of the current Request for Arbitration/Racepocket. It would be appreciated if you could respond within the next 3-4 days; please take your time and be thorough with links and diffs so that we can understand your thinking. Thank you. Risker (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your question on my talk page. As you know, on March 22, I posted an inquiry on the meta wiki to which User:LauraHale responded, and by March 26, we both agreed that the WMF was not her "employer." Following that, the issue died down. On April 20, LauraHale started a new series of posts claiming "Racepacket tried to CONTACT MY EMPLOYER," rather than the person he thought was my employer. This lead a number of us to believe that someone had contacted her employer in late April causing her new round of complaints and demands. Although I had been avoiding contacts with User:LauraHale by this point, it would be better if she knew that I had not been the person behind whatever triggered the new problem. After I left the talk page message, on April 21 she clarified it to be a concern about "future outing." Only much later, did I discover that April 20 was when she started overtly laying the ground work for the second Arbitration. Rschen talk page diff. So, there was no real world event around April 20 that prompted that round of "he contacted my employer" accusations, although my response was a sincere statement based on the belief that she thought that I had done so in late April. Again, I did not contact her University in March, nor did I contact it in late April. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The goal was to convey sympathy, assurance that it was not me behind whatever it was, and to avoid any language that would be potentially provocative. If I were to say "I did not do x specific thing." she could potentially take offense by my recharacterizing her statements as x. Again, the only reason why I left the message was that she had to hear from me, in a sympathetic tone that I did not cause whatever it was that created the angst at her employer in late April. If Ironholds had left a talk page message on April 20 saying Racepacket denies that he is contacting your employer, it would only add fuel to the fire. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your views. From the moment I stepped in to assist Bill with concluding the GA review, it has been a no-win situation. I have disengaged a while ago, have never edited the netball articles except for deleting one category in early April, have proposed dispute resolution, and have a settlement offer pending. I don't "watch" her pages and I will raise concerns through the Arbitration Proceeding. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about AN/I topic ban proposal
Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vere Bird, Jr.
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi Ironholds, is there a way you could help me with the sourcing for this article? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have access to LexisNexis and the like at the moment - although you appear to have done pretty well yourself! :). Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Makeemlighter
Hi. Don't forget  to  put  the ✅ template when you  have accorded the right ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry about that. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robin Yearwood
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much of a good thing?
Hello, Ironholds. I want you and Elen of the Roads both to be aware that multiple actions with overlapping effects have been taken to resolve the problem at List of George Franklin Barber works‎. You gave a one-week block to the user who was putting working draft content into the article and a 24-hour block to the user (a sysop) who was reverting those additions, and now Elen of the Roads has full-protected the article for three days. While all of those measures have merit as means of stopping the ongoing disruption, it's not apparent that combining all of them at the same time is necessary (or even productive). As long as that one particular user is blocked, the full protection of the article does little good, since the "content" dispute (which first broke out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) is unlikely to continue in his absence. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I note the actions you're criticising aren't mine :P. When both parties to a dispute are out of action, fully protecting a page is rather counterproductive. I shall review the action immediately. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually took it upon myself to unblock the article after another user made edit requests that were both complicated and clearly noncontentious. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah; I saw that immediately after posting my reply here and facepalmed! :). Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, friend
I was wondering if I could have you userfy the recently deleted material on the Leninist-Trotskyist Tendency to me. Not sure if there was a dash there. This was recently deleted at AfD; a French party member contacted me after the close off list and wanted to make sure the info wasn't lost. I'd like to port it over to Marxists Internet Archive; maybe it will make the return trip to WP someday after a couple sources emerge. Anyway, I'd really appreciate it. —Tim || Carrite (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Now at User:Carrite/Leninist–Trotskyist Tendency. Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Carrite (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Trademark infringement
You deleted this article as a copyvio of a page on patentjurist.com. whois says the site patentjurist.com was only created in 2008, and a quick step through the edit history shows a steady building of this page. So I'm thinking out loud that patentjurist.com is a copyvio of us.... John Vandenberg (chat) 16:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohrly? Ooop. Feel free to revert. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked through the history again and I am very confident, so I have restored the article. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Game
A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasi c 00:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good timing! Mind getting on IRC? Ironholds (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, please put future feedback/responses at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game to consolidate discussion. Dcoetzee 11:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:OhanaUnited
Hi Ironholds, I'd like to explain to you please why OhanaUnited had the right to use the language they did. I have known User:betsythedevine for a few months, and I am going to talk only about my own experience with her.Ever since that user and me had a disagreement over content she has been going after me as a bulldozer making false accusations about me, and engaging and/or starting discussions about me on multiple pages (at least three for the last month or so), the discussions that I even cannot participate and/or link to them here because of my topic ban.

OK, let me please prove my points with some differences:
 * 1) When my blocking admin Gwen Gale blocked me and removed my talk page access I emailed Sandstein. Sandstein posted my email to him with his response to it to my talk page;User:betsythedevine was right there to accuse me in canvassing Sandstein! She continued to harass me during my block, the block that she herself made to happen.
 * 2) In a few months I asked user:AGK to review this very block, they did, and found it to be not warranted. user:betsythedevine was right there making absolutely false claims about my contributions that were obtained by using the tools that should not be applied to my contributions (May I please ask you to read the collapsed portion of the thread)
 * 3) When I said my blocking administrator Gwen Gale was canvassed, and asked EdJohnston, if my understanding about canvassing is right, user:betsythedevine was right there once again apparently "notifying" Ed about me quoting him. user:betsythedevine notified the administrator who participated in the AE request himself, and who watches it. Really?

There are many more recent instances of the same behavior demonstrated by the user towards me and other editors she disagrees with, but I cannot provide the differences because of my topic ban.

BTW I believe it should not be surprising that that user:Ohiostandard who has been the biggest defender of user:betsythedevine is themselves involved in the same kind of behavior making absolutely false accusations against me. Here's only one example: "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article ." Both users user:Ohiostandard and user:betsythedevine have a very difficult time assuming good faith, really birds of feather flock together.

I would not like user:betsythedevine to leave the project, and she is not going to leave it. A clean start is not leaving the project, but I believe it is about time for everybody to drop this matter, and let it go.

I assure you I posted here with a sole purpose to explain why OhanaUnited had the right to use the language they did, not because I have problems with user:betsythedevine.I am learning to ignore this kind of behavior. Sorry for the long post. If you really like to pursue the matter, I will email you more differences, but I believe the project will benefit, if we all are to stop. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to thank you for your comments to OhanaUnited. But I see I also have to thank Mbz1, who got here before me, for reminding me once again why I am quitting Wikipedia. I would just mention, however, that most of the time I've clashed with Mbz1 it was not over content but because I was defending somebody I felt she was attacking unfairly--in all the three instances above, the person I thought was being attacked was Gwen Gale. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we really sanctioned PA and pushed those who live by their wrath to learn and change or depart. Perhaps in a couple of months I'll check back in again to see if OhanaUnited is still having just as much fun with those admin tools as he did in my case. betsythedevine (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, how my email to Sandstein that reads: "You are probably the last person I could count on to help me, but I will try. I am not asking you to review my block, but why my talk page access was removed. I only added the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indefinite. I believe I am allowed to have such things at my talk page." could have been read as me attacking Gwen Gale? Where do you see I am attacking anybody there? The same with two other differences I provided, and remember I did not provide at least some 20 more differences in which you were discussing me on different pages with different users and about different subjects. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The context was that Gwen Gale's block of Mbz1 was being reviewed/criticized/attacked at ANI. Haven't looked at that in a long time; interesting to note it was Boris1 who proposed "A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful." Sorry Ironholds, feel free to hat this.betsythedevine (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GA R v Baillie
I have placed the nomination on hold with a few minor points. If you wish, we can expedite resolution and wrap this up in the next day. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are very close. Could you please take a look at two items, where fluffernutter has weighed in, but I want your judgment. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(Comment Moved from userpage to talkpage, step 2)
WHY DID YOU DELETE THE ARTICLE ON JOHN THOMAS O'NEILL??? Ben542442444 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Comment in User:Ironholds moved to User talk:Ironholds --Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for First Battle of Newbury
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for R v Baillie
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky (automobile company)
I've provided sources in the AfD debate, as you requested. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a second look. I appreciate it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article a bit and added a few references. More work is needed, but I think that notability has been established. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Trial of Lord George Gordon
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Common assault
Here's an article that badly needs a lawyer's touch. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oy vey! And it's all on English law, too :(. I'll get confirmation that it doesn't exist in other nations (and bollocks if it doesn't) and, if it does, write Common assault in English law or something over the next few days. Criminal law isn't my usual area, but that's mainly because I find other bits of law are covered in a crappier way :P. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Free markets (now with friendly fire)
Then there's this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=1. I wonder where they got all of the money from. Oh yeah, from their trillion dollar budget. Ocaasit 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
 * 2) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
 * 3) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
 * 4) Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreate
Hello. I'd like to creat Markus Werba page. He is baritone opera singer. He was debuet on MET, Vienna state Opera and Royal opera house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbelwer (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation for within-sentence interruption
The style guides clearly set out two options—one is the unspaced em dash—and the other is the unspaced en dash – like that. Spaced em dashes — like that — are proscribed, even though they can be found occasionally in US publications (amazing, in a few newspapers with narrow columns, where the amount of horizontal space the spaced em dash takes up can be very clunky, especially when at the end of a line). These two options have been well-established on en.WP for many years; you do very occasionally see the spaced ems in WP articles, but they should be corrected. The choice needs to be article-consistent. My experience is that the spaced en dash is more frequently chosen than the unspaced em dash. Is this helpful? Tony  (talk)  10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP question
Hi,

Given your comment at the recent Trevor Marshall AFD, I would be interested in any comment you might have regarding [|this one]. I'm interested in a "sincerely curious about how genuine, truthful, hurtful things should be handled on wikipedia" way, not in a "pointy, I agree with you, who gives a crap about people's feelings" sort of way. I don't often edit BLP pages, and outcomes like these two make me want to avoid them completely. Any comment or links you might have to suggest are of interest to me. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure; about to go to sleep, but I'll post a long schpiel in the morning. Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
It turns out I mis-read CSD G4. For some crazy reason, I took "This excludes" to mean "Also speedily delete the following ...". Thanks for your patience. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)