Jump to content

User talk:Ironholds/archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism

[edit]

This user 71.42.191.58 is vandalizing again. He almost totally blanked the pizza hut page a few days ago The snare (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; now warned. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could check that page again, if you get a chance, there's a been a few vandals in the last week, and perhaps some of them are sock puppets of him/her too (they only have IP addresses) The snare (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else managed to get them. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see whoever it is just uses another IP every time they get warned, or blocked. They could be going through a proxy too- which might make them hard to catch The snare (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17th Amendment

[edit]

Interesting thing to watch that probably won't be reflected in the sources yet about the 17th Amendment: Quinn v. Judge, which is at the SCOTUS now[1] (SCOTUSblog). NW (Talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks kindly! Ironholds (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower page

[edit]

Hello Ironhold, Please help me understand something about this page I was told and led to believe that there is no self promotion at Wikipedia and I see that at the top of the Whistleblower page there is a link to an outside story about a movie is that not self promoting a movie using a Wikipedia site about a legitimate subject matter. One would think that if reference material is needed Wikipedia would use their own sit "List Of Major Whistleblowers" site instead of an out side self promoting site. The List Of Major Whistleblowers is a very wide ranged view and and look at some of the past and present Whistleblowers. Thank you for your ear and patience.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... could you provide links and rephrase that in English? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a second opinion

[edit]

Hi Ironholds. You co-authored the article While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. May I please ask you to state your opinion about re-write made by user:Gatoclass here? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite far improves it, although he needs to provide a source for the "racism" point. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of boyzone back again tour

[edit]

Why the hell have you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudialive (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was created by a sockpuppet. Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within

[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

[edit]

Hi Ironholds!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted.

First off, I apologize for the following info-dump. If you're wondering how to get started or are wondering what's going on, please contact me.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Guidelines

The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.

Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors (Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)

To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.

You can catch with what's been going on so far with the first major message this term, with details about what the group should and shouldn't be used for: Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#Information_for_Ambassadors_about_January_-_May_2011_term

You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to take the plunge

[edit]

Hey Ironholds! I just finished polishing Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez after a second Peer Review. I would like to move it to the Featured Article process. Is there anything you could advice for either a) this process or b) final ways to improve the article before nomination? Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I note the references section shows only four journal articles - is that all I provided? Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just those four. Lord Roem (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokes! I'll try to find more. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMF report test

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Ironholds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Lead length

[edit]

Hey mate, I just happened to stumble upon the GA nomination for Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, and I noticed that one of your comments was that "Lead sections should normally have a maximum of 3 sections". Assuming that the second "sections" actually means "paragraphs", I just wanted to point out that WP:LEAD actually suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs, and that there are indeed a number of GAs and FAs with this many paragraphs in the lead. The nom passed without incident, so I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I thought I would let you know in case it comes up in future reviews. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair play! When did that change? I hate policy alterations. I keep having to come back and review them and stuff. Things should just stay the same as they did when I was a lad! </oldman> Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fear not, old man. It was probably just a glitch in the matrix. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spooky; I was watching that film earlier today! It's interesting to note how many subtleties you spot the second time through. Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC request

[edit]

Hey Ironholds, if you're willing, would you be able to take a look at Eastbourne manslaughter? It's currently at FAC, and one of the other reviewers suggested it might benefit from review by someone knowledgeable about such topics. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Phearson's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JaGa

[edit]

Tell 'em how you really feel, Ironholds! Thanks, by the way, for stating it, though you might get slammed for it, and for reiterating that while content creation is very important, it's not the only thing one should get judged on. That a candidate would have to provide such a heap of evidence, when RfA is already a pretty intensive and laborious enterprise, is pushing it too far. Even Keepscase's questions are more reasonable than that one. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "not calling a spade a spade" is the one thing I could never be accused of :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I know. Have a good weekend, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automating submissions for autopatrol right

[edit]

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. Since you have been helping review candidates, I thought you may want to comment on if/how we should do this. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

Hi Ironholds, Let's say I'd like to use a book as a source.This book quotes another book. What is the proper way to handle such sources? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Another example of WP:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER. BencherliteTalk 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I just had to create that! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered who'd take the bait... as ever, HJM does not disappoint! BencherliteTalk 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitrain?

[edit]

You will be pleased to see that I have added your name to the list of attendees at Derby based on your early commitment. Yes I have not changed the date:-) Keen to get more on the London train and wondered if yoy might lead the idea of a wikitrain as you were a leading player in the Gdansk one. (Good to see you are frequently a trend setter!) I know that the BM hope to send a candidate so you will not be the only one, but good to get a carriage full. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, but at this point I'm not sure whether I'll be going - work commitments, see. If work is okay with it (and I'll find out within the next week or so) I'll take a further look. Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

[edit]

You have been cited Here. Spartaz Humbug! 14:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restart of deleted talk pageRestart of deleted talk pages

[edit]

Hi Ironholds! I'm just about to restart a talk page I've restarted a few talk pages you deleted about a month and a half ago:

This would seem to me to be pretty uncontentious; the problem will be with the article itself articles themselves, of course. You might want to have a look at them. Oo-roo! --Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC), last updated --Shirt58 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador Help

[edit]

Thanks for volunteering to help with our Environmental Law Course. We really appreciate your input! Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a law student - I'd feel bad not doing it! ;p. Just let me know when you need me. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a student in Env Law, and I am new in Wiki. Could you please, give me some tips that how can I start? thanks, mehrshad.user:mehrshad006 —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

[edit]


This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

[edit]

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I'm on holiday! Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame! I'm hoping to start holding regular wikimeets in Manchester - possibly on the last sunday of every month (to complement the London wikimeets on the 2nd sunday of every month) - so hope you can make a future one. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I can. Anything new on nomination forms for the board, btw? Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netball Good Article

[edit]

If you could swing by Talk:Netball and Talk:Netball/GA1, I'm getting rather frustrated. The good article review dates to March 5 and it keeps getting longer and longer, with out any end in sight. We get conflicting advice. (Remove red links. Put them back in. No, changed my mind. Put them back in. Use consensus imperial. Oh? That's not consensus, well do all this other measurement related stuff as I don't get my way there.) I'm really frustrated and I don't feel like we're making progress. --LauraHale (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting in a word to second this request. The GA review is an absolute mess and could really use some competent guidance and/or advice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

George Odlum

[edit]

Hi, I have reviewed George Odlum and placed it on hold for up to seven days with several concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:George Odlum/GA1. Canadian Paul 05:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

[edit]

All I can say is, I hope you're proud of yourself. You've opened up yet another enormous can of worms on the Wikipedia community. It was AFD'd, deleted, DRV'd and we said NO to recreation, deletion endorsed. What you've done goes beyond crazy. I swear this article WILL be deleted one day, and if I ever get the chance to be the one to do it, I'll put so much damn salt on it, I'll dehydrate it to a crisp. BarkingFish 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, BarkingFish. In this case, it appears to have done, because the DRV participants were really quite astoundingly in agreement about overturning the deletion. I'm not sure what you'd like Ironholds to have done - close the DRV in defiance of consensus, and thus betray the role of admin as impartial evaluator of consensus in deletion discussions? Would you prefer to have admins make closes based on whether they think an article is controversial, rather than on whether a discussion has established that the article in question meets inclusion criteria? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 - He's not impartial since he already admitted being partially involved in getting that DRV listed, so technically as he has discussions surrounding it, with LiteralKa, he shouldn't have taken part in the close of the DRV. He is not an uninvolved admin.
2 - He's made it clear that we can't use WP:DENY on an article like this - Essay or not, its words are most true... "Motivations for vandalism (as distinguished from abuse like harassment and edit warring) range from a desire for recognition and infamy,[1][2] to an aspiration to frustrate the Wikipedia project and community. Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. This is particularly true for prolific vandals, who were (prior to this essay) immortalised by Wikipedia pages, meticulously catalogued by category pages, dedicated specific templates, and who thereby become a notable part of wiki culture."
By recreating this article, we have once again, given the GNAA the "fame" and "reinforcement" they clearly don't fucking deserve. Trust me. This article will fall, and I will make damn sure of that. You're both responsible for this, the last DRV should have been the end of it. You had no flaming need to bring it up again. What's the point of a process that says "get rid of it" if someone else can just come along and flick it on its back? BarkingFish 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't think the consensus would have changed if people involved in the last DRV would have been made aware that another one was on the go. BarkingFish 19:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With as many AFDs and DVRs as this article has had notifying every one would be a monumental task to notify everyone. You could have done it yourself if you felt so strongly about it The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it was happening, ResidentAnthropologist. If I did, I'd have told everyone involved, and hope they'd have got involved again. Enough is enough. BarkingFish 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your off-site involvement and numerous discussions with previous nominator LiteralKa and current nominator Fluffernutter, and me advising you shortly after the DRV started that I felt you were insufficiently uninvolved to act as a neutral admin in closing this particular DRV (I know what at least one other admin have also indicated that they felt the matter better handled by someone else), I am saddened to learn that you chose to disregard that advice and went ahead regardless. It speaks of a lack of judgment about when it is proper to recuse, and certainly brings the resulting close into question. henrik•talk 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, I thought we established that I have spoken to Ironholds previously a whopping one time. LiteralKa (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds has the right to speak to whomever he likes, but an impartial, uninvolved sysop should be the one who closes the DRV. A judge should mingle with the jury. Ironholds has expressed his views before the DRV closed. Perhaps we could have another sysop reclose this DRV, so we don't have to waste our another week with a new argumentative DRV concerning the legitimacy of this closure. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where did I express these views? I deliberately kept out of it. Ironholds (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure, so I hope you can excuse me for being wrong. I heard all of this second-hand. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm aware, the first comments I made about the last DRV were in my closing statement - that is, the first comments in any way relating to which direction it should be closed. Word of advice; stating that I had expressed my views before the DRV closed, that I am not impartial and that "a judge should not mingle with the jury" is relatively strong language. You should perhaps base it on more than something somebody else told you they had heard, and my active and repeated pointing out that I have deliberately not associated myself with the "jury" since the "case" began. If you have any reason to suggest that a different conclusion was reachable please, be my guest. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick note; if you have come here to complain, pause. Breathe. Wait. Go look at the DRV. Read what people have said, read my close in full - not just the restore, the whole close. Done? Right, now come back and tell me I could've closed it differently. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about you personally, Ironholds, but a different conclusion was reachable. This was a case of "keep listing until it gets restored", and—as was statistically certain given enough relistings—eventually the "restore" votes showed up in sufficient numbers to carry the day, provided you isolate DRV#11 from the previous ten DRVs and 19 AFDs. There's a potentially a question to be raised about whether you were right to disregard the previous consensus in closing this one. It's admittedly not an easy call and it reflects the zero sum game of trying to decide one way or the other in a discussion where there's fundamentally no consensus across the encyclopaedia, so I won't personally bring a challenge against it in one of the venues that can overturn a DRV, but I also think it's disingenuous to claim that this was the only permissible conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, since when have previous DRVs and AfDs been taken into account when reaching a consensus on what the particular group of people at the particular DRV think? Decisions are made by those who turn up. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions are also better if previously involved participants (hint) actually know that something is happening. We're not fucking psychic. BarkingFish 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really gotta calm down man. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really gotta find something better to do than have your organisation give us grief when you've got what you wanted. You've got your article, you got your own way, I can't change that. God knows, I wish I could. BarkingFish 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you blathering about? Since when is GNAA "my organization"? LiteralKa (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are their spokesperson, right? Their P.R.O? So you effectively represent the public face of the GNAA. They may not be "your organization" in the way that you actually run them, but what you do publicly reflects on the GNAA as a whole. I accept that you've got what you wanted - I can't say I'm thrilled about it, because frankly I'm not. Another DRV within 4 weeks of the last one being shut simply shows how open the systems of Wikipedia are to abuse. Either way, what's done is done. For now. Until someone else opens another AFD and all this crap starts again. BarkingFish 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how I was in any way (a) expected to or (b) competent to notify previous participants to something when I deliberately avoided looking at it for the entire week it was running? Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You personally weren't. I've simply seen it done before, usually by the person posting or someone uninvolved. BarkingFish 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should never have closed this one. There is no way you can be considered by all parties to be a neutral admin when you have been consorting off wiki with the proponents of undeleting it. Please void and allow an actually neutral admin to close this. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I didn't get what I wanted, so I'm gonna claim that he wasn't neutral and demand a redo." LiteralKa (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • LiteralKa, that's far from what Spartaz and other have said. Ironhold isn't an outsider to the dispute; you had his ear. I agree with the result of the DRV personally, but I can't agree with it professionally. Someone else should reclose the DRV so it won't continue to be contested in this fashion. Leaving the DRV as it is now is only going to provide fuel to further conflicts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Spartaz (and others), I'm not seeing anywhere where he's "consorted" or shown evidence of non-neutrality. Obviously if he was running around talking about how he wanted the article restored, that would be a problem, but all I'm able to find with regard to people's allegations of non-neutrality are some comments on LiteralKa's talk page where he said things like, "I think that the DRV was closed by an admin who left a short rationale that read more like bean-counting than thinking it through, and that having a debate closed by somebody who normally works well in contentious DRVs/AFDs such as myself might appease the "losing" side, whichever that side would be."

Is there somewhere that you can point to to show us where or how Ironholds stated an opinion on the issue other than the general sentiment that if a DRV opened he wanted the opportunity to sink his teeth into closing it? Or is your argument that having shown interest in closing the DRV is, in and of itself, a COI of some sort?

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
I entirely disagree with your closure of the GNAA DRV, but you certainly deserve this for writing it and coming to a decision. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been quoted at WP:Requests for adminship/NickPenguin

[edit]

I read your submission to JaGa's RfA and thought it was one of the best arguments I'd ever read. It was so good, in fact, that I quoted it in my entry in WP:Requests for adminship/NickPenguin. I hope you don't mind. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 12:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:New Pages and New Users

[edit]

You may well know, but the guy you want in on this is Chzz (talk · contribs). He's spent so much time helping new users write great articles, and getting them involved in Wikipedia. I've done a lot of new page patrol in the past (but I hold up my hands as a "take out the trash" type when I was doing that) but this is something I'd like to support if possible. I just don't have the time for Wikipedia that I would like at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I shall poke him. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested in some work that Snottywong and I have been doing over the last few weeks: User:Snottywong/Patrollers. The idea is to identify enthusiastic patrollers who may still be unsure of how to interpret WP:CSD and WP:NPP and offer them some help. --Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I'll poke Chzz, and thanks for all your hard work so far. Would you be interested in getting involved in what we're doing at the mo? I'll poke the ComDep with your project - they'll find it interesting. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep me up to date. Snotty and I have done a huge amount of research over the past months and the current table is only one small part of it. --Kudpung (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clearly named User:BackInDisguise

[edit]

I see you blocked him/her; I shared the suspicion but thought what the heck, AGF and give it a good try to get across what the project is about. They seem to have a genuine misunderstanding about "provincial medical officer" as well as being obtuse about sources - I had a small hope I could get through to them and we'd wind up with another useful editor. They did find us one source on the lady. It is, however, disquieting that the lady herself has evidently objected that the article is unfair to her. See the message on the talk page, although she doesn't come off all that good by the end of it, we should cut her some slack as a BLP subject (as well as a physician and medical officer who had a distinguished career). I can't read Finnish - I should perhaps add a userbox for that like the one I have for Russian - or I'd have looked for some refs on her medical career and the impetus for her UFO writings myself. I was hoping our friend would buckle down and provide a few more. I hope I didn't do a bad thing not reporting them on the basis of my strong suspicion. --Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The greater problem is that he's an obvious sock of an IP currently on a month-long block - that's what the indef of the account was for. Doesn't look like there was any negative impact, so don't beat yourself up over it. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental edit conflict fall out at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)?

[edit]

Hey, was reading through Village pump by diffs, and I think that one of your edits accidentally deleted Jalexanders edits. I presume it was an edit conflict gone wrong. I'd restore it myself, but wanted to make sure that it wasn't intended. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, EC; he's now restored it. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete & userfy Black Rock Ranger

[edit]

Could you, as the acting admin of AfD/Black_Rock_Ranger, userfy the content of the deleted article Black Rock Ranger. My goal is to see if any of it can be reliably cited and salvaged into Burning Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePrefect (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done; see User:FuturePrefect/Black Rock Ranger. Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Dank/RFA#What next

[edit]

I'd really appreciate your legal opinion. (Then again, maybe your expertise comes from all those trips to RFA ...) - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Racepacket

[edit]

User:Racepacket has been persistently harassing a new editor, User:LauraHale, the author of some articles on netball. He falsely accused her of plagiarism knowing that this was a serious charge to level at a PhD student. (See Talk:Netball/GA1) I have warned him to desist and told him what he was doing constituted harassment. In the (mistaken) belief that she was employed by he attempted to persuade her employer that she was guilty of misconduct. He was informed again that this constituted harassment. When she tried to withdraw one of her GA reviews he insisted on doing another GA review of her articles. poor He went on to attempt to question Insisting that he alone had the right to fail the article, he twice reverted the attempt until I reminded of the 3RR.

I have never had any conflict with Racepacket. The arguments about netball are with LauraHale. I have no opinion on issues. This brings us to the GAN of Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement, which I had taken solely in order to prevent him from taking. I took his claim that my six edits constituted involvement under advisement. I was hoping that he would take the hint and go away. While the page was being renamed by editor, Racepacket took advantage of a window of opportunity to create a new GAN page to quick fail it. One edit; create GAN page and fail it: Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2. There already was a active GAN and Racepacket had already contributed to it. He then added that review to his collection.[2]! At this point I suspended him for 48 hours. I felt that he had been given more than enough warnings by myself and others that this pattern of harassment was unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2

I have never encountered such a situation. I did seek advice from two other admins but they were too busy to assist. Was my decision to block acceptable? Can you give offer any advice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave my message on his talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Supreme Court case drive

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

  • Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
  • Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.
  • Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking
  • Create new articles for UKSC cases
  • Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was at my recommendation that you received the above message, since I think this is a good idea and with your experience of writing legal articles the drive could get some decent work done. Sorry... BencherliteTalk 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologise, I always enjoy writing law articles. Hmn. The problem is that (1) I have no free time, and (2) I've got few resources on such recent cases because of the time delay between judgments and journals. Still, if I finish up my current project(s) and can find stuff, I'll take a look. Cheers. Ironholds (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh well, no worries pop by if it takes your interest. Just so you know, as part of efforts to improve transparency, the SC publishes transcripts and short summaries of all judgements on its [[3]] - really good free source. Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but a primary one. I tend to try and use secondary sources. Ironholds (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, indeed. Whilst some chambers and e-journals produce commentary at the drop of a hat (something of which I and my colleagues are sometimes guilty) the better views of the merits of a case tend to take time to develop, either in subsequent caselaw as humble practitioners and not-so-humble judges attempt to apply the law as revealed from on high, or in academic commentary. Perhaps getting something up about each case, to be expanded in due course, could be one target, with quality expansion a later aim. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be something to aim for—a short article dependant on primary sources is (usually) better than a redlink. Some of them might have news coverage, so we can at least have something up as I'm sure people who don't have access to the databases will be looking here to satisfy their curiosity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's sort of what I'm thinking, I don't expect any profound insights right away but I do think it's a good idea to get this done whilst its an achievable aim - I'm not sure this would even be a possibility given 5 years time. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I respect your view, personally I think it speaks volumes that our coverage of 2006 in the House of Lords looks like this: 1, 2,3,4,5 Bob House 884 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA archives

[edit]

Can you please move the history of Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Archive1 to Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Archive_1? I believe that it would be better to have the page history in a single, easy-to-find location. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any difference other than the space? Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's this additional revision and LiteralKa replaced instances of "gnaa.us" with "gnaa [dot] us" since MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist prevented him from saving the page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you should have come to Ironholds for this, but let us continue nonetheless. The space makes it so that automatic archival detection works correctly on one of the talk page templates. LiteralKa (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there isn't anything in Archive_1's page history to indicate that the 2004 / 2005 talk page history is located at the Archive1 redirect. Visitors without knowledge of the Archive1 redirect wishing to view the earliest history of the talk page won't find what they're looking for, so I believe that the move is necessary. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, would you add {{Delrevafd|date=2011 March 16|result=overturn}} to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done; thanks. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suspected sockpuppeting

[edit]

The comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2#Possible_block_evasion_by_racepacket suggested I contact you about a possible sock puppet to avoid a block. Copying and pasting from the page:


I suspect this edit here was made by Racepacket in order to avoid the block. Wikipedia:DUCK may apply. Reasons for suspecting that this duck is Racepacket :

  1. IP address originates in Virginia, where Racepacket lives.
  2. Edit tone extremely similar to User:Racepacket
  3. Edit content extremely similar to User:Racepacket
  4. Only one person supported the position of Olympic's recognising federations, not sports
  5. User:Racepacket was blocked for actions directly pertaining to this page
  6. Timing of edit in relation to dispute
  7. No other IP address edits have been made to the article
  8. General topic is primarily of interest to people in Commonwealth countries
  9. Article has very few page views, limiting the potential number of contributors
  10. February edits coincide with previous block of contributor
  11. User:Racepacket has gotten into other disputes about what constitutes a sport
  12. Has a history of sockpuppeting: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd)
  13. User:158.59.127.249 contributed to Article for deletion request that Racepacket was involved with.

--LauraHale (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a CU in on it? Ironholds (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never done one of those before. Link to where to start one? --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPI. Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clerk on the SPI stated that the situation doesn't merit a CU, but doe pass the DUCK test. I guess that means it's bouncing back to you? Imzadi 1979 → 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ironholds, 158.59.127.249 is the local government account for Arlington County, it has previously been blocked as a sock of someone else this chap, and there are no other overlaps with Racepacket [4]. Somehow I don't think this is actually a sock of Racepacket. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; taking that into account, even with the DUCKy evidence, I'll reinstate the initial block. Ironholds (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Didn't feel entirely comfortable about that sock call. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Users

[edit]

Hi. I've just read your essay on the problems faced by new users and want to run an idea past you prior to taking it to the Village Pump.

As a NPP, I've come across (and tagged) several articles for speedy deletion under criterion A7, in its various incarnations. I suspect this criterion may be one of the most used db criteria as well as one of the most used on new pages. That being the case, and considering the issues your essay noted, might it not be wise to eliminate A7 (and possibly also A9) as speedy criteria, making them instead a non-removable ten-day prod, just like prod-blp? It would deal with several issues, the significant one being that it would give new users time to fix any problems. After all, if the only people who see an A7-tagged article are the article's creator, the deletion nominator and the deleting admin, then who's going to save it? The article rescue squadron can try but often the person with the most knowledge about the topic is the article's creator, the new user with the least knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and processes. Perhaps all that's needed is to elongate the discussion time prior to potential deletion.

I concede, as my contribs may indicate, that I'm a bit of a deletionist. There are times I'd have loved to have tagged an article with {{db-crap}}. However, if it helps educate new users and, thus, builds the encyclopedia, I'd happily see the speedy criteria reduced somewhat.

LordVetinari (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that idea, actually; you're welcome to advance it (I occasionally have deletionist tendencies as well, although it's a bit more complicated than that), but the problem I forsee is the fact that people are likely to scream at how you're making things more difficult. Mind you, it wouldn't increase workload or anything, so there aren't really grounds for deletion. Perhaps if it was phrased as "an irremovable 10-day prod, with the admin mandated to review the state of the article, oh, and the prod automatically adds NOINDEX to the article" some of our more, ahem, extreme members would begrudgingly let it through. If you want to further develop the idea or coordinate how to propose it, just drop me an email or summat.
What I was considering was something a tad more limited; basically, a software or tag tweak to mean you can't tag things (other than spam, attack pages and housekeeping) within the first, say, 2 hours of creation; unlike your idea, that would increase workload somewhat. Your suggestion may be better.
Nice to know someone's read my essay, anyway :P. It was originally written as a report for the WMF, who loved it so much they copy-pasted it. Now I have to take public credit for my work, which given the tone I normally take in my written reports, is rather..awkward ;p Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Between you and me, I'd rather see the speedy criteria expanded and see a ban on new (one-day old) accounts creating articles. But, seriously, though, I'll write up my proposal and float it past you first to see what you think. Thanks for your advice and the vote of confidence. LordVetinari (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. My mother-in-law decided to visit. The proposal is now written and located in my sandbox. If you could please run your eye over it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I'd include the argument, btw, that it doesn't increase workload; we're just exchanging one type of deletion tag for another. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted and posted. Thank you for all your help and advice. LordVetinari (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey a strange request for a school project

[edit]

I am trying to write a short paper on Gendergap in Wikipedia for class. I was wonder wondering if you could email through the email function the revision of Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! prior to it's nomination at MFD. I would appreciate it greatly. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are offline so I went ahead asked MuZemike. I hope you are doing well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

[edit]

I would like to request your opinion at WT:GAN#Request for vote by the community. Thanks and cheers. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 01:07, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Request

[edit]

Hello! We are a part of the Environmental Law class at USF and have been tasked to write a wikipedia article. You responded on our class page that you would be interested in being an Online Ambassador, so we were hoping that you could provide assistance with our article. We have chosen the Illinois v. Illinois Central Railroad case, which is currently a stub article. Thanks! Jessica Purificato Sarah Allen —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please help?

[edit]

I don't want to comment on the RfC because it is too stressful. (The guy went to meta to try to get WMF to reprimand me. He made accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing that he could not support.) I just want to work on the articles I've been involved with and be left alone. " Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball in the Cook Islands/archive1‎ (diff | hist) . . (+1,774) . . Racepacket (talk | contribs) (→Netball in the Cook Islands: start peer review)" Stuff like that makes it very difficult for me as all I want to do is be left alone. I promise not to edit articles that he has been involved with. I promise to stay away from running. I promise not to peer review his articles. I promise not to Good Article his reviews. I just want to be left alone! What will it take to be left alone? --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SunCountryGuy01

[edit]

Just curious how you came to that conclusion. I'm not complaining, but I am curious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I know this user was headed for an indef block down the road, but where is the evidence for the block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see up above that SunCountry01 may have been a problematic editor on other grounds, but a quick (likely too-quick) look at his edit history didn't turn anything up. If there was no problematic editing, then an indef block on the grounds of a shared account is a bit extreme, no? And if there was problematic editing, such that the shared account (or excuse of a shared account) incident was the 'last straw' it'd be good to document that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:ROLE ("Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts"—accounts shared by multiple people—are as a rule forbidden and blocked") and WP:NOSHARE ("User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked") are policy. I don't see anything in them that allows for an exception if the account is not being used to edit disruptively. BencherliteTalk 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactement. This isn't a ban, this is a block; an account fully compromised, through its deliberate sharing between multiple people, should be blocked. End of. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for an exception. I am saying that if a user is a good editor and screws up by letting his fiancee edit using his account and then apologizes and says he won't do it again, then the problem is solved and an indef block is too much. But the above suggests there may be more going on here, so I am asking. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has not been a particularly good editor, but that didn't come into the working when making my decision - a block is standard. It might be worth checking out his talkpage, where another - uninvolved - admin has directly declined the unblock request. Far be it from me to wheel war with him. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, perhaps, you should cut him a little slack. As I proved with User:Diego Grez, troublesome editors can be turned around if they really want to contribute (just over a year ago, Diego was remarkably similar to Jessy/SCG) and I'm sure you remember what happened with Chase me and Panyd at the latter's first RfA. This sounds like a similar situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And when me unblocking him would not constitute reversing-another-admin's-refusal, I'll do it. Feel free to unblock him yourself. Panyd's situation doesn't really compare, since they weren't using the same account. Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're perfectly at liberty to reverse your own admin action if you were so inclined. Maybe I'll talk to him. I frankly wonder if he wouldn't be happier on Myspace or if he understands why we're here, but we'll see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seconded. There is nothing even remotely "wheel warring" about undoing an excessive and mistaken block. I'd appreciate you addressing the substance of people's concerns here - if the block was not excessive, then please explain why it wasn't excessive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not seeing exactly why it was mistaken. He did something contrary to policy and admitted doing so. The greater issue is that he constantly lied and obfuscated on the issue; I do not trust him not to do it again, nor do I trust any of his promises not to do it again, because at this point WP:AGF is just about exhausted. The problem is letting someone in knowing full well that a) they constantly lie, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence and b) they are lying about something that, without an actual ADMISSION, we cannot technically (unless I'm mistaken?) normally detect. This is not an unheard-of precedent - see this, for example. The user cannot be trusted to tell the truth, it's as simple as. When you've got a user with a shared account whose apologies, promises and retractions can't be held, even on the balance of probabilities, to be the truth, and no way of detecting the future sharing in the absence of truth...exactly what would you have me do? Oh, and just so you know, you're welcome to appreciate whatever you want, but your concerns do not get given any more truck than the other commentators here - or the other, uninvolved administrator, who declined the block. Ironholds (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call a block supported by two policies "mistaken". Lara 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked on my talk page to take another look at the case of SunCountryGuy01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after having previously declined an unblock request. The block is based on what Ironholds says is an IRC admission that SunCountryGuy01 violated WP:NOSHARE, a policy that disallows sharing accounts, and that stipulates that shared accounts will be blocked. Considering that SunCountryGuy01 has not said, including in his unblock request, that Ironholds is wrong to believe that SunCountryGuy01 shared their account, I provisionally assume that Ironholds is correct in making this allegation. As such, I believe that the block is required by WP:NOSHARE and is therefore correct. SunCountryGuy01 is free to make another unblock request in which he explicitly denies that the account has been shared, and in this case the evidence (if any) for such sharing can be examined. Or he can admit that the account has been shared and try to convince us that the account is now under his sole control (see WP:GOTHACKED) and that it will not happen again. If he does so convince us, which may be difficult, the WP:NOSHARE block is no longer required and should be lifted.

    For the record, anybody is free to lift a block which I reviewed: because reviewing an unblock request is not a use of admin tools, disagreeing with me about the merits of the block (or coming to another conclusion based on new evidence) is not wheel-warring.  Sandstein  05:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In IRC last night, Ironholds said that he will not object if I unblock. Here, you say you will not object if I unblock. Per your recommendation, I will get from him a clear and unambiguous statement that he will not share his account with his fiance again. I think that WP:NOSHARE needs to be reviewed so that a good-faith contributor who commits a minor infraction doesn't face an immediate indef block - that's pretty extreme. Finally, before I speak to him about that, I would appreciate diffs showing any other problematic behavior that anyone is aware of, so that I can mentor/guide/coach/warn about that at the same time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on something else and have no time to substantiate things more than through my personal interactions, but in summary: hat-collecting, POV editing (including consistent use of dictator here), newbie-biting [5]. General lack of understanding of what we're about. A quick look through his talk page archives should show evidence of at least some of these issues. sonia♫ 12:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on a unrelated subject

[edit]
Hello, Ironholds. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; working up a response now. Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


From Linz1313

[edit]

Hi Ironholds,

Thank you for your support. Here at getlenses.co.uk we do feel we have a place on wikipedia due to our chairman being Simon Murdoch who sold webpages.co.uk to amazon in 1987 and also our ceo being able to raise such high funding from octopus investments during the recession. Yes I would love help with our Wiki page and would really like to talk to anyone who can help rewrite our page to make it completely acceptable by you all.

--Linz131313 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Linz1313[reply]

Special Story

[edit]

Hi, I ran through it. Nice. Please review my copy-edits. Tony (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC) PS Any chance of a graphic? Tony (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Sorry? Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

FYI Basket of Puppies 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh for the love of.... Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

[edit]

I just changed a link you made on your section of an RfC, because previously the link didn't even appear (it actually made the software think that there was a page called "DR" on the Tagalog Wikipedia which would give more info about this proposal) . Maybe you meant to link to the plain TLDR page instead of the Wikipedia one, but I just guessed and decided I'd come here to let you know I'd made the change. —Soap— 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hah; my bad! Thanks for fixing it, dude. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Ironholds, Could you kindly take the block of my account. I will refrain from acting in such an intolerable manor. 65.75.100.63 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which account? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:SunCountryGuy01
If you catch me you can indefinitely block me. 65.75.100.63 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I catch you doing what you were blocked for, which is almost impossible to prove without a direct confession, I can restore the block I instituted in the first place? Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can absolutely say without a doubt that you will never have this situation. I recognize the stupidity of my action and will most definitely refrain from doing that again. 65.75.100.63 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SunCountryGuy01, you will need to post an unblock request on your own talk page (and log in). By editing anonymously, you are evading your block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didnt know that. 65.75.100.63 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

[edit]

Thank you for the excellent article in Signpost. You will have noticed from my various comments around the board that while I am mainly in favour of a clean up of the NPP system (education - re-education of patrollers), I am open to any suggestions that will help prevent the 80% worthless new articles going immediately live in mainspace. I do feel that those who wish to submit serious articles would be easily prepared to wait a few hours. The analysis of the table (the new revision covers 12 months) that SW and I prepared shows that generally poor patrolling (wrong tags, poor articles passed untagged as patrolled) is the cause of the problems, and not the lack of, or enthusiasm for patrolling. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bring that up on the RfC? It might be worth reiterating if so. Ironholds (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi about your RFC notice messages

[edit]

Hi, I saw notified a large number of people who commented on the autoconfirmed discussion in the miscellaneous village pump. A quick count shows you contacted 42 people, while over 60 people supported/opposed in the original discussion. I am sure it was not your intention, but you appear to have contacted all but 1 of the editors who opposed the proposal, while missing around 20 editors who supported the proposal. Would you mind if I finish off messaging the other users? Yoenit (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine; feel free to use a version not containing a blatant typo, too :P. It's nothing more complicated (unfortunately) than "I ran out of steam and got distracted by work". Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

[edit]

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

  • 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
  • 423 GA nominations passed.
  • 72 GA nominations failed.
  • 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds/archive_31&oldid=1142537493"