User talk:Ironholds/archive 38

New Zappa project
Hey, you gave me a barnstar for writing a Frank Zappa article so I'm assuming you like him. Would you be interested in joining a project dedicated to cleaning up articles related to Zappa and creating new necessary ones? If you are you can go here to join. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

br tag in MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning
What is the rationale for that added a line break to the Wikimedia-copyrightwarning message? I don't understand the grammatical motivation for this change. It also looks terrible. I posted a message about the wording of the copyright warning that is relevant at MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a work-related change; strictly speaking I shouldn't be handling work this week (HR's orders) but I'll make an exception for you. It was a request from Vibha, our interaction designer - I'll ask her to drop you a message when I next catch her on google talk. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jason. The reasons are both grammatical and related to good type setting.

1. Its easier to read a list than a dense paragraph where instruction is concerned.

2. From a pure cognitive load perspective: Ideal sentence length is much shorter than what we carry on Wikipedia.. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(typography).

3. A line break also helps audiences that read right to left in other languages.

4. Without a line break the text looks flabby and unbalanced, i.e: One very long line and 3-4 words hanging on the line below.

This is a conscious effort to simplify saving an edit for new editors since this is their first touchpoint. Here is another key reference:

http://www.thinkingwithtype.com/contents/text/#Alignment That was the gist of the thinking. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your #4, you must have a very large screen or a very small font size. On my computer, I see three lines with your : one long, one short, and one long. Anomie⚔ 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, while I understand your intent, I don't really think that applies here. Grammatically, it makes no sense to split two logically following sentences into a list as they are not a list; a list consists of separate but related items, and here we have one sentence continuing from the previous. Indicating otherwise just makes it harder to follow. Visually it doesn't help either, as Anomie points out - while it may look 'flabby and unbalanced' on some resolutions to have it on one line, on other resolutions breaking it up just results in a further awkward empty space between them, looking even more unbalanced while also taking up more space than necessary and further breaking the sentences apart. -— Isarra ༆ 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Vibhabamba I didn't see your reply until now. The change is ungrammatical as per Isarra's explanation and it is also not "good type setting" as per Anomie's explanation, both of which were the same thinking that prompting my original comment. I find fault in all your given explanations. 1) Using a "br" does not make a "list" semantically. 2) typographical measure has nothing to do with anything, it's the browser's job to render paragraphs and take care of typesetting... as for sentence length, it should be what it needs to be. Short sentences are good but sometimes you just have to use long ones, especially frequent when dealing with legal text. 3) this has nothing to do with the English version of this message. If this is an valid concern, the way internationalization of these messages is being done is wrong too. 4) This comment is absurd. You write it as if browser window size (and the way it depends on a user's screen size and resolution) don't matter. General comments now: The code you used for your reply shows that you do not know wikimark or html very well, which makes me wonder why you are making such nuanced changes to the source in the first place. I also find it curious that you have not commented at MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. Have you seen that page? Do you follow it? There's some directly relevant comments. As a person who can change (and has changed) the copyright message, I think it benefits all if you follow and are involved in the discussion there. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't post this while we're engaged in discussion at the RfC
but I wanted to say that last night, via the Signpost, I found your piece on the Philip Roth issue, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Outstanding rhetoric and great points. Thanks for writing that; I only wish the New Yorker would print it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It got crazy media-attention after Jimmy was a-twittering about it. I spent most of my weekend hiding under the desk, rocking back and forth and going "oh god" a lot.
 * I do want it noted that I didn't see the phallic references in the closing paragraph until the Chair of the Board pointed it out to me. At which point I added "headdesking" to my little tourette-esque routine. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar.
Thank you for giving me a Barnstar for article 'Yozons'. I am glad you like the article. --Floralfs (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate the Barnstar.
I am greatly honored sir to be given a Barnstar. Thank you very much and rest assured I will use much of my free time to further enhance my upcoming contributions. --Roberteditorwriter 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberteditorwriter (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar. I'm glad to know my edits have been helpful. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Control group question
I know you're a data-minded sort of person: this doesn't seem quite right to me as a control group; any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Unanswered Questions
I am not sure what question you want answered. The paragraph I presume you are referring to appears to be a small lecture on how consensus works and contains no question. You were apparently drawing some conclusion (guessing I would suspect) as to how the notes (that's what they were, kinda notes to self) would be used at some point in the future of this discussion. The RfC discussion will (I hope) be evaluated on its merits if that is what you are asking? --Mike Cline (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The RfC discussion will (I hope) be evaluated on its merits" actually means? Does that mean "it will be taken as a representation of what the community thinks"? Very difficult question for me to answer because I bring many perspectives to this issue. As a Wikipedian, I see myself as part of the community and all the members of the community who support the RfC are part of the Community.  I also believe that anyone who edits Wikipedia in any significant way is part of the community.  As an admin, I know that someone will come along and close this RfC with some statement of conclusion as to "what the community position on this is". But I always struggle with saying the "Community" wants something a certain way when the number of participants in a discussion is very small and their inputs are equally divided as well as including many inputs that don't acutally address the question at hand--inputs that essentially stray off into non-relevant issues.  As a Campus Ambassador, I sincerely believe in the efficacy of this program and that on-balance, it has produced significant benefits for Wikipedia.  As the Working Group facilitator, I was asked to take a diverse group of dedicated stakeholders--Wikipedians, Academics and WMF staff through a process that produced an executable plan for the future of the program.  I think I've accomplished that well so far but we still have a lot of work to do.  The RfC is just one piece, albeit an important one, in the overall process.  I don't have to make the RfC decision, nor do I have to make the tough decision the WMF must make about the future of the program.  That said, and I think it is clear that no matter what perspective I see this from--Wikipedian, Ambassador, Admin or Working Group facilitator--I believe in what we are trying to do. To assume that we don't value what the "Community" believes whould fly in the face of what the strategy says we plan to do. I make a living getting diverse groups of stakeholders to successfully collaborate in planning and executing strategies for their enterprises--in business, in government, in-education and in the non-profit world.  So when I say "on the merits" I mean by evaluating, unemotionally, what is good for the future success of Wikipedia in its relationship with higher education and the furtherance of Wikimedia strategic goals.  That is my hope.  If the "Community" ultimately does not support or even worse is harmed by the new strategy, then we have failed.  I do not think the strategy as currently laid out will fail. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: So your perspective seems to be that it's hard to take any outcome seriously. I don't think that a correct characterization. I would rephrase it maybe this way: So your perspective seems to be that it's hard to access what is good (or bad) for a very large, complex community who will be effected by the conclusion, when only a small faction of that community participates. All the inputs are taken seriously, and many, even the negative inputs contribute to improvement. (PS, I am involved in an engagement with a client today, so some replies to other aspects of your question may be delayed). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: Examples of irrelevant input. I have actually been pleased to this point that there wasn’t much if any irrelevant discussion so far in this RfC.  Most everything is directly related to the question.  We strayed a bit when the idea that this was a referendum on the existence of the US EP itself because, that is not what the working group was chartered to plan and thus the RfC itself wasn’t structured to deal with that question.  However, it is close enough and relevant enough to the original question to be weighed in the RfC conclusion.  On the other hand this recent introduction is completely irrelevant to the question. The Working Group was chartered to develop a strategy for the future of the US EP program.  A thematic organization was one of the alternatives the WMF allows for and has processes to approve and deal with.  It wasn’t our charter, nor is this RfC about whether or not the WMF should have thematic organizations.  Yet here it is, in the RfC, obscuring and distracting from the original question.  It’s very much like a Defense Attorney arguing that the court shouldn’t have Rules of Evidence procedures, because the rules are unfair to my client when the question is really—Did he or didn’t do the crime? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Language
I really don't want to make this RfC about me or the language being used. I am a Wikipedian and think I understand the community well. But I would like to close this with maybe another way to express what we are trying to do. This Lewis Carroll quote has spawned a lot interesting interpretations on the web. This is one I like: If you don't know where we are going? I'd like to think that if we can agree on where we are going with this would be a good thing, much better than just going somewhere. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I hate to be blunt, but you're clearly not getting what you're saying. Wikipedians like practical conversations with practical, easily understandable language. You're not providing that. Your retort to "you're not providing that" is a "Lewis Carroll quote [that] has spawned a lot interesting interpretations". I've just told you that a practical and to-the-point discussion is what's needed, and you're throwing random bits of allegorical novel at me that you know has no clear, single output.
 * I don't want to make this RfC about you either, but as you yourself note, it's at least partly riding on your ability to (a) communicate to the community effectively and (b) convince them that you and the other people running this can learn from mistakes.this extended conversation is making it look like both of those points are weak spots for you, and it doesn't matter if you're 'a Wikipedian too' if you can't express yourself in a way other Wikipedians can understand. In the thread above, I had to go back to you again and again seeking clarity on what things meant. That's not an efficient way to run a conversation. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I enjoy blunt people, they are much easier to communicate with as long as conversations remain civil. Now, succintly, how would you personally convey the idea that tactics follow strategy in a "Wikipedian" way of conversation? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in here, and I of course speak only for what I've been trying to express, not what Ironholds has been, but my reply to that is that you've sort of made my point. "Tactics follow strategy" is, as best I can tell, a completely empty utterance. There's no actual meaning being communicated; it's sort of like waving my hands mid-conversation rather than using words. The way I wave my hands can sort of, a little bit, communicate what I want the other person to understand, but waving my hands ultimately doesn't give them any insight into what I actually want to say. I'm assuming you used that phrase intending to get across some meaning, so let me turn this around to you: which of these options is close to what you actually meant?
 * "In a situation like this, we need to set goals first, and then figure out what strategies we can use to get ourselves to those goals"
 * "The ends justify the means"
 * "We can't figure out how to do smaller parts of this plan unless we first figure out how to arrange larger parts of it."
 * "Once we know what we want this program to look like at the highest level, we can set about understanding what it's sub-pieces will look like"
 * Any of these, or none of them, could be what you meant, and we can't tell, because you used an opaque, mostly-meaningless-to-me phrase based (I assume) on some sort of professional-strategist mutual-language-understanding that the rest of us don't have. I have a linguistics background, by training. If I wandered into a conversation with you and advised you that (to make up something mostly-nonsensical, for a moment...) the tongue position evidenced by your rhoticity made it clear that your background is non-Germanic, you'd probably look at me blankly. Another linguist would know that I was basically saying "I can tell by your accent that you didn't grow up speaking this language", but you wouldn't, because I used language that was opaque to you, even if it's meaningful to me. Now, if I'm in a situation where it's very important to me that you be able to understand my point, I'm probably going to use language more suited to helping you understand: I'm going to say "Hey, Mike, I can tell by your accent that you didn't grow up speaking this language!", because that's making my point in a way that you can actually understand. This is what I'm asking you to do: use language that's meaningful to the people reading your words, not just to you. In this case, that's going to mean "dumbing it down" a little from how you might speak to someone else in your field. Use a few more or less words to get your point across in a manner that someone who doesn't speak business-consultant is more likely to actually understand. If you're finding it really difficult to understand what it is about what you're saying that's buzzwordy and opaque...ask for help from someone who can show you. I can almost guarantee you it will go a long way in making the tone of the discussion on the RfC turn away from "...what? Who is this PR man speaking for the EP?" and toward "Ohhh, so that's the point he's trying to make." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You make good points. As to your interpretations of what tactics follow strategy means, I would chose #1, not because it is correct, but because with the right words, it would be correct. 1."In a situation like this, we need to set goals [the Strategy] first, and then figure out what strategies [what tactics] we can use to get ourselves to those goals"  Understanding the difference between tactics and strategy is paramount to success.  We could call the strategy any number of things--goals, objectives, end-states, etc. We could call the tactics to achieve the strategy any number of things as well--action plans, processes, implementation plans, etc.  What remains however is that tactics follow strategy.  If someone doesn't understand the difference, then it doesn't matter.  We could say action plans follow goals, or whatever and it would matter if someone didn't understand the difference. I will probably get hammered for this, but I do think that using analogies and credible quotes do aid in conversations, in conveying meaning to complex situations.  So I will close with one of my favorite: Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to Victory. Tactics without Strategy is the noise before the defeat. Sun Tzu --Mike Cline (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're clearly making absolutely no progress here: I give up. We've both explained what our problem is (getting answers that aren't unambiguous or easily parsable) and each reply has been unambiguous and difficult to parse. Lets just leave it here: quite frankly, though, this gives me absolutely no confidence in any assurances that people will learn from mistakes or editor feedback, because you're helping run this thing and exhibiting a distinct inability to do so. Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, also joining in, you seem to be equating goals with strategy. And apparently management theory does that. From the WP article strategy, in management theory it is " ...the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals" . This is using the term in what seems to many of us an extremely general way, to the confusion of the three separate processes that make up that sentence.
 * And indeed, the discussions were simultaneously discussing all three aspects: the goals, the processes, and the resources. Determining the goals is deciding what sort of educational program is desirable. The processes are determining the necessary structure of the program, and the resources are finding money and people--and unlike most businesses, the limiting factor is more likely to be the people than the money. To some extent these are interdependent, but it looks from the material presented that the committee was working all along with the presumption that it would be necessary to establish such a  independent "thematic organization", because the WMF essentially prescribed that at the start,and decided  what resources it wished to give us.  This  amounts to deciding not what sort of a higher education program we should have, but deciding what sort we should have that will fit the preconceptions and preconditions set by the foundation.  If anything is clear from the last year, it is that the community does not want   the foundation to decide what it ought to do, but considers the role of  the foundation to be that of supporting what the community decides to do.   You would now have to argue that there was no practical way to do otherwise than to follow the path implied by the foundation's decisions, and you may be right there. But you will need to convince the community in the community's own language that this was the only practical way forward. You have quite enough good WP experience to know how we work, and how we react to attempts to drive us in unwanted directions.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
I would like to thank you for the Barnstar for Karl H. Timmermann. I had read history of his main event at Remagen Bridge and the sheer number of casulaties documented on both sides over a period of days. It was interesting that the actual bridge assault and the securing of the tunnel was so relatively bloodless (1 German death) during the short time the main event ocurred. What a contrast to the 1969 movie which has so much angst and death. Even the general history which glosses over the specific event by being focused on total event misses the human reality. It was a singular quick historic event that was so violently contested before and after. Thanks again! Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Peod
You seem to have nominated a BLP of a prime minister of Kazakhstan Sergey Tereshchenko for BLP prod,  Despite the existence of a sourced article in the Ru WP. instead of looking for a source.  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to rephrase "Oliver, you followed policy". We've got several sets of principles and policies, not to mention a deletion type, that says it isn't the duty of the person who finds the article to source it. What does "peod" mean? Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused here. For example, I constantly get slammed for not doing WP:BEFORE -  even though I have. Perhaps in future I can now tag much, much faster when on patrol instead of looking  for sources... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning
A discussion of an edit you made is taking place here. Please provide your own input, thanks. Gary King ( talk  ·  scripts )  17:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Budd Albright article
Hi Ironolds. I was surprised to see the tag you placed on this article but respect your greater experience at Wikipedia so thought I would get in touch to discuss it. I am an experienced editor outside of Wikipedia and I don't think this article has multiple issues. I did most of the editing on the article after the original contributor submitted it. I am an independent reviewer (not a fan). I don't know the subject and have no connection to the contributor - it was just another article submitted at AfC. I did a lot of my own research to verify the information in the article and added new information to it when I found it, including some that was not at all flattering to the subject of the article. Where the information in the original article couldn't be verified, I deleted it. There is some information from the biography Budd Albright wrote himself, but most of that is verified by other sources. Only the most trivial, and unlikely to be challenged information, is not sourced independently (but is still sourced) which I was recently advised by DGG is perfectly acceptable. I don't think there can be any question that the subject meets the notability criteria. So, in an effort to ensure that about 60 hours of my time has not been wasted on what I consider to be a very good contribution to Wikipedia, I would be grateful if you could point out the specific issues you have with this article. If possible, I will try to find further sources to satisfy any concerns you may have. Please contact me at my talk page to clarify your concerns. Best Regards, --Snowysusan (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your response on my talk page. I take your points and will work on improving the article.  I guess at some point I couldn't see the trees for the forrest (no pun intended).  Cheers Snowysusan (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hint to better copy editing
You taget the searchdaimon article i wrote for copy editing. Could you give me some hint to what you feel could be improved? This was one of the first article i wrote on Wikipedia so if it is the style that is bad, I an eager to learn how it's can be improved. ( English is not my first language so if spelling someone else may have to pitch in :) ) Runarb (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you so much for the Barnstar :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Types of content editor
Your oppose on the EP RfC is for a different reason than the other opposes, which got me thinking about the relationship between editor retention and the EP. If we restrict the topic to content editing, do you think an argument can be made that the education programs are in fact a version of content editor recruitment? Or perhaps, more accurately, of content edit recruitment, since it's the edits that stick around, not the editors. Certain kinds of content editing have become much harder to do, since a lot of what an enthusiastic new editor might have worked on in 2003 is now well-written and complete enough that there's little an inexperienced editor can contribute. If there are areas of content (highly specialized articles, and articles in underserved areas) where the best possible contributor is an expert academic who is also an expert Wikipedian; and if the combination of one academic in the EP, plus a series of classes taught by that academic, add up to the same edits we would have received if that academic were editing directly, then we don't care about the mechanism -- we're just grateful for the improved content.

I'll agree that I'd rather have the academic editing directly, for several reasons. However, I suspect the nature of Wikipedia has changed enough that programs like this need to be part of the future. We have to engage subject-matter experts, and this looks to me like a productive way to do it.

I began this train of thought thinking about your comment that the EP is not as important a use of resources as the other development efforts you mentioned, but I ended up thinking that perhaps there is less conflict between them than appears. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree and disagree, I guess. So, lets get down to basics: we are here to build an encyclopaedia. A necessary component of this is having a vibrant, diverse community of editors who contribute to our content, be it creating the new or curating the old. Having such a community is a goal in itself. There are a vast number of reasons we have an editor retention problem; outdated software, a lack of identity and empathy, social malaise in areas like dispute resolution, confusion as to how to get help, a high barrier to entry, and last but not least, a lack of "low-hanging fruit": tasks that new editors can get involved in to help, to improve things, to participate in the social network. This list should not be taken as exhaustive, of course.
 * One of the parts of that lack of low-hanging fruit is (as you've identified) the old maxim of "Africa is not a redlink"; the idea that a lot of things have already been written about. But I'd argue that this is not the disease, this is the symptom; the disease is the high barrier to entry that makes it difficult for these demographics to contribute outside of an education programme, and the fact that MediaWiki and our community do not do a very good job of surfacing low-hanging fruit - not only stuff to write about, but maintenance tasks on existing articles, cleanup, metapedian work, so on, so forth. I certainly agree that the education programme gains us content in areas where we are otherwise weak, and I think this is A Good Thing. But I also think that it's targeting a symptom rather than a disease. People haven't written about [obscure academic topic] before. Why? Because there's a high barrier to entry. We have to invest in an education programme and provide in-person and online support to newbie editors, student and academic alike. Why? Because there's a high barrier to entry. Instead of investing in an education programme, something that takes money and uses it to improve the quality of the editing experience for one subset of newbies, to improve the quality of articles in one subset of the encyclopaedia, we need to be prioritising and investing in things that bring down the barrier overall, so that if these academics or students want to participate, they can - but so can people outside academia, outside the support networks. The Education Programme itself does not target editor recruitment because it does not target the barriers: it reduces them for one tiny group, one year at a time, and every time a group leaves a new group has to go through exactly the same training. We could keep running it in perpetuity and still see exactly the same societal problems, exactly the same engineering problems, and exactly the same barrier for new users overall.
 * I appreciate this is very TL;DR (and, quite honestly, just the random natterings off the top of my head. It may make very little sense ;p). TL;DR, we should be spending our time targeting the reasons for the barrier rather than lessening it for one small subset of newbies. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That does make sense, and it clarifies your thinking for me. The mention of disease vs. symptom reminds me of something I read years ago about the early history of cholera: apparently there were situations in the early nineteenth century when treatment was attempted on the basis of what was thought to be the cause, but in fact the most effective treatment is to address the symptoms, and not worry about the cause.  Not strictly analogous, of course, but you see where I'm going; let's not let the patient get sicker while doing research in the lab.
 * I also suspect that even with the best interface in the world, the relevant subject matter experts are still not going to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia unless they do it via something like the EP. The incentive structure doesn't work for (most of) them.  But I can imagine a future in which there are thousands of academics who keep an eye on their specialist area of Wikipedia, and who use their classes to both teach students and benefit Wikipedia in that area.  That's curation, as well as content-addition.
 * I recognize this doesn't address your "limited resources" argument at all. Personally I suspect a new organization that is free to chase down grants the WMF can't go after will be able to significantly increase the size of the pot; but I don't want to say that at the RfC, because frankly I've no real evidence for it -- it's based on conversations with academics, and on what little I know about the funding environment and what US givers are likely to fund. So I think your position is reasonable. I should probably stop here; I don't want to come across like I'm trying to persuade you to change your !vote at the  RfC -- I just wanted to get your take on what I was thinking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's okay; I figure reasoned debate is always useful, even if you can't convince the other person - you might be able to convince their audience ;p. I can imagine that future as well, and I think it's a good one - but I think until we get to the point where we have the freedom to put resources towards it, it has to remain just that: a future. I'm slightly confused by the lab analogy insofar as my day job is implementing improvements (and sometimes I wish we did spend more time in the lab) but that's by-the-by. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you so much for the barnstar you gave me for Guyana-related articles, Ironholds! Really very much appreciated :) Lorelei (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Legacy Film Series
Yes, it's clearly copy-pasted from, so I went ahead and deleted it. The nom linked, which is why I was confused. Wily D 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad; thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - I was probably being lazy by not poking around a bit more. (or applying teh Google to a couple phrases) Wily D  08:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin Nisenholtz Page
Hi - I wanted to know why you flagged the Martin Nisenholtz page as potentially a fan page. I submitted the original article and would like to remove the warning, but want to check with you about it before I do. I just added a citation for the one reference that required one. Other than that it seems to me that the page is purely factual and well referenced. Thanks. Mzimbalist (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Ironholds. Any guidance you could give about this would be helpful. Thanks again. Mzimbalist (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey; terribly sorry to not reply so far :). I got distracted by one of my patented, pelleted, Big Shiny Dumb ideas. I'll try to get to it tomorrow morning (right now I'm filled with scotch and good cheer, and probably shouldn't edit ;p). Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be a nag about this, but your guidance would be much appreciated. I'd like to remove the fansite classification in view of the accuracy and well-referenced content, and the subject's legitimate importance in the development of online media (Jimmy Wales himself would I'm sure attest to it!) But if there is something in the tone that I might be more mindful of I'd like to know. That's where I'm asking for guidance. Thanks again Mzimbalist (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey; sorry about that :(. So, a lot of the text is coming off as biased; "pioneer in the advancement of digital media and marketing", for example. "The site required site visitors to register from the outset, a decision guided by his experience in direct marketing; he understood that the Internet would become a powerful advertising medium with the unique ability to deliver targeted advertising based upon audience data" - I'm not finding all of this in the source you've given, and it's a bit strong for a self-authored source at that. There are some other bits, but I don't have the books, so I can't validate if they're just what the books claims he's done...but even so, it's not really adhering to WP:NPOV. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. That's exactly what I was looking for. I read WP:NPOV and revised the article including the sentences you called out and several others which might be construed as biased.  I also cut out one of the claims that was difficult to substantiate from the cited source.  (Not sure by the way what you mean by "self-authored."  I'm not Nisenholtz!)  Anyway, I believe that the article now meets the NPOV standard and respectfully ask that the fansite warning be removed.  I no longer think it applies and hope that you'll agree.  Thanks again.  Mzimbalist (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look now :). By "self-authored" I mean "the source was written by/hosted by the author", not that you are Nisenholtz. As fun as it would be for me to start citing the Analysis in William Blackstone and start walking around claiming to be a knight ;p. Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden
If you have a moment, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-08/News and notes and the exchange I'm having with Fluffernutter? This finally convinced me that it would be worth doing a highly labour-intensive analysis of the burden caused by student edits. Any thoughts on what would make for a valid sample of edits to review, and on what would be a useful way to evaluate the results? I (or someone else, if I can find more suckers) will be doing this by hand, so it can involve subjective judgements, though I would want to document the judgements with diffs so others could spot check the evaluations. I'd like not to do this twice, so I would appreciate your expert advice before I start, if you have time. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is actually very difficult :(. I'd recommend contacting Aaron Halfaker, one of the WMF researchers ahalfaker[at]. He actually worked out how to calculate man-hours of effort from edit timestamps and diffs. Might be a good metric :). Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lead. I've emailed him and will be interested in how he does that; I'm a bit sceptical, because I know how little relationship there is for my own edits between the work I do and the visible evidence.  I suspect subjectivity is needed, which means automation isn't going to be of much help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. So you could, for example, hand-code a randomised sample of edits, along with a randomised control...but to be honest, the challenge is not to show "it produces value" - it's "it produces value that is greater than [other thing we could fund]". Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that's the challenge with you! I think for others it's more basic; they're not convinced that the benefit outweighs the burden, so the handcoding seems like a way to answer their questions.  They might still oppose for the same reason as you, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough :). Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful
Came across this draft of yours: Contact us/draft3. And I think it is truly wonderful and will be a big help in -en-help - organized, visually easy to see "where to go", logically set up for confused/new editors. THANK YOU. Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :). The idea is for it to replace "contact us"; we're discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:Contact_us if you want to chip in. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoration request
Hey, could I get a copy of User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Test/Generic Wikipedian restored to my userspace? While it is understandable that Rcsprinter may not want the thing in his anymore, I am rather fond of it and as the primary author would like to request it back, though in a more appropriate location. Thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Isarra/Final Exam -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I love you guys. -— Isarra ༆ 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your message, Oliver. That was really touching. I'm proud to have helped draw you in.

I certainly enjoyed working with you back when, and although I'm not as active as I used to be, I can think of a few charming obscurities which could use learned attention someday: the history of the Exchequer as a whole and especially the lower Exchequer (the Exchequer of Pleas having already benefited by your hand), the laws of the royal forest, and the changing roles of the sheriffs all come to mind. For better or for worse, it's no longer possible to knock together those kinds of articles based on the first few sites that come up on Google.

[sounding board on] While a lot of my decline in activity has to do with holding down a Real Job with no work-life balance to speak of, there seems to be a lot more friction (in the Clausewitzian sense) in the process than there was, say, five or six years ago. I think some of that's inevitable as the quality of our articles increases: when I write an article, I feel compelled to make it well-sourced, compliant with whatever parts of the MOS are obvious at the moment, categorized, and generally consistent with similar articles. Obviously, this is great when I do it, but it sucks up a huge quantity of mental processor cycles. If I'm not feeling up to a big push, I'm pretty much limited to cruising around dropping project tags on talk pages or installing succession boxes or suchlike.

This is a problem. Wikipedia's getting much harder to do, IMO, as a "spare time" or "casual" activity, which leaves us with more and more work falling onto the "professional" editorial core. This may also explain Kudpung's observations about newbies drifting into anti-vandalism and NPP work; it can be done (albeit not well) with relatively little mental overhead. I wonder if it's something that could be reversed with better collaborative tools on talk pages--encourage their use as a sort of orderly scratch pad. (As opposed to the verified article model, where the article itself is used as the scratch pad.) Might be applicable in terms of the Education Project, too; writing an outline on the talk page of what a well-balanced article on a subject should look like, or providing a bibliography of useful references with a short abstract for each could be much more useful than churning out an essay disguised as an article on some contrived topic. Choess (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

M2thak
Good day Ironholds! I figured it would be best to ask you this, as it was you who declined the BLP PROD at this article. As it exists, this article currently strikes me as a CSD A7 candidate, though I'm hesitant to tag it as such due to its history (and declined PROD). I realise that it could be brought to AfD... but doing so carries with it the possibility of making others angry for blatantly wasting AfD resources. Your opinion matters here. Is AfD really the way to go, or can we cut through the chase with CSD? -- WikHead (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think AfD probably is :S. I'd conduct a thorough search for sources, though - MTV coverage raises the possibility of other coverage. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I will indeed give this further attention once I clear my current to-do list. Have yourself a great day Ironholds, stay well, and happy editing.  -- WikHead (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks; same to you :). Ironholds (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry Now
Sure, happy to... to a point. I'm all for assuming good faith but there is obviously nothing "good faith" about a single-contribution IP who shows up at an AFD (a very justified one, by the way) and attempts to "vote-stack" while at the same time claiming that editors who cite policies are "spamming". They are nonsense claims and I called him out on them. Perhaps I could have done so with more civility, but I don't think there is any chance that IP is a genuine WP:NEWCOMER looking to contribute to WP constructively. Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Contact us page
Hi Iron, I didn't realize you were a WMF employee. I went ahead and made some small tweaks boldly. I also used "organization" instead of "company" so it addresses non-profits with COI problems. I made it so the Talk page was "probably" the best place to go, to "sometimes" reach the article's regular contributors. And fixed a small link error. Just very tiny stuff. Feel free to revert or modify. Corporate 18:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good tweaks! And, yeah, I'm a contractor as a day-job; this is my volunteer work, however. I'm no different from any other editor :). Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, you're the guy that wrote that blog post! (just looked up on the Talk page). As a PR guy, I can see how his PR agent probably misrepresented things to Roth.


 * I have seen a few WMF usernames around, but didn't realize employees were involved in blocks, content, etc. like any other editor. I am making a mental note now to make sure I don't get staff involved where I have a COI, but I'm probably the best person to critique the contact us for article subjects ;-) Corporate 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, a lot of staff were hired from outside the community - some of them maintain volunteer editing accounts, some don't. Then there are people who were community members before they became staffers: I'm one, Maggie (User:Moonriddengirl) is another, there are a few more. Staffers are required to note they're staff on their volunteer accounts, so we're pretty easy to identify :). Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

re: contact us
re: Contact us - Readers -- I left a couple suggestions on the talk of the main page/replacement poll about removing the sentence on wikitext and adding back the FAQ. Obv you don't have to follow them, but I'm not sure if you ever saw them -- thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw it, yep :). Quite liked the idea but forgot to implement - headdesk! I'll take another look now. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of it now? Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Blunder with Contact us/Permit
Hi with Contact us/Permit you redirected it to a completely different topic. The original was telling people how to give permission to use something on Wikipedia, the new redirect target is the other way round, how to use something from Wikipedia. I suggest that you undo your change. This is going to confuse links that point to that redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm, like the links, also confused. Did you read the replacement page? Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the links are 50 or 60 archived questions and talkpages. Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS question
By the way, whenever a decision or other notification comes through about my OTRS application, should I expect it here, on en.wikipedia, or over at meta? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally they'll drop you a note on your "local" project, I think :). It's been a while for me! Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Scha Alyahya redirection
Just want to let you know, the correct spelling for her name and widely known and used is Scha Alyahya. How to revert to the Scha Alyahya page? —Ieja Mohamed Saleh (talk)
 * Well, from what I see, there isn't a consistent name :S. So, we have:

...and so on. So, I count 2 for "Scha", 6 for "Scha Al-Yahya", 4 for "Alyahya" and two for "Al Yahya". Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Scha
 * Scha Al-Yahya
 * Scha
 * Scha Alyahya
 * Scha Al-Yahya
 * Scha Alyahya
 * Scha Al-Yahya
 * Scha Al Yahya
 * Scha Alyahya
 * Scha Al-Yahya
 * Scha Al-Yahya
 * Scha Alyahya
 * Scha Alyahya
 * Scha Al Yahya
 * Scha Al-Yahya

Athlete's heart
That was very kind of you, Ironholds. Actually, I think there's rather more to be done on this topic which falls a bit outside the usual MED page formats, though I'm not so sure how far I'll boldly go... (puff, puff...). Anyhow, thanks should definitely go to you and your OTRS correspondent for drawing attention to that relevant point. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :). I probably can't help directly, but I've got access to a few journal repositories, so if there's a work you're missing, give me a shout! Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you don't know what you could be letting yourself in for there... I'll try to whisper: this just maybe? —MistyMorn (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like I've only got access to that journal up to 2007 :(. Curses! Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Someone who blocks admins"
On Jack's talk page you stated that you are "someone who blocks admins", and that "sometimes you block longer because they're admins and should know better". Could you please provide examples of some of the admins you have blocked, along with other users you have blocked for less time for similar infractions? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, sure; I've blocked User:SarekOfVulcan and User:Foxj, for example, both admins at the time. The clearest and most obvious compare-and-contrast is User:Nightscream who I blocked for 48 hours for a personal attack, with the note that "Yes, 48 hours is a bit long for a single personal attack, but you're an admin. You're tasked with enforcing these rules, and consequently should know better". That one actually went rather badly - the community decided that no, we do not enforce the rules more stringently for people expected to know them. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking back, people were broadly supportive, he just got a get-out-of-jail-free card. My memory is playing tricks on me :). Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and kudos!! --Joefromrandb (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Np :). Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Vujadin Radovanović
Hello, there are three more references on the page, according to your request. Please, check it back, when you have time and see if it is ok now. Thanks. --Stripar (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot better :). Can you cite "He works for Serbian, French and German publishers. He lives in Mladenovac."? Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, give me some minutes. --Stripar (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope it's OK now. --Stripar (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be back more on English wiki in November, with more of Serbian/ex-Yugoslav comics. Cheers. --Stripar (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the barnstar. Wiki on! Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz....
I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to Websterize "organise" as "organize".... ;)14:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * Americo-centrism! Imperialism! Colonialism! Other isms! I'm calling the UN, you see if I don't! :P Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden metrics
If you're interested, I've completed a draft - if you have time to give me any feedback, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Cindy ( talk to me ) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Statute of Monopolies = patent law is an early form of regulating speech. William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield = work in contract law paved the way for later copyright law.

However, if you disagree, feel free to remove the WikiProject tags, totally no worries, either way ! :)

Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Murray's only real contract work was to do with insurance, and overturned - and copyright does not de facto impact on freedom of speech (and neither do patents). Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I respect your opinion, no worries! (I've gone ahead and removed those 2 articles from Portal:Freedom of speech, per your suggestions.) :) Hope you're doing well! Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yeah, things are good over here :). How goes you? Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty good ... my love life is great ... and I've got an exciting focus on Freedom of speech, (generalist topic). Interested? :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmn. I don't have access to t'law library any more, but I could maybe be persuaded to write the GA on the UK's contempt of court legislation I've been thinking about... Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh goody, please join our new project: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech/Participants. ;) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request
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, --Rschen7754 03:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!
Hi Ironholds and thanks for your earlier compliments on my articles ! Sorry I didn't reply to your message on my talk page as I've been away for a couple of months but now I'm back and continuing to create articles; I'd be quite happy if you could grant me the autopatroller right as you suggested earlier. Thanks, quant18 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for help related to comments on an article's talk page
Ironholds, Thanks for your response. I'll give you what I believe are the salient points, so as not to waste your time. The fact that I've been dubbed a sock puppet (I did a stupid thing when I was a new editor) makes this more difficult and complicates matters, I suppose. The page in question is the Stalking talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stalking). The two comments in question are by "batvette" and appear in the section titled "References to FOIA material." (I took matters up with the editor on his talk page in a general and cursory way and was dismissed. He deleted both of my messages, dismissing one of them as "nonsense from a troll" and another as "spam." He posted a comment (or two?) to my talk page which I finally deleted.  In his comments on the Stalking talk page, he links to outside sources in an apparent attempt to discredit me which, as I understand it, is a Wikipedia policy violation.  In his comments, he attempts to paint me as a conspiracy theorist (I'm not), alludes to "irrational delusions", etc., and other nonsense.  The sock puppet "conviction" makes this more difficult, I realize. There has been no "sock puppetry" since I stupidly posted comments for this other guy last summer (a year ago).  I'm definitely guilty of stupidity and not knowing the rules when I first started as an editor, over a year ago now, but the two comments in question are clearly out of line, in terms of policy, it would seem. Thanks in advance for looking into this. I've thought about deleting the comments myself, citing the appropriate policies -- it would seem that I'm within my rights to do so -- but I'd like the opinion of an administrator before doing so. I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands, so I really don't want to take this to dispute resolution, especially with this particular guy. Knowing my options and getting a second opinion regarding his comments would be very helpful. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I'll look into it now. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's way out of line. Quite honestly, I'm not sure who is in the right here on the content dispute (or if anyone is) and that's not my part - but we expect more from editors than an attitude like that. I'll talk to Batvette now. Having said that, it is also unacceptable to refer to comments as "defamatory" or "libellous" - those words have a very specific legal meaning and we have a policy about that too. I'd suggest you stay away from using that kind of terminology in the future. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The content dispute I can handle. That's a completely separate issue, as you've indicated.  As for my use of the words "defamatory" and "libelous", thanks for the heads up. I'll read the policy again, but will be careful in the future about any use of legal terms such as the aforementioned ones, per your good advice. I appreciate your time, input, and assistance. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've probably already seen the comments that I deleted from my talk page, but I'm posting the link, so that you have the full picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElizabeth_Blandra&diff=516823604&oldid=513729635 Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen them, will poke him about them. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the comments which this editor is complaining about are largely directed toward the person's activities she claims she did not use as a sock puppet account, one "peacefrog71". This is a continuation of the matter in which she posted in an RFC, several votes and comments pretending to be several editors. I'm confused here, Elizabeth, if you really are not "peacefrog71" and he is really "some guy you were posting for" why are you still stirring the pot over this and implying comments about peacefrog's activities are libelous toward your person? This "peacefrog71" and/or you, Elizabeth, have long been hoping to insert wild conspiracy theories into this wiki article, even writing NowPublic articles about how wiki is in on the conspiracy and it's bizarre you try and distance yourself from it here and consider it a personal attack when peacefrog/you so freely promote it at NowPublic.
 * For the dubious benefit of Ironholds-wiki what she portrays as libelous was merely a factual documentation of their activities and while this person is painting a "poor me I'm being attacked here" at wikipedia, elsewhere they are either part of or leading (whether or not we believe this peacefrog really is another individual and not what this wiki checkuser investigation confirmed, the same person) a campaign to insert conspiracy theories they promote elsewhere here at wikipedia.
 * In summary this editor is wasting your time and mine making much ado about nothing and is upset that they/their sock were called for what they were doing on the stalking page- and as for wiki policy please note my comments on that FOIA material were directed at what they were doing and not at their person.
 * As I said this is not my normal attitude towards other editors but I dislike being patronized as you have been by someone who claims at wiki the remarks about them in the stalking talk page are libelous when that is precisely what they are writing about at public news sites like NowPublic- but look at the second article there where I was personally called out as an agent provocateur of this conspiracy against them. Too funny. Batvette (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth, you claim above you aren't a conspiracy theorist and use that as a basis for saying I was wrongfully discrediting you.


 * and you go on to post several comments to support this conspiracy theory. Were you lying to this wiki administrator to support your argument here or are you unable to distinguish between conspiracy theory and factual reality? I rest my case and offer this is the reason for my angry comments. I don't appreciate such dishonest patronization and by dragging this out before wiki admin she's doing it to you too. The mystery of why she would be strongly promoting conspiracy theories at that site but claiming association to it here is libel is beyond me to solve, but as you can see my comments were true and correct.
 * If you need further background feel free to consult with other wiki admin such as The Anome who will likely happily detail how conspiracy theorists have gone to great lengths trying to insert their agenda in the Stalking article. See comments here under both her current and blocked sock account- Talk:Stalking Blandra is upset the efforts by her and her sock account have not been successful and seems to be directing this frustration at me, seeing me as her impediment to pushing her POV in the stalking article. (note those NowPublic articles say just that- "why is wikipedia censoring gang stalking?")Why else is she making a big deal of this months later? Batvette (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Batvette, I don't care who is right or who is wrong in the content dispute. I've made that clear. I similarly don't care if you're capable of justifying your attitude to yourself by insulting Elizabeth Blandra - again, whether she's the Blandra listed above or it's a joe job. Incivility is not excused by "she's totally, like, pushing a fringe theory, just look at this external site as evidence". I'd suggest you calm down and both of you step back. If you have a problem with her behaviour or point of view the appropriate thing to do is seek dispute resolution. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really never had a problem with her, she is the one who posted on my user page (which initiated the exchange in question) and now has brought this to you here. Ask her what she was looking for, I haven't a clue. In the future I will take a more civil tone in preventing conspiracy theory like that promoted by "her friend she was posting for" Peacefrog from being introduced to that page, hopefully that settles it. Batvette (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, Thanks for your time and effort. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Youreallycan
Hey, you may already be aware of this, but YRC has removed your block notice (twice). I restored it and asked him (nicely) to stop per WP:BLANKING. I also restored Jehochman's warning, which, arguably, YRC has the right to remove, as it is really a warning to other admins. Anyway, some admins don't mind current block notices being removed, and I don't know your views on the issue, so I'm taking no more action - up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, quite frankly I don't think there's any need to take action;

Still, thanks for bringing this to my attention and being vigilant on this front :). Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The point of warnings being forced to remain is to indicate to other users that the person is blocked. I don't think there's a metapedian alive who hasn't seen the YRC/Prioryman shitstorm;
 * 2) What am I going to do? He's already blocked ;p. I guess I could remove talkpage access, but the cost of that (him not being able to participate in his own ban discussion) is higher than the benefit.
 * I would not like to see his talk page access revoked, either, for precisely the same reason, which is, of course, the only way you could enforce WP:BLANKING. Your decision is probably best in this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, I presume you saw the edits in question before they got oversighted (and before you blocked YRC). Would it be possible for you to describe their nature on AN/I? It's understandable that some people are frustrated that they can't see the evidence but I think it would help if those who did see them could explain what they saw. Prioryman (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest asking an oversighter, who can testify with some authority. Strictly-speaking me not being able to report what I saw is why we have oversight. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC
Hi.

Given that it wasn't outing, and that YRC has agreed not to address Prioryman by his real surname again, why is the block still in place? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That question came off as kind of assume bad faith-y, although I'm thinking it was probably just an attempt to pose a rhetorical question ;p. Genuine answer is "I didn't see him say that", but I'm going to unblock now: he should bear in mind that interaction ban or no, his RfC agreement still stands - if I see him being uncivil, outing associated with it or no, he'll be dropped in the cacky. Ironholds (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No bad faith assumed at all; I could have phrased it better though. It was lazy, not loaded. And thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ironholds - You  really  can  18:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination
Hi Ironholds, I just received news from you that my post have been tagged for deletion as it seems more like a promotional page as compared to an encyclopedia article. Kindly assist in explaining which parts do you feel is a promotional page and how I can improve the article to prevent deletion? I am not sure why you would think it is promotional as I did the proper citations and would like to learn from you on how to write a better article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Hellocherie (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

TruPepitoM needs rollback rights removed
I've long felt that TruPepitoM lacks a large level of clue so I was surprised that he was a rollbacker. I was even more surprised that he recently received reviewer rights as a trusted editor. At least the former, and probably the latter should be reassessed per User talk:TruPepitoM. I am not sure if it is one instance or not, but there is absolutely no way rollback would be given to an editor who thought like that. As I stated there, if a user doesn't believe they are calling the shots, they shouldn't have rollback. Just in case he removes the section, I'll link you to the oldid that includes my comment. Ryan Vesey 15:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and I share Ryan's concerns. Having checked most of his reverts today, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, depending on what he says when he gets back and have said as much on his page. If you'd rather remove the userright immediately, I won't disagree with that decision. Worm TT( talk ) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree as well, for whatever that's worth, although given his...vocal...opposition to a recent RfA, I'd probably be considered involved. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me a poke; yeah, the idea that someone is treating huggle as an automated rather than semi-automated system is....worrying. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help and suggestions!

RB-ASHISH Talk to me 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 

Mapalazoo SPI
I have initiated an SPI against Mapalazoo. You have interacted with the editor so I thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; looks like it worked out :). Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a second look
I've removed nearly all the crap from Natural breast enhancement, and replaced it with reliable sources with significant coverage. Can you have a second look at the AfD, to either confirm your choice, or change your mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti
I apologize in advance for informing you of this discussion, but seeing how you Supported his original unblocking and made some quotable statements during it, I think it would be helpful to hear your opinions for the request for banning him on this new thread that is currently going on. Administrators' noticeboard‎. GamerPro64 16:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Banting and Best Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Hey Ironholds, You nominated my article for deletion due to 'unambiguous advertising'. I've only been a Wikipedian for a year and a half now so perhaps I've missed something important and am eager to learn. I thought the article was factual and even now I can't see anything promotional in it whatsoever. Could you give me some specific feedback so I don't make the same mistake again?

Much appreciated! Max. Editormax3 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined
A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Contact us/Photo submission
Hi Ironholds. I noticed recently that you redirected Contact us/Photo submission with Contact us - Subjects ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission&diff=517819575&oldid=458468305 link]). May I ask you why? Was there somewhere a discussion about this subject? (I'm not as active on this project as I am on other places, so I might miss stuff.) Personally I found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission&oldid=458468305 this page] much more detailed and informative about the whole mailing to photosubmission thing. Besides that, we put a link on images to Contact us/Photo submission when we upload files we receive in that queue. So imho the page should contain information about that and not only 1 sentence that mentions photosubmission. Looking forward to your answer. Regards, Trijnstel talk 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Contact us - Licensing is probably a better redirect, actually (happy to make it if you want). The short story is we completely revamped the "contact us" pages, and that providing a whole mess of links and 300 different pages confused the heck out of readers (OTRS submissions have gone up a ton since the new setup was introduced). Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please change the redirect if you want - that page is better to link to. :) The information pages are really improved, I must say that. Thnx. Trijnstel talk 14:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And will do :). Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Lorem Ipsum Generator
Good block. I had pondered bringing them to ANI a couple times in the past few months - it's pretty clear that the user isn't really here to build Wikipedia. – Connormah (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was thinking ANI too, but I decided that it'd probably be a waste of time - that story is only ending one way. Ironholds (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why BLP policy matters
I noted the following article : http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/the-bbc-lord-mcalpine-and-libel-law/ whilst checking some sources in relation to an issue at WP:BLP/N

As you previously maintained a blog on many legal issues, I thought you would be interested.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another analysis here - http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2012/11/15/why-those-who-named-lord-mcalpine-twitter-should-be-very-concerned#K2sGkCQMrOVRsgTB.99

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this enough to remove rollback?
, who needs to be blocked per comments at Talk:Al Arabiya introduced horribly POV edits here. Including changing a statement (supported by the source) from "The channel is much more reliable and more moderate than Al Jazeera" to "The channel is much more propagandist and more unislamic than Al Jazeera". restored it at least twice using twinkle rollback ]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Arabiya&diff=next&oldid=518919177]. The first might have been understandable if Egeymi didn't realize the material had previously been changed, but the second is brutally bad. Ryan Vesey 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not realize what's going on until I read your message here. Sorry for inconvenience. What can I say more? You may also refer to my talk page, after the message of Glacius I have not reverted it. It is a careless mistake of me without any bad intention. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like the edits were made in good faith. Try to be a bit more careful in the future, especially when labeling an edit as vandalism.  When material is removed with a comment like "clearly POV statements based on non WP:RS", you should check to determine if the material is in fact POV.  The existence of a source does not necessarily mean it meets our weight requirements.  Second, you should check the source.  The source in question was a case study for a business class.  I also apologize for not assuming good faith earlier. Ryan Vesey 14:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, sure I'll follow it from now on. Also, thanks for your sincere words. Egeymi (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry all - I was out of the house for the weekend :). Glad it resolved itself! Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump
Ironholds, this is just to make you aware that User:AndyTheGrump is yet again behaving in an uncivil manner through a personal attack ("patronising little jerk") in a talk page discussion.. He was asked multiple times, in various talk page discussions, to please focus on content rather than personally insulting those with whom he disagrees. Have a great evening. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He's just going around to people's talk pages trying to get User:AndyTheGrump blocked. While I don't agree with the tone that Andy takes, this user is in fact being very patronizing to the other side of the discussion, and removing warnings from his own talk page. KyuubiSeal (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - the IP has been doing this for some time now, and has utterly failed to produce the slightest evidence to support the supposed 'precedent' he/she has been trying to impose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Kyuubi, this is the second time you've made the false accusation that I've been "going around" trying to get people to do things. You failed to provide the evidence when you did it on this talk page, and now you're doing it yet again. I wrote to Ironholds. Period. Seb wrote to me about a comment I made in this discussion and in reply I informed him of AndyTheGrump's highly inappropriate comment in the same thread. Those are the facts. In terms of removing content from one's own talk page, please educate yourself on WP:OWNTALK, which makes clear that "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Nothing I removed is on the list of exceptions. In the future, please check your facts before making allegations against another editor. By the way, what do you think should be done about someone - who happens to have a long history of being banned from editing - who calls another editor a "patronising little jerk" in a talk page discussion? It's rhetorical, so you don't need to answer. All the best. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be more patient, I just posted the list of people you've contacted to KarmaLoop's talk. I pretty much just got home. Here it is. I just read WP:OWNTALK, and you're right. Sorry about that. Last time I was actively editing was quite some time ago, and I never bothered reading every single rule. And regardless of how rhetorical it is, I'll answer it. I think he should cool it, but he is, in my opinion, correct in that you are being extremely patronizing. "Jerk" is uncalled for though. KyuubiSeal (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your apology. :) As far as personal attacks like that, it's sad to see that most editors are afraid to address bullies when they see it happening. Have a great week. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that the IP troll has yet again failed to produce the slightest evidence to back up claims of a 'precedent' for the misrepresentation of electoral results' he/she has been supporting against overwhelming consensus - instead, the IP troll has chosen to engage in personal attacks on those who support elementary mathematical accuracy. I'm fairly sure this is a banned user, though as yet I'm not 100% sure which one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, that post was not just an apology. You continue to be amazingly patronizing, which is as worse than Andy's behavior, in my opinion, because you've been passive-aggressive to everyone opposing you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuubiSeal (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the moment when I usher y'all off my land with a shotgun ;p. I've just woken up. I am not blocking anyone. I am not massively interested in this situation. Can you move off this talkpage or, even better, move on, please? Ironholds (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion's been going on for months, and if you'd checked the talkpage you'd see that I commented soon after it opened. I'm fully aware that it exists. Ironholds (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. I hope the inconvenience was minimal. My 76  Strat  (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

SchuminWeb
Hi there - given the issues raised at AN, I still think an RFCU is needed, what do you think? GiantSnowman 11:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm drafting now. Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to endorse if you need me to. GiantSnowman 14:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And deleted? KTC (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Realised I was using the wrong kind of template :). Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, I've 'certified' and added some diffs of where we've tried to discuss the matter before going to RFCU. GiantSnowman 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I think you have to certify by signing, as opposed to just your name. GiantSnowman 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guh. *headdesks*. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC needs to be listed and SchuminWeb notified. -- KTC (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both now rectified. GiantSnowman 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me, I am just the messenger. We have a new FA delegate who actually works! Thank him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly, we just missed the 20th anniversary of the decision (26th November 1992)... BencherliteTalk 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still nice! It's weird to look at the case and go "we wrote an FA on something because I vaguely remembered it from studying statutory interpretation in first year". Thanks for your role :). Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. As you know, I have a soft spot for English law FAs given my day-job... I ought to polish up Jones v Kaney now that there has been time for some more thoughtful analysis of the decision and see what the FAC boys and girls make of it.  BencherliteTalk 14:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That'd be awesome! I've got a very famous trusts case that's got a lot of coverage. I'm sure you can guess... ;p. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I try not to think about trusts law - bad for the digestion, I find! BencherliteTalk 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Pepper v Hart
This is a note to let the main editors of Pepper v Hart know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pepper v Hart is a landmark decision in English law on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The House of Lords, by a majority, established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, under certain circumstances, a court may refer to statements made in Parliament in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege. Lord Mackay, dissenting, argued that Hansard should not be considered admissible evidence due to the time and expense involved in a lawyer having to look up every debate and discussion on a particular statute when giving legal advice or preparing a case. The decision met a mixed reception. While the judiciary were cautiously accepting, legal academics argued that it violated rules of evidence, damaged the separation of powers between the executive and Parliament and caused additional expense in cases. In 2000, a senior judge, Lord Steyn, delivered a lecture in which he attacked the logic and legal theory behind the decision, and there have been several subsequent judicial decisions which have considerably limited the use of Pepper by the courts. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC Schuminweb
Hi, Ironholds. I think your recent comment might be better on the talkpage. See GiantSnowman's posts on my page and on User talk:Centpacrr. I can easily see how you'd have thought the stuff underneath Centpacrr's view was a bit messy anyway, but still. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Point; taken into account for future posts :). I'm loathe to break it up, though. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

National Weather Service
Riley said I should come talk to you about this. My goal in the short term is to get this to anything other than start, then to B class, then to GA. He said you'd be able to possibly help me with it. Right now I don't have much of a to-do list, I'm starting with just going and fixing any glaring problems. So far I've done the lede (it still sucks) and History section, and started on the sub-organizations. I'd really love it if you had any advice for me on how I may want to procede, as this is the first time I've really done anything this major with an article. Thanks! gwickwire talk edits 04:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I once received my paycheck with NWS money and I have a degree in advanced coin flipping (ie atmospheric sciences), so I have some thoughts.
 * I liked how the "Forecast sub-organizations" section is laid out. Depending on the field office, the NWS meteorologist work the aviation, public and fire desks. So the layout follows this.  However, I wouldn't put public/fire under the Storm Prediction Center.  All NWS field offices do this, just not the SPC.
 * More should be added about NCEP. Their models are what makes everything possible.
 * There are two, no one Aviation Weather Centers (AWC).  The other is located in Salt Lake City.  SLC takes the western half of the U.S.  Both provide backup in case the other fails.
 * It is too technical. I think this would be #1 complaint.  For example, under "Forecast sub-organizations", mentioning netCDF, grib, SOAP, etc is not needed.  Talking about upper air soundings ("Data obtained during the flights is coded and disseminated, at which point it can be plotted on a Skew-T or Stuve diagram for analysis.") is another example.  It just confuses 99.9% of the people.
 * The "Product dissemination" section should be cut down as it is too technical. Also, research centers and Universities all over the world also receive NWS data in near-realtime (via web/LDM). Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments! I'll redo the organizations section in a bit. Also, I'm not done removing all of the technical terms yet, that's a huge huge work in progress. Thanks again! If you'd like to help, feel free to! gwickwire  talk edits 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Brits can defend themselves with guns
This lady deserves a medal. On a more somber note, recent events in my home state haven't turned out as well (Byron David Smith killings and ) Ryan Vesey 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no :(. To be fair, it is an air rifle. They're pretty uniformly legal. Myself, I've got a deactivated Lee Enfield No. 4 for memory's sake :). Ironholds (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case
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, I've included you as a participant because you were one of those who are listed as having brought on the RfC, but if you want to beg off I won't object. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Made a short list
That was laugh out loud funny, thanks.  nableezy  - 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Little creative misreading goes a long way for humour :). Ironholds (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Ironholds! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  13:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You should probably know
71.198.250.76 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard this accusation and dealt with it previously. Iirc it was a confusion of terminology - I didn't accuse them of embezzlement, just of incompetence ;p. Ottava is going to stir drama whatever anyone says or does, because it's what makes him feel relevant. I've got no particular wish to enable it by commenting further. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case that: The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Feels a little overdue
You probably don't remember the review or me for that matter. I was the original reviewer for its GAR during the Sweeps and as you can see, it didn't work out well initially. So, coming back and reading the through the Sweeps and noticing the "debacle", I felt best to give this to you. And acknowledging the fact that I am against Barnstars, this can be seen as an achievement. GamerPro64 06:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er. No problem, I think :P. To be honest, 2010 was a long time ago - I have no ill will towards you :). Ironholds (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought not. But seeing how inexperienced I saw then, as well as being dog piled for making the review, it did make me feel bad at the time. So I'm just thanking you for finishing it up. GamerPro64  19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: diffs request

 * I actually read Scottywong's talk page, but didn't see the AN linked until now. I don't have a problem with the action, I just wanted to see the original and make up my own mind. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair play. My perspective on Malleus is "if I block him for a 'settled' discussion it'll just kick up a brand new shitstorm". As said, if anyone sees him talking like that again, throw me the diffs and I'll handle it. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

involved?
Hi - trying to see where we have interacted - do you have any connections to any disputes I have been involved in, I don't want to have to search your edits - the Fae issue - english wiki? You really  can  23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't particularly remember anywhere we've interacted. I was briefly involved with the Fae issue, but on a tangent: I can't recall if I got involved on-wiki or stayed the heck away with it. Frankly, however, your attitude here is incredibly worrying. You're either going "my behaviour was fine, so the only explanation for my block is that you hate me somehow" or "if I prove you hate me, woopie, get out of jail free card!" Both are inappropriate. Both are inaccurate. I have no particular like or dislike for you, I have a dislike of some of your actions, and it is those actions I am judging when I reach a decision and preventing when I make a block. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You were involved in the Fae issue - and I will look for more history please allow uninvolved admins to act - there are plenty of them - please stop using your advanced permissions in regards to me - You  really  can  23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure: so long ago that I can't even accurately remember what I was commenting about. Do you understand how your comments here look to an outsider? Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care about any outsiders interpretations - I appreciate your statement regarding you will cease to use your advanced permissions in regards to me - many thanks for that - happy new year to you  -  You  really  can  23:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; are you trolling me in the hope of provoking a dispute you can point at and scream "aha! involved!" or having a conversation with someone I can't see? I did not agree to that. I will not agree to that. If you persist in trolling me or anyone else, or being uncivil to anyone, I will interpret my actions so far in the correct light - as purely administrative - and block you. And, given your warning today, I can say with certainty it won't be for 24 hours. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am asking you in good faith to admit that you are involved and opinionated in Administrative actions in regards to me and to not use your tools again in regards to my account (there are hundreds of much less involved admins if theres an issue that needs immediate preventative action) - block me for as long as you want for that -  You  really  can  00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, hasn't there been enough drama today (I should know)? Why not give it a rest? If after a good rest you still think Ironholds is involved, you can raise it in the appropriate forum, but all you're doing is unnecessarily goading Ironholds and certainly not helping yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am commenting about important issues in relation to my contributions - its not goading - I have been attacked actually, blocked unduly, without value to the community  - and your opinion that I am not helping myself is just that, your opinion -   You  really  can  00:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For blocking User:Drmies and User:Scottywong
...when a simple warning would have sufficed: trout ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the conversation thus far and tell me if you think this is likely to (a) help or (b) inordinately frustrate me? Ironholds (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it too seriously. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's about time to outlaw trouts. A trout should really only be used in comedic situations (i.e. someone signed an edit summary or something dumb like that).  Instead, they're used in the midst of heated discussion by editors who somehow think it will make something better. Ryan Vesey 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologize. As far as I remember, that was the first time I've ever used one, and I won't use it again. The intent was to express my concern with Ironhold's recent actions, and I figured the trout would be a humorous way to lighten things up a little. Apparently it had the opposite effect, for which I again apologize. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've had enough people "expressing concern" in their various ways, either via AN/I comments or email ;p. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll pardon my expressions which I did want to say. I was closely observing the events, relatively in real time as they transpired, and I gave considerable meditation to whether or not I would raise the questions of impropriety. To be clear, we have disagreed in the past, and I wouldn't have any compunction against opposing you today; if I'd have seen grounds! After close scrutiny, no such ground existed. All suggestions that you erred, even slightly, are baseless! Even if you, were to tell me you made mistakes; I would debate against you that everything was proper, even well done. Thank you! -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your last message, Oliver. I slept badly, though, and will be working on a fence and a countertop today, leaving our wonderful project at the mercy of vandals and impolite people. If you run into Scotty, tell him I said hi. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong's tools and your blocks
I also don't think experienced editors should get a free pass, but your blocks look hasty and inappropriate. And I really hope we haven't lost the tools for good - if we have, I hope you can help find a way to replace at least some of them. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dougweller that is completely unfair. Scottywong didn't "leave" because of Ironhold's blocks. Scottywong even said the block on himself was warranted. If you are looking to blame someone, blame Scottywong, Drmies and MF for acting like two-year-olds throwing a tantrum.  More blame can be placed on one editor over another, but they all participated.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like all these editors and my head is really exploding by trying to stay out of this....but that was a tad over the line there Doug and I do respect you and your contributions and work as i do Drmies, but he went too far and I think this just needs to be left to these admirable editors to work out. If we had an AN thread we could hash this out...but the discussion was closed VERY early. This is what happens when admin try to administer each other AND try to stop all discussion. I have a very bad opinion of all of this and the taste in my mouth left by all of this is horrible.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, if he's left I'll be pretty sad too. But frankly if he does it won't be my fault. I will not have gone "what do I want today? I want to get rid of a hard-working admin" and sought to achieve that goal. I'll take many criticisms of my actions today - hell, I have - but saying that I'm responsible for whether or not another volunteer decides to spend his spare time on this bit of the internet is both laughable and sets an impossible burden on administrators. Experienced editors shouldn't get a free pass, but no blocking them if you can't replace them! Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wish that there had been more discussion. Sure, if he leaves it isn't your fault and I'm sorry if anything I said suggested it. I guess I'm just tired of certain editors continuing to get a free pass (evidently because they are considered irreplaceable) and others aren't. That's the main thing behind my comment. It really drives me nuts to see this going on. And now we are discussing giving one editor a permanent free pass! No one is irreplaceable in the long run. One of the suggestions I've seen about the loss of the tools is that it's time that the WMF got more involved with some of these, which is what I meant by asking you for help. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my Foundation talkpage is over there - the whole distinction-between-edits thing means I can't really comment on the tools element, except to say, as a volunteer, that I've always hated the toolserver as an institution precisely because it papers over the flaws in MediaWiki with problematic and finnicky alternative extensions. And I'm also tired of that, but applying the civility policy uniformly is the first step towards changing it. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'd forgotten the distinction between the two accounts. And although applying the policy uniformly is a step towards changing the situation, so long as one editor is considered so valuable that almost anything has to be done to keep them then I don't think we can change the situation (which means of course that my answer to the question your raised at AN is no). Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't asking the right question. What is it the WMF wants to achieve? Still to build crowd-sourced encyclopedias that improve over time? Or become another social network? Because while the latter will work better with uniform application of policies, the former requires first and foremost to foster quality content writing. If that's the goal, yes, a produced of high quality content is more valuable than a drive-by tagger and you cannot apply policies equally. With the objective of building an encyclopedia, the rude vested contributor with several hundred quality articles to his name and several thousand reviews is more valuable than an 8-year old account with barely 1% of the edits who starts a GAR without doing his homework because he thinks the article must be a hoax. In fact, narrow application of policies would call for a block for WP:DE for such GARs.


 * As many others have observed, the issue isn't just the occasional virulent flare-ups of MF, it's the sheer amount of disruptive drama stirred up by the civility vigilantes over it and those who oppose them.


 * So here's a solution. Every time MF engages in direct verbal abuse of another editor, block him for 5 days. If he was baited, and baiting to be broadly construed, the baiter gets 10 days off. If AN determines that the block was actually without merit, whoever reported the situation gets 5 days off. Evaluation of direct verbal abuse is made without any consideration to the past or the sum of contributions (so no more "this is actually quite tame compared with what he got away with last time"). If / when any of these blocks are done discussing at AN, anyone who restarts a discussion pertaining to the same incident gets 10 days off, regardless of the venue. Any related unblocks applied without overwhelming consensus are treated as wheel warring and net the unblocker 5 days off, with possible desysopping proceedings if this is habitual. Any user found to be gaming this whole set of sanctions gets six months off.


 * This takes care of pretty much the entire shit stirring chain of events, including the block / unblock sequence and the endless forum shopping by all parties. And hopefully stops some on any side from acting like brainless mobs whenever MF is involved. MLauba (Talk) 15:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor does something because they are unfamiliar with the processes and your proposal is to block them? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor does something disruptive because they didn't familiarize themselves with the context and the processes, so depending on where you balance "encyclopedia vs social network", yes, the outcome can be a block. MLauba (Talk) 16:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a false dichotomy. MLauba, Wikipedia is a social network. It meets the classic definition: if you don't agree you may want to read up more on the subject. But even were that not the case, why are the two mutually exclusive? Why is "content versus society" an adequate summation of "malleus versus not-malleus"? Because here's the thing: some people who are dicks produce a lot of content. A lot of people who aren't dicks, and who have absolutely no wish to involve themselves in an environment populated by dicks, could be producing content too. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patronizing, Ironholds, which is also uncivil if you want to be strict with the meaning of the term, again illustrating the problem. There is no false dichotomy here. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia first, and the social aspect a by-product that supports it, or is it a social network first, with an encyclopedia as the underlying reason? That should inform how productive dicks are being treated. There's also a concrete solution above, call it the "don't be a productive dick sanction regime", give it a try and see what happens. Because there will be many more flare-ups before either the vigilantes let go, or the anti-vigilantes accept a solution that includes a ban for MF. MLauba (Talk) 16:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it came off as patronising; that wasn't my intent. I guess I'd say Wikipedia is ultimately primarily a social network, but one aimed towards creating an encyclopedia. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, indeed, uniform application of rules does the trick. MLauba (Talk) 16:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is indeed ultimately a social networking site then you and those such as MONGO who have for years campaigned for my banning may have a legitimate point, as I have absolutly no interest at all in any social networking sites or their Byzantine workings. And I suspect I'm not alone in that view. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to your edit summary - as always, with my volunteer account (and most of the time with my staff account) I speak only for myself. Ironholds (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is obviously that despite the separation of accounts, some will read this as being reflective of a sentiment shared by the majority of the WMF. Which isn't fair, and I do appreciate the candor in this discussion. I'll also add that as far as I'm concerned, wikipedia as a social network would rule out any chance that I'd return to productive editing myself - the overall highly toxic atmosphere that is highly conductive to harassment that comes with the active part of the social layer here is already unbearable if you consider the balance were to be more on the encyclopedia side of things. MLauba (Talk) 17:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Harassment...one need only research my experiences with the Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls, the GNAA and the 9/11 Truthers back in 06 and 07 to understand the true meaning of harassment. The day the website formally states that pointing out violations of policy is "harassment" is the day I'm done here. It really isn't much to ask the editors of the website to not expect special exemptions just because they are "vested"...in fact, standards should actually be more strict for experienced editors and administrators.--MONGO 18:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out violations of policy once or twice yes. Endlessly over years and years dredging up the same old shit ad nauseam, until it sticks, that's another thing altogether. One only has to look at the sum of the cases this year's arbcom has heard to see evidence of this behaviour all over the place. Heck, only this month, former arbitrators who sat on the committee together demonstrated that even the ones who should exemplify the best of the site's behaviour are perfectly able to perpetuate petty grudges well past any reasonable standards. And speaking of upholding higher standards, I fully agree on the administrators. We all sought the responsibility freely, and acting accordingly is part of the package. On the so-called "vested" contributors, that's just BS. We keep reminding people that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Unfortunately, what gets forgotten is that them editing is also doing wikipedia a favour, not something we are entitled to. If you want an encyclopedia, you need encyclopedia writers. Figuring out how to handle those who combine brilliant writing with a detestable attitude is definitely hard, but one thing is certain, the endless throwing oil on fires doesn't make it any easier. And that's more than enough from me in 2012. MLauba (Talk) 22:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MLauba..you're quite right...we should just ignore...this, or this, or this fine edit summary...want more? Maybe the FAR was one big trolling...I don't know. There really is a better way to deal with such things.--MONGO 23:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth, will you? Have I said this should be ignored? At the same time, you and Malleus had a negative interaction at a 9/11 GAN or GAR what, almost 2 years ago, and dare I say, based off the fact that each of you decided to WP:ABF. How much shit have both of you stirred up about each other since? And the encyclopedia has benefited of this how? Of course, this is hardly surprising, as only WP:ABF can explain how a series of statement about saying that if the desired outcome is an encyclopedia, a way needs to be found to deal with vested contributors better can be read as meaning the incivility you quoted above, for instance, should be ignored. MLauba (Talk) 01:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking past each other and I apologize to Ironholds for taking up his usertalk with this back and forth. Yesterday, in defense of Malleus and Keifer, I asked the admins to consider the possibility that we should grant great latitudes for editors that are "venting" in usertalks, and ...and I even asked the last editor that filed an arbitration request regarding Malleus to refrain from such efforts in the future here. You stated...."a way needs to be found to deal with vested contributors better can be read as meaning the incivility you quoted above, for instance, should be ignored"...well, if that is the way you read me, then I apologize. I don't think it should be ignored at all...it is poison to the website and, as I stated, there really are other ways to deal with things without calling someone a fucking idiot, not just once to one editor, but to multiple editors multiple times for "years and years".--MONGO 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MONGO, thanks for letting Malleus's comment pass, in the interest of peace. Such actions show the way forward.
 * I would not use the word "vent", for several reasons. (1) Administrators and other blocking heads at ANI, e.g. Scottywong, who continue to state the falsehood that blocked users may use their talk pages for only appealing should be blocked or lose their precious bits or both, if we want honesty and responsibility at ANI.
 * (2) I was responding to the abuse at ANI and other pages, not "venting". In fact, I was setting the record strait. Please notice the exchange with Boing to see an acknowledgement that false charges were made, falsehoods that I had repeatedly flagged and refuted. Please also note Sandy's note on my page, and comments about the rather systemic failure to enforce civility when women are belittled. You can also see that my first attempts to set the record straight were redacted. There will be another, soon.
 * (3) Blocking administrators stated that their blocks were not overturned. One would have wished an honest intelligent administrator would be concerned with whether their blocks were within policy, as a last resort, and could be upheld as consensus. I shall have fun quoting the criticisms of the blocks by uninvolved administrators, whose substantive issues were never addressed by the blocking administrators, at least one of which announced that he would be drinking.... He did not state that this would be the start of drinking, if my memory is correct.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, if you look at the datestamps on this conversation you'll see it's quite patently dead. I have no interest in seeing this debate flare up on my talkpage. If you want to talk to Mongo, go talk to Mongo. Ironholds (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironholds,
 * You left this discussion on your talk page, and failed to notify me (or to see that MONGO or another did).
 * 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * I left a discussion about incivility on my talkpage, and am to be faulted for not notifying you that there was a discussion about a very broad topic? Rrright. My point has been made; you can go to discuss this with MONGO on his talkpage now :). Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, anyone whose misdeeds generate a million kbs of discussion on what to do should be shown the door.--MONGO 15:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say it like that, but... ;p. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And anyone who keeps pressing for bans for other editors against consensus, or carries on grudges over years should also be shown the door for harassment, IMNSHO. MLauba (Talk) 16:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was making a general statement about any editor, not one in particular...a statement that applies to everyone on this website equally, including me of course. The newest thread at AN is amongst the most preposterous notions I have ever seen on this website...that vested contributers should get a pass on adhering to policy is surely the road to ruin. Just because some editor has a huge fan club (aka consensus) doesn't mean that they should ever get to trump policy. Exactly how is that to be written in policy? Editors X,Y and Z are hereby permitted to type whatever they wish...everyone else isn't?--MONGO 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And back to the issue about the blocks - Ironholds, your comment to Drmies was impressive but no less than I would have expected from you. We all do and say things we wish we'd thought about a bit more. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Warnings
When did we start simply blocking people without warning them first? I give simple vandals who have contributed nothing to Wikipedia a few warning before I block them. Have I missed something? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A long time user has just left the project (User:SandyGeorgia) partly over this issue. From my reading of the policy all editor deserve a warning before being blocked except for a very few narrow situations (such as legal threats and death threats). She did not just thrown in the towel due to this but a few other recent blogs of long term contributors without due process. Maybe this is not the right venue but definitely something we need to clarify as a group.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Separated this from the rest. Agree this is probably not the place to discuss it in depth. We however spend some much time trying to attract new editors. We have not however figured out how to turn new editors into long term editors.


 * The WMF and the community needs to spend some time figuring out how to keep the long term editors we have. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrators with impulse-control problems feel free to to disrupt discussions on Wikipedia, especially discussions involving intelligent administrators, knowing that enough of their buddies are finding fulfilment at ANI to stop consensus from overturning an out of policy block. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got pretty much no idea what that means, but Kiefer, you're commenting on a dead thread. It's probably not a worthwhile use of your time. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

copy right
dear Ironholds,

The Owner will release using of map in wikipedia. i have sent him a message, and he agree the using of maps in wikipedia. so we will have NO problems to use them here.

thank you for your help Sagapane (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ROYAL SOCIETY listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ROYAL SOCIETY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ROYAL SOCIETY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MSJapan (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More specifically, I'm not quite sure whether it's a housekeeping deletion or what it was really for in the first place, so a comment would be appreciated. Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resulting trusts in English law
Hi Ironholds. The automatic resulting trusts section says "Automatic resulting trusts occur in one of four situations; where there is no declaration of trust, where an express trust fails, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an unincorporated association." I think, really, that where there is the dissolution of an unincorporated association (new article: Unincorporated associations in English law, btw) and where there is surplus property, at least, are actually the trust failing. The other ones as well, I think.

I suppose this argument is clearest in the case of dissolution. That would be based on a purpose trust. When the purpose is no longer valid, there is a resulting trust for contributors because the trust fails.

I think it would be easier to explain it in these terms. I'm no stranger to just getting one with layout-type changes (as I did to Secret trusts in English law) but I thought this one might be to big to not flag up. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made that change, which was less significant than I though. If you can recall, could you explain A presumed resulting trust is where the transfer fails, and there is no reason to assume it was intended as an outright gift.? I know of no presumed resulting trust based on a failure. Perhaps this is a reference to the fact that the transferror's intention might be defeated by operation of the presumption? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly! I wrote that article quite a while ago and don't have access to any of my old textbooks, at the moment. Do what thou wilt :). Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ironholds (talk) Ironholds (talk)

Nick2crosby
Hi Ironholds, I thought I'd let you know about this and this. As you can see, I've warned them, but since you're more familiar with the editor than I am I'll leave any decisions to you. Best. Acalamari 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; now handled :). Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. :) Acalamari 23:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Louis Nolan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Captain (United Kingdom), Balaclava, Bedoin and Light Brigade

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edward Coke PR
I notice that you didn't respond to the detailed peer review by Ealdgyth of your Edward Coke article. Was that an oversight? Aa77zz (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, my bad; yeah, it probably dropped off my watchlist when I was busy :/ (I feel terrible now; I adore Ealdgyth's reviewing work). I'm going to close the AfD I'm on, then integrate the peer review comments into the article and drop her a note of apology. Thanks for letting me know! :). Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Her suggestions seem very sensible. It looks as if the review was closed on the same day as she posted her comments - making them easy to miss. Aa77zz (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Her suggestions always are; one of my favourite editors :). Ironholds (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A thought to share
Greetings Ironholds, it has occurred to me that you would do well with a full tutorial on respect. I'd love to instruct you personally, but I am certain that you would benefit. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That last sentence (the use of "but", to be specific) doesn't actually parse: in any case, I tend not to accept tutorials on anything from people who, in their invitation, demonstrate themselves incapable of it (for example, a tutorial on respect first forayed into with a terribly patronising comment). Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the example you set, in your remarks? -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be patronising? No, I posed a deliberately rhetorical question - one you still haven't addressed. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an odd criticism; that I haven't addressed your deliberately posed rhetorical question. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, there is the possibility we're dealing with a British idiom here (one not shared with wherever you're from). In Blighty, it's perfectly acceptable in conversation to pose a rhetorical question as a way of indicating skepticism of an idea or argument - the person spoken to then has an implicit opportunity to go "yes, that's what I meant, and here is how I justify it". Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

About NY SAFE Act
Hi Ironholds. Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article or the legislation? :p. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article. "Great thing of us forgot." King Lear Act V scene iii. My bad. I'm looking for
 * * US legal citation formats for the statute
 * * online resources that might link to the full text of the statute
 * * online resources like AustLII
 * * umm...
 * * Unlike Polandball, Milnesium tardigradum can into space!
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for the comment on my talk page. I haven't been that active so far but hope to be more so in time. I may well pick your brains from time to time! Ijclark76 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Louis Nolan
Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that there's still one minor issue pending in the GA review for Louis Nolan (the last bullet point). Take a look and let me know your thoughts; I don't have any problem sitting on this one a bit to give you more time if necessary, since it's so close to passing. Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry :). I've been totally snowed under at work - should have it done by the end of today, though. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush at all, just wanted to keep it on your plate. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! The greater contribution is yours, however; as someone who spends a lot of time around GAN I know it'd be worth nothing without the hard-working reviewers :). Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've only been reviewing for a few months, but so far it's been my favorite thing I've done on Wikipedia--lots of fun to see what so many dedicated content contributors are working on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you've found your niche :). I tend to be of the opinion that a Wikipedian is most productive once they've found the bit they enjoy, as opposed to the bit they find useful. Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nolan
No luck tracing an engraving, but you might like to have a look at p. 20 onwards of commons:File:Cornwallis, Fiennes - Letters written from the Crimea to several members of his family (1868).pdf (won't display onwiki, you'll need to download it) - letters home written two days afterwards by a friend of Nolan's, mentioning the rumours blaming him at the time. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and another interesting one; Paget's letters of the 25th/26th. (commons:File:Paget, George - The Light Cavalry Brigade in the Crimea (1881).pdf). Very vituperative! "There is, or rather was, an officer named Captain Nolan, who writes books, and was a great man in his own estimation, and who had already been talking very loud against the cavalry, his own branch of the service, and especially Lucan..." Andrew Gray (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Coke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patent and Trademark Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Joefaust violating topic ban
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
Ironholds, I wanted to thank you for your strong support at my RfA. Every !vote counts, but some mean more than others for reasons of history. Yours is among the latter. Assuming I survive the next 24 hours, I hope you want mind if I stop by with a how-to question from time to time. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'm sure you'll do great :). Knock em dead! Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't work out as hoped, but not for lack of support from friends. Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Dirtlawyer1 2 will go better :). Keep calm and carry on, as my people say. Ironholds (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request edit instructions
Hi Iron. Because it's somewhat along a similar vein as the Contact us page you made, I was wondering if you had input on the following two discussions related to templates for the Request Edit system:


 * Template_talk:Request_edit/COIinstructions
 * Template_talk:COI_editnotice

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Coke
I stumbled on this FAC ... I'll be happy to help, if you like, after you get caught up. Hope work and life are good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this offer! I'd be most grateful for any assistance; I'm hoping to work on it this weekend, but things are rather hectic :/. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Since I'm only good at copyediting, which is usually the last step, I'll have to wait for you to go first ... people have dumped a lot of comments on your head. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're far more than just a copyeditor, but I'll make a start :). Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know. I do a lot of stuff, and sometimes I succeed, but I'm really more brave than good at a lot of things I do around here. Copyediting, I'm good at. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's true of a lot of people. I never expected to become 'a content writer', I can tell you that! I was a happy gnome, and then things got a bit out of control. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Ravi_Singh
Hi there, I know I'm a bit late but I was considering commenting on the above article before it was closed. I had the deletion page open but I didn't get a chance to read the article page. From what I can see there were two calls for delete against three keeps. Would you consider relisting or explaining your delete rationale? Funny Pika! 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll note that one of the keep votes came from the article creator :). Sourcing is mostly divided into two categories; temporary, transitional coverage of events that happened around him (his mother's campaigning, for example, or coverage of his company) and coverage that, quite simply, doesn't support the statements made. Examples would be the statement that "He was widely quoted in the media after the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting", which, if true, would be indicative of influence, except it's cited to a single local ABC affiliate. It's perfectly possible that he has real, concrete achievements and that these are backed up by reliable sources - but those reliable sources weren't there. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I guess I'll try to be quicker next time. Funny  Pika! 15:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, just thought you might like to know about the deletion review that cropped up. Funny  Pika! 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edward Coke
Hi, I've made a bunch of minor edits to the article, and added the book reference on the Roger Williams material (I have now read the book, and more than 10% of the book is devoted to Edward Coke). I'll leave it to you to make the citations consistent, and to decide if you want to keep the NY Times ref. I just want to re-read the final couple of sections of the article tomorrow (Monday), and then will be happy with the article. You've done a commendable job addressing the issues.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility
In regards to a message left by here, I was wondering if you would be willing to contact him in regards to any incivility issues I have. Specifically, I would like to correct any incivility, to the extent that it exists, but I am unwilling to discuss this issue with Amadscientist because I do not like him. Would you be willing to contact him, requesting evidence of this? I'm happy to discuss with you any issues that you see from the evidence presented by Amadscientist. Ryan Vesey 06:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I'm not playing telephone. If you two aren't getting on, simply stay apart; if it's a resolvable problem, I trust you to (and know you have) the maturity and sensible attitude to fix it directly. My advice would be to take a breath, go do something that doesn't involve Wikipedia (or, at least, that doesn't involve that dispute) for a bit, and come back and talk to him directly if you still feel (on reflection) there's something that needs to be addressed. Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, and my message was probably premature considering his most recent edit to my talk page. I'll address it tomorrow.  I'm far too tired, and busy, to act completely rationally.  A friend with poor timing decided to show up in the middle of some readings I was doing, now it's 2 AM, I'm busy finishing stuff up and I've got quite a ways to go before I can turn in for the night, so I'm a bit more touchy than usual (and I should probably be writing rather than leaving this message, so adiós). Ryan Vesey 07:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Yeah, I know the feeling; I've taken to following the rule 'if I feel a reflexive need to reply to someone, I am probably going to say something dumb and should go make some soup or something'. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, by the way, I just noticed this. DYK's going to be overdue in 50 minutes, a prep area is all ready to be moved to the queue.  Care to make sure the main page doesn't get broken? Ryan Vesey 07:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ruh-oh. Will do! Ironholds (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK not right
Ironholds, if you look at the size of previous sets, you'll see that you're missing a lot of information that needs to be there. What you've done isn't going to work properly, and the noinclude tag is messing up the queue page. If you've never done this before, and don't know how, it may be best to revert and hope someone who has done it will stop by. Thanks for trying! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure; now done so. Of course, it would have been easier to just point out the things I did wrong so that I could correct them, but :). Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I knew all of them, I would have tried to guide you through it, but as I'm not an admin and haven't done it myself, I would be afraid to make matters worse. What I could tell was that the page wasn't nearly long enough, that it didn't start out with the necessary template, and that I didn't know enough to tell you how to fix it. I've been trying to get Materialscientist's attention, in the hopes that an update can be made in time. If not, we go over, which happens sometimes. It's not good, but it's better than putting out a malformed queue that breaks things badly. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough then. We clearly need a guide or something :/. Ironholds (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a script for you to use and the best instructions I've found were at Did you know/Adminbot, which says "Open the next queue (Purge this page to ensure the link is correct) and replace the page with the entire contents from the preparation area." Is that what you did? Ryan Vesey 07:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Materialscientist has just showed up: you can take a look at how Queue 4 looks now vs. how you put it together, which may help give you an idea of what would be needed next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think there are guides somewhere, but I don't remember exactly where it is. Also, I'm not sure which guide is about the process that uses the bot, and which tells you the old-fashioned way when the bot isn't working (you'd want the bot version). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Uploaded. Next time just add on the very top of the prep page, and copy the entire page to the queue. The bot will take only what is needed for the main page. The easiest way to reset the prep is find the previous reset in its history and revert there. This is an easy part - most hassle is checking that nothing is screwed up with the hook facts and phrasing :-). A brief guide is at the bottom of any DYK prep page. Cheers. 08:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, great! Thanks all :). Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed closing of Morriswa RFC
Hi, Ironholds. As a person who has commented in the above RFC, your input on a possible closure of the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Morriswa would be appreciated. Thank you. --Rschen7754 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Feedback
I've got an idea, which I want to post at Village pump (idea lab), but I want some informal feedback first.

In a nutshell, I'd like to create a list or table of the top editors of each article, and add it to the top of the Talk Page.

I've written a draft at: User:Sphilbrick/Top ten editors

At the moment, I'm only asking for feedback from you, Dennis, because you are at the top of the Editor retention sign-up, and you Ironholds, just because I think you are very interested in ideas for editor retention.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your suggestion on my talk page. Actually Rossi101 was tried to bias this article and fill it with wrong and one sided information. Moreover he/she has reverted the title of that article without discussion. Thats why I was act that way. I understand, that was my fault.--Freemesm (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hunt-Swartout Raid
#1

#2

Inadequate Food Systems in Space Exploration Tag
Hello, I was just curious, can you please distinguish what makes an article "essay like" and provide an example of the differences between an essay like writing and encyclopedic writing? I have gotten this comment before and I cannot find anything that distinguishes the two writing styles...cannot find anything that clearly defines "encyclopedic" writing style for that matter. I am honestly asking this in the interest of improving my articles' quality level. Thanks, Jssteil (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes more sense than the official Wikipedia help, thank you for that. I will take a look at the Current Food System section and make some changes. (this is now done, actually)
 * Would you be willing to take a look at the other articles I have been working on?
 * Here's a list -
 * Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight


 * Effects of Sleep Deprivation In Space
 * Treating An Ill or Injured Crew Member In Space


 * Illness and Injuries During Spaceflight
 * Spaceflight Radiation Carcinogenesis


 * Radiobiology evidence for protons and HZE nuclei
 * Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation
 * Radiation carcinogenesis in past space missions
 * Visual Impairment and Intracranial Pressure
 * Risk of Renal Stone Formation
 * Team Composition and Cohesion In Spaceflight Missions
 * Intervertebral Disc Damage and Spaceflight
 * Thanks again - Jssteil (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can carve out some time; apologies if it takes me a while, though. Work has been crazy :(. Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding conflict of interest/advertising
You have helped me ones before, so I hope it is OK to ask again.

I recently come across these newly created pages: MaxxCAT Corporation, MaxxCAT Search Appliances and MaxxCAT Storage Appliances. I don’t feel that I have been around her long enough to tell other editors what is acceptable user behavior, but thus pages looks like spam to me. They editor have only done edits regarding this MaxxCAT company, and all references are to their home page or official press releases.

What would be the correct thing to do here? Is this a candidate for deletion, speedy deletion or should it be tagged as POV, POV-check, Advert, Notability, COI, submit a post to the conflict of interest noticeboard, or just let it be so other editors can fix it? Runarb (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like this got deleted by an administrator and the user was given a disruptive editing warning. ( but I am still a little lost on what I can do if I spot similar behavior later). Runarb (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry, I missed this when you wrote it, so leaving a talkback.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, well!
Oh, so you put up an article for FA, did you?

Well, Wells Cathedral has just been up for a GA review. Can I suggest that you take a look at the article, its talk page, and its edit history? You might find the process that the article and one of its major contributors went through rather interesting.......

Amandajm (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:GLAM
Hello! First off, I wasn't sure if I should contact this account or your WMF account about this so I flipped a coin.

A report was recently made at COIN regarding a competition held by WP:GLAM where points were awarded for doing things such as creating articles and having that article achieve GA/FA status. The winner was apparently, based on the point listing, meaning that we would receive a "VIP TRIP TO GIBRALTAR FROM ANYWHERE IN EUROPE". I can't find anything that actually says that he won or that he received his prize.

There seems to be a language barrier making it difficult to understand the disgruntled IP who reported at COIN but I believe that they want to know who won and also, who sponsored the trip.

Although I've never heard of such a competition, it may be more prevalent than I know. At any rate, I have several concerns. One is, this is literally gaming the system, although WP:GAME doesn't seem to cover such a case, exactly. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, but the person who won apparently ran into copyright violation issues and had their autopatrolled status revoked. Here is a list of articles affected by this competition. Obviously, the competition gave editors an incentive to game the system and not only did at least one user do that and potentially damage WP, I don't even know where to start when checking other articles for issues.

My other concern, and reason for contacting you, is that the competition may cause problems for WMF. I'm no attorney and don't pretend to be but I do know that competitions held in the US with a prize of this size have some requirements such as clearly announcing a winner, listing its rules, and not requiring a purchase for entry (that's why you always hear soda commercials say "no purchase necessary" and list an address where you can write them and request a free entry). That last doesn't apply but the IP that reported to COIN may be trying to exercise those requirements and while the competition wasn't exactly sanctioned or condoned by WP, there appears to be some confusion. I also can't find anything on WP that clearly states that such competitions are allowed or not and I can't find anything that states that such competitions aren't associated with WP. Again, I'm no expert but I'd hate for WMF to get pulled into some BS legal battle because a competition is held completely on its servers. Maybe you guys have an attorney that can help us create a policy that removes WP/WMF from any responsibility for competitions held on its servers unless they're sanctioned by the WMF (although, I never see that last part happening).

Is this something that the WMF is familiar with? I'm not really sure what steps to take at this point as this seems like a much bigger situation than I can handle on my own.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge GibraltarpediaA was run by the UK chapter, rather than the Foundation - I'm not sure about the legal implications myself. My recommendation would be to poke Maggie, who works in Legal and can more closely help :). Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I contacted her here, in case you're interested.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To my CERTAIN knowledge the Gibraltar project was independent of both the Foundation and the UK Chapter.

PS Can you archive some of your page Oliver - hell of a long scroll up and down :) Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then, on both fronts (OY, to address your original comment - yes, my staff talkpage works better ;p.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Horse Protection Act of 1970
Hi Ironholds! I've been working on this law article (a first for me, I think), and have been considering putting it up for GAN. I'd like to get an outside opinion first, though, and when thinking about who edited legal articles on WP, yours was the first name that popped to mind... (lucky you!) If you have a few minutes, and the interest, would you mind looking over Horse Protection Act of 1970 to see if there are major completeness, referencing, etc. issues? Right now, as I said, I'm just heading for GAN, but eventually I think there's a definitely possibility for this article to go to FAC. Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest, no worries if not. Dana boomer (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pull an autopatrolled tag?
I noticed that has the autopatrolled tag, but I looked through a few of his articles and I'm not sure he should have it. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 has only one in-text citation, and it's the least important thing to cite. He includes information specifically related to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, but doesn't source it. He added a few empty sections and tags in there himself. Similarly Hurricane Sandy relief bill only cites the first sentence, and had a few empty sections tags that FoCuSandLeArN added himself. His grammar is pretty bad too. His shorter articles are usually fine, they tend to follow the general practice of only including a citation for the first sentence. (i.e. Aspergillus lentulus) Micrococcus lylae has more citations, but still leaves a lot without a citation. He created Vallonia parvula with empty sections as well. Even some simple articles like Martensia formosana have problems (see ); although, I don't know that those problems would get caught in page curation. Ryan Vesey 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Empty sections isn't really a problem. Have you brought these issues up with the user in question? Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing the editor to the discussion now. It's possible that my threshhold for the flag is extroardinarily high, but I do not believe editors who create articles that need tags should have the flag.  The referencing and grammar issues are enough to pull the flag in my opinion. Ryan Vesey 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bills fall upon the public domain and as such they have a US government template on them, which is where the information was retrieved. there are only 2 bills i've created, and they were both looked at by the legislative data wikiproject. the species articles you mention only have one citation because those are the new species description articles, and therefore that's where the information comes from. please familiarise yourself with the projects i work for before accusing me of unrerenced article creation. i've created almost 400 good quality articles and almost 100% of them are adequately referenced. regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oh, and as for empty sections, following a previous discussion with one of the coordinators of wikiproject gastropods, it was agreed that they should remain. legislative data also requires empty sections because bills usually undergo transformation before taking a more definitive form, not to mention their media coverage shifts continually, and i haven't edited the articles for some time in that regard. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clear then that you are not putting effort into creating your articles and ensuring that everything is well referenced so readers can verify the statements. I double down on my suggestion that autopatrolled be removed. Ryan Vesey 20:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it is very clear that i am. as i said, familiarise with the projects i work with before making preposterous accusations. i'm a respectable member of wikipedia and you have no right to do so. to be honest, i don't give a damn if that priviledge is withdrawn. i didn't ask for it in the first place, i was given it. be my guest. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is sort of an awkward one. Ryan, can you point FoCuSandLeArN to specific statements that you feel need to be referenced? Ironholds (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those statements need to be referenced. Leaving an article unreferenced in every section opens the door for original research and the introduction for factually inaccurate information.  To point out one thing, I'll bring up Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.  First, it has a number of tags on it, the creation of articles that need to be tagged should be reason number 1 to remove the flag.  Second, the only reference/link provided on the article is this one while the information is from various subpages of that.  It appears that the entirety of the article is found at this deeper link.  It's possible that some came from this as well, I can't tell.  I'll also note that the style of the summary it was taken from was never meant to be encyclopedic, so the article is riddled with grammatical errors, mostly incomplete sentences.  On creation, the opening read "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055) is a bill passed to the 112th United States Congress"  I've never heard this usage (to rather than by) and assume it is incorrect, another editor changed it, the lead is also missing an important determiner.  In any case, you can take a look at User:Ryan Vesey/Focusandlearn for more of my comments on various issues. Ryan Vesey 22:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to bring User:JimHarperDC (Legislative Data WikiProject) and User:Invertzoo (Gastropods WikiProject) to the discussion. As for the autopatrolled tag, I welcome its removal, as that would mean more editors would have a chance to review and improve my editing. I was surprised when they gave it to me without even asking. Maybe talk with the user that did so in the first place, although I can't remember when that happened or the editor's name. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed
An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Contact us
Hi Oliver. :) I saw that you unprotected Wikipedia talk:Contact us the other day, but since then we've been getting quite a lot of irrelevant posts. Would you consider semi-protecting again, or is there a grand scheme at work here that I've failed to notice? Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The grand scheme was pretty much "I wonder if any of this feedback is useful, even if it's not properly formatted?" The answer, unfortunately, was evidently "no" :/. Now reprotected! Ironholds (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. :) Some of it might be useful sometimes, I'm sure, but after seeing all of those posts I've developed a new appreciation for the OTRS and the help desk volunteers... — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh? Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, because dealing with all these kinds of enquiries must get tiring after a while. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guh, I'm an eejit. I read "appreciation" as "approach" ;p. Considered OTRSing yourself? We're always looking for new victi-I mean, volunteers ;). Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I got myself approved, but I haven't actually done any work there yet. Maybe I'll go and have a look now. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)