Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:06, 18 July 2011

Archives

older archives Archive 8 (October-November 2008) Archive 9 (November-December2008) Archive 9 (December 2008 - January 2009) Archive 10 (January 2009 - February 2009) Archive 11 (February 2009 - March 2009) Archive 12 (April 2009 - May 2009 Archive 13 (May 2009 - June 2009 Archive 14 (June 2009 - July 2009 Archive 15 (July 2009 - August 2009 Archive 16 (August 2009 - October 2009 Archive 17 (October 2009 - November 2009 Archive 18 (November 2009 - December 2009 Archive 19 (January 2010 - February 2010 Archive 20 (February 2010 - March 2010 Archive 21 (March 2010) Archive 22 (April 2010 - May 2010) Archive 23 (May 2010 - June 2010) Archive 24 (June 2010 - August 2010) Archive 25 (August 2010 - December 2010) Archive 26 (December 2010 - January 2011) Archive 27 (January 2011 - February 2011) Archive 28 (February 2011 - March 2011)] Archive 29 (March 2011 - April 2011) Archive 30 (April 2011 - June 2011)

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

DYK for The Case of the Dean of St Asaph

On 29 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Case of the Dean of St Asaph, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note

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

Cake for you

Have some Cake for making yummy Cake. WikiLove through WikiCake. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious about your closing rational

• I'm curious about your closing rational at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathon_Coudrille. "Those arguing in favour of keeping this article have provided no actual evidence that he is worthy of inclusion." I pointed out that he met WP:ARTIST by having his work in the permanent collection of a notable gallery. The article at Falmouth Art Gallery begins with "Falmouth Art Gallery has one of the leading art collections in Cornwall, southwest England, and features work by old masters, major Victorian artists"... So it is a notable gallery, and I did add to the article a link to their official website where they list all those in their permanent collection. That and the many significant exhibition he has been a part of, I think would make him notable. Dream Focus 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, and I followed the link. It gave absolutely no details of the "other significant exhibitions" he has been a part of - again, if you're going to make a statement, cite it or provide evidence - and as was rightly pointed out at the AfD, WP:ARTIST requires his work to be held in the collections of several galleries. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

You SUCCEEDED AT AN RFA?!!?!

OK it's been freaking AGES but just was curious what was going on on Misplaced Pages and I saw your name in the successful RFA bit. So yeah. Wow. Well done! Well, in so much as becoming an admin is a *good* thing. Glad people didn't reject you for stupid reasons like every single other time though. :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Tombomp (talk/contribs)

hahah, thanks! Must admit, when I saw the title of this section I was thinking "oh lord, another what-is-the-wiki-coming-to comment.." :p. How goes? Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What kind of person wouldn't want you as an admin?! Only somebody with completely reasonable objections, I imagine! So yeah I left the IRC and the site like 2 years ago and did some other stuff because other stuff is fun. I'm going to uni next year. Well that's about it. How are you? How is ~the wikipedia~? I just looked at the talk page of an arbitrator who I thought was pretty cool back in the day and noticed some drama and was about to go all Misplaced Pages Review on it when I realised that was dumb. Misplaced Pages is way addictive dammit Tombomp (talk/contribs) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For encouraging legal publishers to start reviewing the Law of Bankruptcy in earnest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Vere Bird Jr.

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

Replied on your talkpage, repeatedly. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound like a bad thing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah! It's only "bad" if I look for an easy review. Since I prefer a thorough one, yours are second to none :). Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Good-Morrow

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

Zafar Mahmud

I went to PROD Zafar Mahmud and the template came up with the prior AfD warning, which I hadn't noticed since there's no talk page box. I see you just closed it today. Under what possible standard should we keep an unsourced BLP for someone like this? A single name drop in a book is what swayed it for you? To be honest I was wavering between speedy deletion and prod, but his service as an ambassador kept me from A7'ing it. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The "single mention in the book" verifies that he passes WP:POLITICIAN, which is the important element, and necessitated a keep. Note that the notability guidelines do not trump verifiability - you're welcome to cull all the unreferenced content, or even merge it into a "List of ambassadors from Pakistan to Blotto" list. Speedy deletion and prod aren't really appropriate for something AfDd; you can nominate it for AfD again, but I'd think it'd be kept, albeit in a reduced format. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)/GA1

Just pinging you in case you didn't notice the review. J Milburn (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw it, replied to it! Thankee :). Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell

Right, so "thanks for all your work! Hey, to celebrate, why not do more work?!" :P. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! – Quadell 11:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Will swing by at some point; currently at the Umbrella conference for CILIP with WMUK. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I loved your comment on my talk page! :) I'll remove it shortly, because I enjoy a clean talk page, but you were humorous and downright Solomonic in your approach, something I am amused by and have to respect. However, I cannot respect, in fact I object, to being lumped into the same category as the other two editors. We all know what they did that repeatedly violated policies. And contrary to your characterization, it wasn't ignorance either, it was intentional - and coordinated - harrassment. While no one can identify any policy that I violated that would warrant any block. Do I want to "rip new ones" as you put it? No. But I'm not prepared to be lumped in with disruptive behavior that I am not guilty of. That's really not fair either, now is it, my Solomonic friend? Give 'em a block and call it a day. They've earned it. They worked hard for it! So just give them what they asked for! Or as you suggested, give us all a block - if you believe I'm guilty of being unwilling to accept an apology - that was never offered. Thanks. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My reference to Solomon was justified. You admins have a difficult tightrope and you walk yours well, so kudos for that. However, in reviewing their actions, not just with me, but even on Katie's talk page from just today, it's clear that they work in tandem - like their own traveling judge and executioner, trying to intimidate by tag-teaming. If you've warned them about me, that's fine, but as you indicated, I'd honestly applaud your efforts to monitor them in future. Simply because this appears to be a pattern, not just one isolated incident. Again, just look at Katie's talk page. But as a tip of my hat to you and my trust that you'll keep your word to keep an eye, I'll withdraw from pursuing this further, even though it warrants it. Still, apologies from them would have been nice. They're certainly deserved. But thanks again. Cheers. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did stop reverting the talkpage. However there was no need to personally attack me, by calling me "thin-skinned and immature"--Katieh5584 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Agreed; you were all in the wrong over this, but the IP had a legitimate concern which you repeatedly failed to address, instead edit-warring with him against policy. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken.--Katieh5584 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point apparently NOT taken. This editor CONTINUES to revert messages on my talk page, after I have repeatedly blanked them - again & again - and AFTER she has been warned - repeatedly - about this behavior relative to my page. If that isn't "thin-skinned and immature" - then it sure as hell is THICK-HEADED. This person simply does not get it. Period. Enough! Give me a legitimate reason not to file a complaint, Ironholds. Nothing else seems to register with, or affect the behavior of, this editor. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When I went to edit this afternoon, I found a "new message" banner. Upon clicking it I discovered that this old message had been newly restored by Katieh5584. I don't see it in the history now myself, perhaps it was rolled back (?), I honestly don't know. All I do know is that if it had not been there, I certainly would not have felt the need to revisit this whole sorry affair for one more day. I had already put it behind me. As I'd said before, I have already had quite enough. 68.183.246.164 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

FAR

Hi Ironholds. Last year, the FAR process instituted a new first step, requiring editors to notify in advance the talk page of the article that they are planning to nominate it for review. Because this wasn't done on your recent nomination of T-34, I have removed the review from the FAR page, hidden the banner on the article talk page, and placed a notification on the article talk page. If there is no work done on the article in the next week or two, please feel free to reverse my actions, or ping me and I will. Let me know if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I haven't done an FAR in a while and was working mostly on autopilot. Whoops! :-). Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wisdom Song Inc (Raymond Terrace Buddhist Centre)

Thank you for reverting this and cleaning up the debris. I wasn't certain that I was 100% correct, and I'm not one to argue with a long-standing admin, so I just took my admonishment and walked away. I feel much better now knowing that I wasn't completely wrong in listing the article for discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You were completely in the right; it does not fall under a valid CSD criteria, and if a PROD is removed, it has to be AfDd. Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for that, and the Barnstar! --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

DYK for The Good-Morrow

On 16 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Good-Morrow, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Donne's poem "The Good-Morrow" references seven sleeping children, cordiform maps and Paul the Apostle? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Constructive edits to Misplaced Pages

Please, apply yourself constructively to the advancement of Misplaced Pages. I have no idea why you felt in necessary to undelete my talk page. Thanks/wangi (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the deletion of talkpages by anyone, even their user, is the exception and not the rule. Policy clearly dictates that talkpages not be deleted without good reason, and no good reason was provided. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All wrapped up in policy (dictates indeed). Did you miss the bit about it being ok to use common sense once in a while? The page had been deleted for four months with no harm and all of a sudden it's critical it is restored? Nonsense like this is why I no longer contribute to this project. /wangi (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'd seen the deletion four months ago, I would have reverted you again. This is not simply some arbitrary rule; there are 5+ years of other peoples contributions there - contributions that are now, for the majority of users, impossible to access. This is precisely why talkpage deletion is done so rarely; because it involves the sandblasting of other users' content, submitted in good faith, and a near-permanent erasure of conversation threads from the wiki. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the toss on this. Just be aware all you've done is to stick another nail in the coffin of yet another editor/admin disillusioned by Misplaced Pages bureaucracy and those who seem to delight in it - congratulations. Nothing here has helped the creation of an encyclopedia... /wangi (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But the preservation (at least in the "history") of the ongoing conversation which is the crafting of Misplaced Pages, is part of what we do here, and is helping document the creation of an encyclopedia. I dearly hope, Wangi, that this minor matter is not going to induce you to stop contributing to this project. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim to no longer contribute, yet continue to hold admin privileges for no apparent reason. AD 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aiken drum, can you please explain to me (a) how that is relevant and (b) how it is likely to be constructive, rather than further inflaming tensions for no perceivable benefit? Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• When somebody claims have left, and insists on keeping their talk page deleted, I don't see any reason why that person should continue holding admin rights. Admin rights are used for the project's purposes, not just to have in case their talk page is undeleted. Just my opinion. AD 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, which has nothing to do with this situation. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• AD - I think you must have misread or misunderstood. I have not used my admin privileges to reverse Ironhold's undeletion. As I said above - "I'm not going to argue the toss". I have only implied that act is illustrative of many of the problems with Misplaced Pages editor/admins being focused on the bureaucracy rather than the content. I'm also not aware of any standard practice whereby admin privileges are removed due to inactivity (edit: ok, guess there are - but they don't apply here). Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think what AD is getting at is that, if you no longer contribute here, you have no need fro the admin bit. I don't believe we've ever crossed paths before, but it would be a shame if you were to stop contributing. But if you have stopped, or intend to stop in the very near future, I would tend to agree that you should hand in the bit, not least because of some of the problems we've had with dormant admin accounts being compromised. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've not used admin functions in a year and a half (except the issue at the top) and still make occasional edits (to the encyclopaedia!). I don't see any reason why this means I should somehow engage a process to drop my admin status. After all, I'm still in "good standing" - yeah? All this is yet another instance of focusing on the bureaucracy. /wangi (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• HJ, Aiken, this is all well and good; it's also a complete distraction from this discussion is about and has no relevance. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like the discussion on whether that's relevant or not. warrior4321 23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Avenue X at Cicero

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

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Talkback

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

Hey, thanks!

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

Hopefully, a more productive editor is the light at the end of the tunnel, instead of just a cynical retiree. I know I've sometimes learned from being confronted on my WikiBehavior. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, although to my knowledge we haven't really interacted. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block!

• Greetings! FWIW, due to his similar way of arranging his pages (???) when compared to mine, I too find Since 10.28.2010 (talk · contribs) very suspicious indeed... would SPI be advicable as well? Thoughts? --Dave 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what you will; I was just dealing with the spamming issue and have no thought on his other activities. Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I totally disagree with the block. In my interactions with the editor it has been clear that the editor is often confused and makes some errors; however, the incident in question isn't one that deserves a block. He was leaving Wikilove on people's talk pages... when did that become a crime? A block might have been slightly justified solely on the basis of the fact that this is a culmination of many troubles caused by the editor; however, his work has been improving dramatically. If you check his contribs to the help desk from a month ago to now, it is clear that he has been making strides. I would (obviously) support an unblock if he receives mentorship. Ryan Vesey contribs 13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

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

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Uncontroversial Obscurity

| the person who edited with that account is directed to contact the
| Arbitration Committee with the name of the new account they wish to
| use in place of Barong.

WP:AC/N#Motion regarding User:Barong

He did that. Amalthea 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh bollocks; sorry, didn't see that! Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)