User talk:Ironholds/archive 33

DYK for The Case of the Dean of St Asaph
Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hi Ironholds. There is currently a discussion at User talk:Tony1 about an IRC post you were said to have made a few days ago. You may wish to comment there. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious about your closing rational

 * I'm curious about your closing rational at Articles_for_deletion/Jonathon_Coudrille. "Those arguing in favour of keeping this article have provided no actual evidence that he is worthy of inclusion."  I pointed out that he met WP:ARTIST by having his work in the permanent collection of a notable gallery.  The article at Falmouth Art Gallery begins with "Falmouth Art Gallery has one of the leading art collections in Cornwall, southwest England, and features work by old masters, major Victorian artists"... So it is a notable gallery, and I did add to the article a link to their official website where they list all those in their permanent collection.  That and the many significant exhibition he has been a part of, I think would make him notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I followed the link. It gave absolutely no details of the "other significant exhibitions" he has been a part of - again, if you're going to make a statement, cite it or provide evidence - and as was rightly pointed out at the AfD, WP:ARTIST requires his work to be held in the collections of several galleries. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You SUCCEEDED AT AN RFA?!!?!
OK it's been freaking AGES but just was curious what was going on on Wikipedia and I saw your name in the successful RFA bit. So yeah. Wow. Well done! Well, in so much as becoming an admin is a *good* thing. Glad people didn't reject you for stupid reasons like every single other time though. :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Tombomp (talk/contribs)
 * hahah, thanks! Must admit, when I saw the title of this section I was thinking "oh lord, another what-is-the-wiki-coming-to comment.." :p. How goes? Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of person wouldn't want you as an admin?! Only somebody with completely reasonable objections, I imagine! So yeah I left the IRC and the site like 2 years ago and did some other stuff because other stuff is fun. I'm going to uni next year. Well that's about it. How are you? How is ~the wikipedia~? I just looked at the talk page of an arbitrator who I thought was pretty cool back in the day and noticed some drama and was about to go all Wikipedia Review on it when I realised that was dumb. Wikipedia is way addictive dammit Tombomp (talk/contribs) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The wiki is...well, the same as it's always been. I've now graduated and am out job-hunting. So in summary: wiki = big. me = poor. Nothing new ;p. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hah! Oh god, that pun makes me giggle. Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Vere Bird Jr.
Reviewed again. I shared on the countless reasons on why it is not a good article. I am sure you will appreciate on how much more work the article needs to get done. Naturally, you will probably also understand that an article with 15 edits (including some undo edits and a bot) may not be up to par to becoming a good article just yet. ;) You seem like a good person, so I imagine that you will enjoy working with me speedily to improve the page. I want a good article just as much as you. :) On regards to your whopping 64,000 edits, I (as admittedly a beginner of sorts) look forward to your next few needed to cleanup a page badly in need of revamp &mdash; Vere Bird, Jr.. And as always, keep up the good work and keep working hard buddy.Electronscope44 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talkpage, repeatedly. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You make it sound like a bad thing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! It's only "bad" if I look for an easy review. Since I prefer a thorough one, yours are second to none :). Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Good-Morrow
Hello! Your submission of The Good-Morrow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Zafar Mahmud
I went to PROD Zafar Mahmud and the template came up with the prior AfD warning, which I hadn't noticed since there's no talk page box. I see you just closed it today. Under what possible standard should we keep an unsourced BLP for someone like this? A single name drop in a book is what swayed it for you? To be honest I was wavering between speedy deletion and prod, but his service as an ambassador kept me from A7'ing it. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "single mention in the book" verifies that he passes WP:POLITICIAN, which is the important element, and necessitated a keep. Note that the notability guidelines do not trump verifiability - you're welcome to cull all the unreferenced content, or even merge it into a "List of ambassadors from Pakistan to Blotto" list. Speedy deletion and prod aren't really appropriate for something AfDd; you can nominate it for AfD again, but I'd think it'd be kept, albeit in a reduced format. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)/GA1
Just pinging you in case you didn't notice the review. J Milburn (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw it, replied to it! Thankee :). Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion
Right, so "thanks for all your work! Hey, to celebrate, why not do more work?!" :P. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! [[Image:Face-grin.svg|25px]] – Quadell (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will swing by at some point; currently at the Umbrella conference for CILIP with WMUK. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * I loved your comment on my talk page! :) I'll remove it shortly, because I enjoy a clean talk page, but you were humorous and downright Solomonic in your approach, something I am amused by and have to respect. However, I cannot respect, in fact I object, to being lumped into the same category as the other two editors. We all know what they did that repeatedly violated policies. And contrary to your characterization, it wasn't ignorance either, it was intentional - and coordinated - harrassment. While no one can identify any policy that I violated that would warrant any block. Do I want to "rip new ones" as you put it? No. But I'm not prepared to be lumped in with disruptive behavior that I am not guilty of. That's really not fair either, now is it, my Solomonic friend? Give 'em a block and call it a day. They've earned it. They worked hard for it! So just give them what they asked for! Or as you suggested, give us all a block - if you believe I'm guilty of being unwilling to accept an apology - that was never offered. Thanks. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reference to Solomon was justified. You admins have a difficult tightrope and you walk yours well, so kudos for that. However, in reviewing their actions, not just with me, but even on Katie's talk page from just today, it's clear that they work in tandem - like their own traveling judge and executioner, trying to intimidate by tag-teaming. If you've warned them about me, that's fine, but as you indicated, I'd honestly applaud your efforts to monitor them in future. Simply because this appears to be a pattern, not just one isolated incident. Again, just look at Katie's talk page. But as a tip of my hat to you and my trust that you'll keep your word to keep an eye, I'll withdraw from pursuing this further, even though it warrants it. Still, apologies from them would have been nice. They're certainly deserved. But thanks again. Cheers. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did stop reverting the talkpage. However there was no need to personally attack me, by calling me "thin-skinned and immature"--Katieh5584 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Agreed; you were all in the wrong over this, but the IP had a legitimate concern which you repeatedly failed to address, instead edit-warring with him against policy. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken.--Katieh5584 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Point apparently NOT taken. This editor CONTINUES to revert messages on my talk page, after I have repeatedly blanked them - again & again - and AFTER she has been warned - repeatedly - about this behavior relative to my page. If that isn't "thin-skinned and immature" - then it sure as hell is THICK-HEADED. This person simply does not get it. Period. Enough! Give me a legitimate reason not to file a complaint, Ironholds. Nothing else seems to register with, or affect the behavior of, this editor. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I went to edit this afternoon, I found a "new message" banner. Upon clicking it I discovered that this old message had been newly restored by Katieh5584. I don't see it in the history now myself, perhaps it was rolled back (?), I honestly don't know. All I do know is that if it had not been there, I certainly would not have felt the need to revisit this whole sorry affair for one more day. I had already put it behind me. As I'd said before, I have already had quite enough. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know either. I wrote you in reaction to the new message and what I saw on my talk page. Lord knows I had/have zero interest in this dragging on for another day. But she has subsequently apologized and apparently withdrawn, which if nothing else, accomplishes the end of it. That's all I ever wanted. Thanks again for all your help and the follow up. You've been fair. If an IP could award you a barnstar, I would. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert the page again, all I did was apologise. Can we please leave this now?--Katieh5584 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR
Hi Ironholds. Last year, the FAR process instituted a new first step, requiring editors to notify in advance the talk page of the article that they are planning to nominate it for review. Because this wasn't done on your recent nomination of T-34, I have removed the review from the FAR page, hidden the banner on the article talk page, and placed a notification on the article talk page. If there is no work done on the article in the next week or two, please feel free to reverse my actions, or ping me and I will. Let me know if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I haven't done an FAR in a while and was working mostly on autopilot. Whoops! :-). Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ironholds, it's been two weeks since the talk page notification. There has been some discussion at Talk:T-34, and some editing has been done on the article. Could you check whether your concerns have been addressed or whether you wish to proceed with an FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure; I'll check it out later today - about to present a paper at Wikimania, so a wee bit busy. Ironholds (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues are still present - FAR noms aren't my thing. What do I do now, precisely? Is the old one on hold, or deleted, or closed, or... ? Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. You should watchlist that review and keep an eye out for questions/changes. Also, did you do notifications for interested users and projects? If so, could you add those to the "notified" line at the top of the review page? If not, you should add T-34 to the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page and to the talk pages of any major contributors (or the FA nominator - haven't checked who that was) who are still active. Let me know if you've got any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I notified some people, but I'll let as many as possible know. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wisdom Song Inc (Raymond Terrace Buddhist Centre)
Thank you for reverting this and cleaning up the debris. I wasn't certain that I was 100% correct, and I'm not one to argue with a long-standing admin, so I just took my admonishment and walked away. I feel much better now knowing that I wasn't completely wrong in listing the article for discussion. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You were completely in the right; it does not fall under a valid CSD criteria, and if a PROD is removed, it has to be AfDd. Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for that, and the Barnstar! -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've handed in my bit over this. Clearly I am too old and out of touch to do the job anymore. IMO it was a clear-cut case of CSD, as it was a pure vanity article for a non-notable enterprise. But hey, what do I know? Regards Manning (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the talk page for that article was not restored. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  06:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Good-Morrow
Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Constructive edits to Wikipedia
Please, apply yourself constructively to the advancement of Wikipedia. I have no idea why you felt in necessary to undelete my talk page. Thanks/wangi (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the deletion of talkpages by anyone, even their user, is the exception and not the rule. Policy clearly dictates that talkpages not be deleted without good reason, and no good reason was provided. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All wrapped up in policy (dictates indeed). Did you miss the bit about it being ok to use common sense once in a while? The page had been deleted for four months with no harm and all of a sudden it's critical it is restored? Nonsense like this is why I no longer contribute to this project. /wangi (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'd seen the deletion four months ago, I would have reverted you again. This is not simply some arbitrary rule; there are 5+ years of other peoples contributions there - contributions that are now, for the majority of users, impossible to access. This is precisely why talkpage deletion is done so rarely; because it involves the sandblasting of other users' content, submitted in good faith, and a near-permanent erasure of conversation threads from the wiki. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue the toss on this. Just be aware all you've done is to stick another nail in the coffin of yet another editor/admin disillusioned by Wikipedia bureaucracy and those who seem to delight in it - congratulations. Nothing here has helped the creation of an encyclopedia... /wangi (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the preservation (at least in the "history") of the ongoing conversation which is the crafting of Wikipedia, is part of what we do here, and is helping document the creation of an encyclopedia. I dearly hope, Wangi, that this minor matter is not going to induce you to stop contributing to this project. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim to no longer contribute, yet continue to hold admin privileges for no apparent reason. AD 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aiken drum, can you please explain to me (a) how that is relevant and (b) how it is likely to be constructive, rather than further inflaming tensions for no perceivable benefit? Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When somebody claims have left, and insists on keeping their talk page deleted, I don't see any reason why that person should continue holding admin rights. Admin rights are used for the project's purposes, not just to have in case their talk page is undeleted. Just my opinion. AD 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, which has nothing to do with this situation. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AD - I think you must have misread or misunderstood. I have not used my admin privileges to reverse Ironhold's undeletion. As I said above - "I'm not going to argue the toss". I have only implied that act is illustrative of many of the problems with Wikipedia editor/admins being focused on the bureaucracy rather than the content. I'm also not aware of any standard practice whereby admin privileges are removed due to inactivity (edit: ok, guess there are - but they don't apply here). Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what AD is getting at is that, if you no longer contribute here, you have no need fro the admin bit. I don't believe we've ever crossed paths before, but it would be a shame if you were to stop contributing. But if you have stopped, or intend to stop in the very near future, I would tend to agree that you should hand in the bit, not least because of some of the problems we've had with dormant admin accounts being compromised. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not used admin functions in a year and a half (except the issue at the top) and still make occasional edits (to the encyclopaedia!). I don't see any reason why this means I should somehow engage a process to drop my admin status. After all, I'm still in "good standing" - yeah? All this is yet another instance of focusing on the bureaucracy. /wangi (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * HJ, Aiken, this is all well and good; it's also a complete distraction from this discussion is about and has no relevance. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like the discussion on whether that's relevant or not. warrior  4321   23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you all want to debate the importance of retired admins to hand in their bit, fine, but please do so elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Avenue X at Cicero
Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for talkpage templates, as I'm watching your page; if you are going to use them, please put them under their own header. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I dream of horses @ 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!
Thank you for sticking up for me during a time when I'm unable to stick up for myself in a timely manner due to my semi-wikibreak. We may not agree on everything, but it's nice to know you have my back.

Hopefully, a more productive editor is the light at the end of the tunnel, instead of just a cynical retiree. I know I've sometimes learned from being confronted on my WikiBehavior. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, although to my knowledge we haven't really interacted. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block!

 * Greetings! FWIW, due to his similar way of arranging his pages (???) when compared to mine, I too find very suspicious indeed... would SPI be advicable as well? Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do what you will; I was just dealing with the spamming issue and have no thought on his other activities. Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I totally disagree with the block. In my interactions with the editor it has been clear that the editor is often confused and makes some errors; however, the incident in question isn't one that deserves a block.  He was leaving Wikilove on people's talk pages... when did that become a crime?  A block might have been slightly justified solely on the basis of the fact that this is a culmination of many troubles caused by the editor; however, his work has been improving dramatically.  If you check his contribs to the help desk from a month ago to now, it is clear that he has been making strides.  I would (obviously) support an unblock if he receives mentorship. Ryan Vesey  contribs  13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... but unsolicited mass spamming is not what Wikipedia wants, that's what the Brownbot is for, you'll only get what you've subscribed for, it is that simple. IMO, the editor has made himself a class clown and depending what a class clown does, one usually laugh with them unless the joke is on them, that would become another sticky matter, such as what is happening now. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you check WP:SPAM you will notice that it only refers to spam on articles. The editor is confused, and that is the reason to force the editor to seek mentorship, but not enough for a block. Ryan Vesey contribs  13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Ironholds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Obscurity
WP:AC/N
 * the person who edited with that account is directed to contact the
 * Arbitration Committee with the name of the new account they wish to
 * use in place of Barong.

He did that. Amalthea 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh bollocks; sorry, didn't see that! Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (duplicate discussion moved to User talk:MuZemike) Amalthea  13:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM
Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Molwyn Joseph
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding It doesn't appear that the block is warranted. The thread is Block of User:Since 10.28.2010.The discussion is about the topic User:Since 10.28.2010. Thank you. — Mlpearc  powwow  17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Shooting

 * Thanks kindly :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your closing statements at Ellen Kennedy

 * Articles_for_deletion/Ellen_Kennedy closed rather oddly. The reason we have guideline pages other than GNG is because not every notable thing is going to get coverage, otherwise we wouldn't need them.  WP:NACTOR has clearly been met.  Consensus was that her roles were deemed significant.  And verifiability has been met.  You can check the credits in any of the things she has worked on to find her name.    D r e a m Focus  03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, secondary guidelines are for the purpose of ensuring we cover important things that theoretically (but not practically) get coverage. If it was simply "so we can cover things that don't have reliable sources" then the line noting that articles not based on reliable sources that nevertheless pass secondary guidelines can be merged/redirected would not exist. In any case, "secondary notability guidelines exist so we can cover notable things" is a circular argument. Ironholds (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ellen Kennedy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ellen Kennedy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  D r e a m Focus  12:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted; it would have been good if you'd actually phrased the above discussion as an attempt to resolve the matter, y'know. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Coudrille
I am very upset to find that you have deleted the article on Jonathon Coudrille - the surrealist painter from Cornwall UK.

Please can you explain why and reinstate the page as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Joff Day Swordstar (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Coudrille did not pass our notability requirements; as such, he cannot have an article. I will not restore it, but if you're looking for the missing content, I can email you a copy. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The AFD is at . Evidence has now been found though, no one mentioning at that time.  He was interviewed on a television show called John Nettles' Westcountry.  And as we discussed previously on this talk page  a major art gallery does keep some of his work in their permanent collection. He was interviewed on Revolver Art Cornwall - Cornwall Online Radio  also.  Based on that evidence, can you undelete the article?   D r e a m Focus  16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I have already discussed this matter with you. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion involved you stating that one art gallery wasn't enough, you needed two to meet WP:ARTIST. Something totally different here.  I have listed two places where he was interviewed at.  Do you find those two reliable sources I just mentioned count as notable coverage?   D r e a m Focus  20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's making the fundamental assertion that the second source is reliable. Can you prove that it is? Ironholds (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with Coudrille is that his most notable achievements took place during the 1960s and 1970s, so they are poorly documented on the internet. I am guessing that this Wikibin article contains a copy of the deleted biography: From reading that and several other sources, Coudrille appears to be notable on several counts. He has exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Walker Art Gallery. He has composed music performed by the National Symphony Orchestra. He has written film and television soundtracks. He has appeared on children's television, and has written songs for the BBC. None of these achievements are backed up by hard online sources, but he is indisputably an award-winning children's author. "A Beastly Collection" was published in 1974 by Frederick_Warne_%26_Co,, the publishers of Beatrix Potter, and "Farmer Fisher" was a best seller. It won Children's Book of The Year in 1976 and was republished in 2010 by Footsteps Press. . On the strength of his children's books alone, I think there's sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of a biography. Please restore it. Rubywine (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If all of that is true, recreate the page with this information included. Other than overturning months-old consensus there's not much I feel comfortable doing on this front. Ironholds (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have recreated the biography from scratch, and I think it stands up pretty well. Rubywine (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

UK legislation navbox
If you click on the link "2000 to date" it will take you to a list that contains a link to the Bribery Act 2010 and links to a number of "related articles" (the other Acts of Parliament). And similarly with the other links. It facilitates navigation between articles on Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no earthly reason for the links to related articles to need to be physically incorporated into the navbox itself (in this case it isn't possible because there are too many related articles). There is no earthly reason why they cannot be incorporated by reference to a list. This navbox, and similar navboxes, have been used in articles on Acts of Parliament for years and no one has complained.James500 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, that is completely absurd. Further, those navboxes are not doing any harm. James500 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And there is nothing fundamentally inadequate about the formatting of those lists, whether or not it might be improved. James500 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not followed by something disrespectful. It is not disrespectful to describe an argument as absurd. When I say, "with the greatest possible respect", I absolutely mean that. I am sorry if you misconstrued what I said. James500 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A single navbox is not clogging up anything. None of the articles in question have so many navboxes that the number could genuinely be considered to be a problem.

All Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are closely related. The fact that there is unfortunately an absurd number of them does not prevent them from being closely related.

James500 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since what is or is not a "close" relationship is a completely subjective concept I can only say that I disagree.

If a person is systematically editing the articles in question for one reason or another, the template certainly does serve a useful purpose. For example, if a new Act effects a very long list of far reaching amendments and repeals all over the place (which seems to have become a habit with that body), the template would make it easier to effect those changes. It would reduce the amount of typing that that person has to do or the number of links that he has to click on. James500 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything wrong in principle with helping editors to edit.

If the editors are more efficient, the readers will have more content to read in the first place, because the editors will be able to produce more.

Readers might not be looking for legislation on a particular subject as such. It is perfectly conceivable that they might be looking for all the legislation passed in a certain period of time (such reign of a particular Sovereign, the administration of a particular government, or the duration of some event such as a war, or a number of the same) or simply for all the legislation.

James500 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some sources?
Hi,

I wonder, if you would be able to find some sources for erotic plants or sexy plants or sensual plants for this article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Afraid not. Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not defenestrating me tonight!

 * Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse
Might be best to semi protect Amy Winehouse then with the recent news. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done; full protection, however, was not justified. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos on the rather black summary Egg Centric 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to hell anyway; may as well have fun on the way there. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse
Yes, probably best to make sure. No vandalism as such but you can't beat a bit of preemptive protecting, even if it goes against policy. After all, wouldn't want any untrustworthy IP spoiling the party would we? 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There were certainly unconstructive edits taking place. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm sure they'll now stop. 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one, and I see one of yours was reverted as well. And someone put a stupid time zone change in just now. Pity you can't SP against stupidity rather than IPs. 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm. I haven't made any edits other than the addition of the protection templates. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ironholds, just thought I should let you know that someone has posted at Talk:Amy Winehouse asking why the page is move-protected as nobody has tried to move the page. I've posted a reply from an admin point of view but thought I'd also make you aware of it in case there's anything you want to add as you are the blocking admin.--5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward Coke

 * Thanks! My internal punmeister wants to point out that the highest award, for both military and legal wordplay lulz, should be the legal barnstar with bar ;p. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Marek Edelman
The union of "Jewish-Polish" adds the tone that he was "more" Polish and together with the comment that he was "Anti-Zionist" implies he was non-Jewish. There is no validity in such a remark. The source used is not reliable newspaper. Edelman was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto; he was not there because he was Polish. This is an anti-Semitic comment about a great Jewish hero. Furthermore, the material on post-communist era does it have relevance to what Edelman stood for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm. Saying that he's an anti-zionist does not imply he was non-jewish. Saying that he was Jewish-Polish, something that includes the word "Jewish", does not imply he's non-jewish. Any assertions that these phrases mean what you think they mean is entirely in your own head. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)There is nothing antisemitic about this edit, and you should not ascribe such motives to another editor. Edelman was indeed an anti-Zionist Jew, as am I and many more. He was also Polish, and I am concerned at your repeated removal of this statement, which to me echoes the antisemitic argument that one cannot be both a Jew and a Pole. RolandR (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier how about a Pole of Jewish faith? To conjure honest remark on ill-informed information that is wrong, sends the message that Wikipedia is not an open source for all. You check carefully even in your Wikipedia entry what is Anti-Zionism? The changes must continue in order to remove political as well as racial bias that exists in Wikipedia; otherwise it becomes a one way road for those revisionists of history that people like you support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jewish-Polish" or "Jewish-blotto nationality" is a fairly settled standard. The bias does not exist outside of your own head; if it did, somebody neutral would have complained (and no, you're not neutral; anyone who accuses us of fostering historical revisionism obviously has an axe to grind). No reasonable human being would interpret "Jewish-Polish" to mean "he's not Jewish" or "anti-Zionist" to mean "he's not Jewish". Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec again)Edelman was not "of Jewish faith". He was an atheist. I don't understand the rest of your comments; and who are "people like me"? RolandR (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you a neutral? Why was Edelman in the Warsaw Ghetto in the first place? You are not a historian it seems, and statements saying he was an Anti-Zionist support this. He refused to leave Poland because jews lived in this land from Roman times before the Slavs. This is supported by historical evidence especially in Galica region. What I would like for you to do is check your Wiki pedia entry what "Anit-Zionist" means and then judge whether my comments are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources supporting the idea that that was his reasoning, and we'll talk. Otherwise you're just spouting anecdotes while criticising my historical chops, which comes off as a game of pot, kettle, black. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance
Hello Ironholds, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'mnot giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page.

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Image copyright really isn't my thing, I'm afraid; try User:Moonriddengirl. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your blog...
Your blog is well-built and pretty interesting... What came to your mind when you created it? Why choose Wordpress as the blog? --Dr Fook| 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll is troll. Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding digital object identifiers to scientist biographies
Dear Ironholds, there are two styles of citation here, the original (1) and the one I changed it to (2) which uses a Digital Object Identifier and Template:Cite doi shown below:



The second style is an improvement on the first and adds important information that is missing by linkg directly through to the original source (the abstract of the article), rather than just the journal itself. IMHO this does actually add something Duncan.Hull (talk)
 * Replied on your talkpage; regards, Ironholds (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward Coke
WOW. PLEASE tell me that this will be going to FAC? J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh. Maybe ;P. It took me two years to write (yes, srsly) so hopefully I'll be sending it along. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Trial of Lord George Gordon
Some suggestions advanced at its GA review page. Let me know what you think. Choess (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleasure working with you again. I'm going to makes some tweaks on Lord Kenyon at some point; he did, in fact, speak in Parliament on occasion after scrutinizing Fox's return, although he doesn't seem to have done it with much pleasure either before or after. Interestingly, that led me to a thread cutting across one of my other articles: Kenyon's banging about the "great accomptants" led to some reform in 1783 that kept them from holding great sums of public money for years, but some of the lesser paymasters were still allowed to play with fire. That's how Hon. George Villiers blew himself up in his own sinecure in 1810. Choess (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, neat! If you need any help, I'll be writing an FA on the Fox-North Coalition, which you might be interested in. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your past, present and future workload
Coke looks great, very well done. I made a couple of minor tweaks and look forward to re-reading it when I have more leisure time to appreciate it. Good luck with Pepper v Hart at FAC; I'll see if I can find the time to swing by and see what I can bring to the party. Thereafter, does Featured article review/Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949/archive1 take your fancy? BencherliteTalk 06:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweaking - much appreciated. I'll take a look at the FAC now. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults
Hello, I believe that your summary, and thus the claim of the reached consensus on List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults delete is incorrect. While through pure numbers it may appear that delete has won (D13-K4-M1) i would like to point out that the deletion is not a democratic process where the majority automatically gets its way. In addition to that while keep votes were argumentative, many of delete ones have simply stated their desire to delete. You say the following:
 * There seems to be fairly clear consensus that this article is inappropriate, primarily because of the vagueness of its title, which doesn't (from what the commentators here have indicated) line up with any system of categorisation used anywhere else in the world. As such, there are some serious notability concerns (and yes, lists also have to pass notability). If someone wishes to recreate the article, with clear indications on how this topic is notable and/or in line with actual systems of literary classification, they are welcome to.

Please look at your decision once again. I hope that you were acting in good faith, and have simply misread the discussion. Beta M (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There has been no consensus.
 * 2) The fact that LoC doesn't categorise it's books of fiction by this title is irrelevant: 1) It is not any/all systems of categorisation in the world and 2) It is as much not a test as google test.
 * 3) Examine the claims to lack of notability. They say things like "only a microscopic segment of society openly celebrate it", which is not relevant to whether or not the subject is notable. It says that most people do not like the subject.
 * 4) "I delete and if somebody wishes to recreate be my guest" is not an appropriate way to deal with deletions. If it were then this becomes a weapon of war against any subject on Wikipedia: submit to AfD, have the history deleted, claim that people are free to recreate the article, if they do start with the same tactic.
 * Yes, because nothing creates a polite conversational tone like teaching me how to suck eggs and insinuating that I'm incompetent. I have examined the claims of notability, I have read the arguments and, strangely enough, I'm aware that consensus is not a democratic process. Note, by the way, that "there has been no consensus" is not only not a strong argument but not even an argument, given that consensus follows from the statements made and not the other way around - bringing "there has been no consensus" up is a stunning example of circular logic, and I take my hat off to you for thinking of it. "The article as it is is inappropriate, and is therefore deleted - however, if anyone can fix the flaws that led to its deletion feel free to recreate" is what I said; please stop misrepresenting my argument by claiming that I'm attempting to provide some kind of "weapon". That sort of additional comment has been made for years, because that's precisely how AfD works. Delete due to problems, restore if problems can be fixed. Simple as.
 * So far you have misrepresented my arguments, insinuated that I'm incompetent, acted in a generally patronising manner and attempted to go through a DRV equivalent of templating the regulars. If you can put together an argument that doesn't include passive-aggressive personal attacks, "if you do X they'll ALL COME AND GET US" conspiracy theories, circular logic, improper references to policy and convention and the general tone of somebody dealing with a particularly slow five year old, I will be prepared to actually elucidate on my argument and chat to you in a constructive manner. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Reblock required
Ironholds, has once again deleted information from Chuggington with two edits that deleted large amounts of content from the article, not explained as before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuggington&diff=442140457&oldid=442114707). It looks like you may need to block this user again. Thanks, D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now blocked; in future, it may be faster to request things at WP:AIV (because from my POV, you asked me for a block at 4.34 in the morning. I sleep pretty poorly, but not that poorly :P). Ironholds (talk)

MAMEhub
I note your comment on my talk page regarding this deleted article. I had not interpreted A7 to exclude this type of article, and it would appear that neither had another admin who deleted the restored article on the same day under the same criterion. Having suffered a G11 deletion as well, and a move, it appears now to have been deleted as G6 - which, this dicussion suggests,is not correct! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am always happy to learn nuances of interpretation in this type of case, and will bear it in mind in the future. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool; sorry if I came off as rude. This edit aside, keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Royal Mail Case
I don't mind you reverting the reference style as I accept that sfn isn't everyone's cup of tea but please don't delete sourced additional information about the case. Also I noticed in the GA review there was a query about inserting an image. There is a commons image of Kylsant File:Lord Kylsant.jpg if you want to inset it. I haven't because with articles like this I'm never sure where is the best place to put them in the article. NtheP (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, sorry; the edit adding a large chunk of content and the edit adding those templates was...the same edit. It was rather hard to disengage. Since you appreciate that these aren't everybody's cup of tea, can you also appreciate that WP:MOS warns against randomised citation template changes against the intentions of the article's central writers or original style? Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries and next time I want to do a drive by template change, I think first. NtheP (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Smashing - my apologies if I was a bit snarky; just came off 30 hours of travel to Israel :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You rang?
Hi, sorry only just checked in and saw your message from April! Not sure how to leave a message for you on WP so I hope this will do!

Get in touch, as I have lost your email. PointOfPresence (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My subpage article re-write
Ironholds,

I'm currently in #wikipedia-en-help and they recommend I put my me putting the information I've done on my subpage onto the actual article. As I explained to the two users I am about halfway through it and I'm waiting on the book to arrive. What should I do? In one of the WikiProjects it only lacks "B1" to be a "Class B" article for that WikiProject. Adamdaley (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no obligation to put the content in now; wait until you feel comfortable with the content. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed your second talk with Kat and James and Karen, break my heart; I don't know what happened. I thought you guys were in Rapaport right now but you're not, it's Philippe & Megan. Who are also excellent presenters, I rush to add :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Royal Medal
I see you are having a nice time at Wikimania. :-) Just dropping off a note to point out a note I left here (at the Royal Medal article). I noticed that the Royal Society website architecture changed yet again, so there might be more than just that article that needs links fixing. I first noticed this propensity for the Royal Society to change links like this a few years ago. I never did get round to fixing all of them then, so maybe this time round a more permanent solution can be found? Anyway, whenever you get the time to take a look please do. Hope the closing day goes well at Wikimania. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure; about to get on a plane, but I'll work on it when I get back. Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I need your help
I am not an expert on the BLP policy and I was only trying to improve the article, adding a few things while others wrote the most of it. But here is why I need your help I would like to know which are the obvious BLP violations in this version Could you skim through it and delete those parts? Something reliably sourced can't be a violation can it? In many cases the sources are not even the newspapers but the archival documents behind them are quoted word for word, for example it was one of the now unclassified documents that quoted Lendvai as "one of the best contacts" of the intelligence agencies at the time. So I would need a version stripped of BLP violation that I could work on because the article will not be able to progress this way. The current version is just too much barebones and can't really tell what was the basis of inclusion for example a panel discussion allegedly canceled due to "nationalist" assault?? (were there German nationalists? the discussion was in Germany) is important? Anyway I just think that version is really horrible and need some help with determining what is a blp violation and what isn't. Reading back the talk page Dougweller wrote quite a bit at the start which was useful but it was way too general and nothing really specific. (I need stuff like why was this removed why was that removed by him etc) If you could get him to go back to the article that would be great as well as an alternative. Tüzes fal (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The general tone is problematic - using a lot of high-powered language - along with how unreliable some of the sources appear to be. I have full access to the LexisNexis archives, and (almost all) of their sources pass our reliability guidelines; my suggestion would be to drop me an email through the "e-mail this user" function so I know your email address, then I can send you all the sources I can find. Use them to rewrite the article from the ground up, starting with a blank sheet completely, in some sort of sandbox. When you're done, I can pop by and/or ask User:Dougweller to do the same, and we can take a look and see if the issues are resolved in that fashion. Does that work? Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could send me the sources that would be great. Tüzes fal (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
And perhaps you could initiate the discussion? Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Ostoja

 * Greetings! I have now completed the article about the "Clan of Ostoja" and at the moment there is not much to add. Think that this article include almost all information that can be found about the clan. The DNA project will develop and might add something in the future.


 * The article is quite long but it is also complete. I'm thinking about nominating this article to GA but I need some help with improvements and with some objective comments to improve it. The language and the stile might not meet standards of GA. Could you please see through the article and tell what you think? I would widely appreciate your kind help! Best regards,Camdan 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several large sections (such as the DNA section) which lack references; is there anything you can include? Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)