User talk:Ironholds/archive 30

closure (BIF)

Hi, as I got a link in the closure nice one - result was easy but the required rational was appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). A note that I wasn't attempting to cast aspersions on those I mentioned, merely indicating that 1) some people had been warned, 2) their behaviour had not been sufficient to warrant me doing anything further and 3) I'm keeping my eyes on y'all. Not intended to be offensive or warning to any individual editor mentioned, but instead a general note that people found on that list should keep calm. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, always good advice, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first

Good job on your summary (it wasn't tl, I did r!). Note: I don't have a dog in that hunt. I wandered by, and it seemed like an unlikely-to-be-salvaged article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! See my above comment - no mentions were intended to be mean ;p. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent closing statement at WP:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first. I totally support the status of ArbCom and its role in keeping some sort of order, and I totally support harassed admins trying to apply their findings. However, may I suggest that your comment ("those people mentioned above should know that they are treading a thin line by contributing in an area they've already been warned over") was a little too unequivocal, at least in my case. I am pretty sure that my only involvement was to make 10 comments at Talk:Richard Goldstone (for a taste, search for "Johnuniq" in archives 2, 3, 4). That is my entire contribution in the P/I area (and the only reason I did that was in response to a report at WP:BLPN). My only contribution to the "Blame Israel first" issue was this comment at the AfD. Sorry for this mini-rant (and there is no need to reply), but I am feeling a little sensitive about being labeled atm (for reasons that can be seen here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's okay; as said above, my comment was not designed to pick out any individuals, but rather to say "these people are slightly closer to the edge than others, for whatever reason". I'm sorry if it came out wrong, and will take that into account when writing in future. Best of luck with ArbCom. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Blame Israel First

Hi, Ironholds, Thanks for taking your time to review AFD and post your analysis. I'd also like to tank you for offering your own talk page to ask questions about AFD. It is very generous of you indeed. Of course there was a clear consensus to delete the article exactly like there is always a consensus to condemn Israel in UN :-) , and you acted within the consensus. So, the question I'd like to ask is rather about helping me in understanding wikipedia policies in order do not write another article that could be deleted because of wp:synth. In the deletion request I added a comment that was collapsed by other users. The title of my comment is "A note to the closing administrator". In this comment I explained in details why IMO this article violates neither wp:synth nor wp:npov. May I please ask you to take a look at my comment and to explain to me, where my reading and understanding of those policies is wrong? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly; I'll take a look now. Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, reading it through briefly:

1. I note you address WP:SYNTH through pointing out that there are sources which directly address the subject. Ignoring any possible POV in the sources (and there does appear to be some, but more on that later) WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK are not disproved simply by showing that there are sources addressing the subject. Rather, one of the problems with the article was taking these sources (which do address the subject) and attaching to them as evidence and examples quotes and interviews with people who do not do so in the same fashion. This is the synthesis issue, and also contains a degree of WP:OR. If I write an article which suggests that, say, the sky is actually green and there is a vast government conspiracy to convince people it's blue, that's fine if I can show reliable sources saying "the sky is green, it is a government conspiracy". What I cannot do is then rely on sources that simply say "the sky is green" as evidence of the conspiracy appearing in intellectual debate. That's where WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR come in.
2. You seem to have a lot of problems in the Israel-Palestine area, which also seems to be your main area of contribution. One suggestion I'd make is trying to rely on more inherently neutral sources - that is, sources where the author doesn't immediately cause problems. a book by the former editor of the Jewish Chronicle, say, may be perfectly fine and truthful, but using it as a source can immediately become an issue, because people will assume there is an element of POV-pushing in the book. That's one of the sources of contention in areas like this.
3. Personally, I'd disengage from the area completely; one of the reasons I tend to stick to non-controversial areas is because a lot more writing and contributing goes on. More difficult subjects attract a lot more edits to the talkpage than to the article. However, if you wish to continue contributing in this area, I'm willing to mentor you on article creation to try and ensure things like this don't happen again, and to give you a perspective on how I, for example, write without causing issues. As an example, can I suggest writing an article on Neill Lochery's book Why Blame Israel?, which you mentioned as a source? I haven't read it myself, but I have access to a lot of news archives and academic databases. It's detached enough from the dispute that we can probably get a pretty uncontroversial article out of it, and I'm sure all participants will benefit from being shown "how it's done", as it were.

Hope this helps; Regards, Ironholds (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It does help. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond to me. I only would like to contradict some points you made about my contributions. You said that Israel-Palestine area seems to be the main area of my contributions. It is not so, not even close to be so. I wrote 62 articles, of which maybe 5-6 were connected to I/P conflict area. Some of my articles got more than 10,000 views on DYK day. For example Earth's shadow and Fata Morgana (mirage) and so on. I uploaded hundreds of images. Here are only very few of those. You are right I do have lots of problems in the area, which is IMO because most of the time I am getting an unfair treatment. For example I will never accept that blocking me over this single edit in Rothschild family article was the right thing to do. Yes, I was under topic ban for I/P conflict, when I made this edit, but there's absolutely nothing about conflict and/or about Arabs for that matter in Rothschild family article. I did not violate my topic ban with this edit. Most of my other blocks were as unfair as this one was. BTW I got topic banned for I/P conflict area for discussing... the Holocaust. Anyway... I wrote this not to complain, but for the record because many users think about my contributions as you do, and it is not the case. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough; in my experience, complaining and claiming the blocks are unfair rarely ends well (not that I'm saying you're wrong). If you want to work on that article, drop me an email and I'll start gathering sources. Otherwise, sticking to uncontroversial editors is always better. You can do a lot more there than at IP, if only because you stand a higher risk of getting banned and not being able to contribute any more if you edit controversial subjects :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are one amazing administrator. I have never seen an administrator deleting an article and at the same breath offering to help to write another one! I sent you email. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, just got it; busy with off-wiki stuff at the moment, but I'll get back to you in an hour or two. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I can't actually find a single source for the book - very, very strange. How's this, then; find something on the fringes of the conflict you're interested in working on, anything, and I'll investigate finding sources. Then we can go back to plan A and start writing together. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with Guru Digital Arts College too please?

Hi Ironholds, I am wondering how I can get our school on to Wikipedia. I tried to model the prestigious Vancouver Film School only to be handed a G11 deletion result... How do I include our school? Owen.brierley (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Well, nothing like a little reading. I have found the FAQ for businesses. I foolishly jumped in with both feet and should have look at the sharp rocks on the bottom. I understand now what is going on. I am sure we can find a way to get the school added eventually. It seems odd though. I appreciate the scholarly nature of the rules. It is what makes Wikipedia so great. To be fair, you have to agree that VFS is being well promoted on Wikipedia. No? Is it just a matter of finding diverse members of my community who know about my school and get them to appear to be impartial about the entry? Owen.brierley (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it has to be reliable sources; newspapers, for example. Tell you what; I'll restore the article in your userspace, make it clear nobody should delete it, and then I can either a) improve it with the sources I can find, to show you how it's done, or b) if you email me, send you the list of sources and you can try and work on it yourself, with me then reviewing it before it goes live. Which would you prefer? Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's wonderful of you to offer. If you don't mind grabbing an article that might work, great! I will also happily tackle gathering some stuff. I am grateful for any reviews you care to make. Thanks! Owen.brierley (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem; the article is now in your userspace at User:Owen.brierley/Guru just drop me an email (so I have your address) and I'll send the sources I've been able to find over. Take a look through google, google news etc to find more. Note that one of the sources I've found is overly promotional in tone - obviously, that needs to be cut out. If you have any problems, drop me a line; other than that, just poke me when you think it's ready to be moved from your userspace to become a proper article. Ironholds (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. My email address is [email protected] - I have some homework to do! Owen Brierley, Executive Director - Guru Digital Arts College (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Bulldog123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI notice re Jewish sportspeople

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Hidden Blade deletion nomination

You would be better contacting User:VenzJohn about this. I only created it as a redirect to the film. He was the one that started making it a separate article. Munci (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie-dokes; sorry, it was an automated thing sent to the person who made the first edit. Ironholds (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

John Sanford (1904–2003)

Why are you bothering me with news about this stub? I believe that I've never read about Mr. Sanford before receiving your posted message. I assume you goofed and posted a remark on the wrong person's talk page. Kindly re-direct your remark to the correct party, or perhaps direct me to an article that I'm actually involved in. Tom Lougheed (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the original and now-deleted version, which you created on 8 December 2005, was a copyright violation. At the time I contacted you, that was the version on the page, and I was letting you know so you could fix the issues. There's no need to be rude. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I was not being rude, I was being emphatic. You seem to be refusing to get the import of my message: you contacted me in error. If you think your notice is important, notify the correct author.

I checked the history of the page to which you refer, there is no record of there having been any version of the article in 2005, and I am entirely unfamiliar with John Sanford. Neither the page history, nor my memory backs up your claim that I am in any way involved with the article. Doubtless my memory isn't entirely reliable for 6 year-old stubs that I don't care about, but it seems more likely that you were mistaken and provided your notice to the wrong person. Tom Lougheed (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply here, since that seems to be your preference; that would be because copyright-violating articles are deleted and as such wouldn't display. I'm an admin, so I can see them - I'm not sure if you are. Feel free to ask any other admin to look at the deleted revisions. Ironholds (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A moment

I'd like you to take a second to discuss your decline of the Marmot Day speedy. It fit the best category available in twinkle or huggle or whatever I have turned on, but i can elucidate on my reasoning a bit here. It contains no real assertion of notability, contains no sourcing beyond 'this law proclaimed this day.', which isnt hard to do... im in Alaska, where this was proclaimed. I live in the capital. When the new subway opened up the city proclaimed a subway sandwiches day. There's a little certificate in the joint. The article is also rather promotional in nature '...honoring Alaska's wonderful marmots'. Simply put, the article fails basic sourcing requirements with claims about living people and statements attributed to them, with no sourcing and pruning this per policy would result in no article remaining. A speedy delete seems the most rational way forward. -- ۩ Mask 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I get all that, I used CSD most commonly back in 07, I suppose IAR is no longer wielded on speedies quite like it once was. Thanks anyway. -- ۩ Mask

Request for removal of the Rollback permission

I have recently started using an Ipod touch to check my watchlist at times. With such small screen I hit "rollback" just as often as "diff." I think it would be more beneficial not to have it since I dont use that much anyway. If you could remove the permission when you have a minute I would appreciate it. Thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A Humble Request

Dear Mr. Ironholds, We don't know each other but you seem to be a bit of a Gordian knot cutter when it comes to long and winding talk page issues and I was wondering if you might have words of advice on this long and winding talk page issue. We may have consensus for something, we may not, we reached an impasse and I really have no idea how to proceed and would be eternally grateful (this may include cookies) if you'd take a peek at it and tell us what to do from here. If not, no worries. Many thanks. Sol (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas, my gordian knot-cutting only really works at AfD, where I have a (vague and poorly defined) place of authority. In talkpage discussions, the arguments of admins carry the same weight as those of any other user. Ironholds (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh, I see! You are like Antaeus, powerful in your element but weakened away from it. Or Aqua Man. My knowledge of all the peculiarities of wiki-do is still limited so I apologize for my mistake, I'm not really sure where we are headed in our little situation. Thanks anyways, Antaeus Ironholds, for my wisdom has increased from our encounter! Sol (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Meredith deletion

Do you know what the word "consensus" means? --JonBroxton (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. Consensus on an individual article can certainly be established at AfD. What you were trying to do was create consensus for large-scale changes to how we interpret our notability guidelines, to mean that the possibility or probability of future importance justifies keeping the article. If you want to do that, fine, but AfD is not the place. Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your well-reasoned closures of debates at Articles for deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few of your AfD closes lately. Love 'em -- not for the results but for the way you've explained them. It's a tough gig, so you deserve some appreciation :) --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Wait, not for the results!? :p. Ironholds (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not necessarily for the results (just to be clear!) I don't think I've had a horse in any of your races :) --Mkativerata (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Variation of Trusts Act 1958

Over to you, sir. Toodlepip. Bencherlite^Talk 13:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thank my learned friend for his submission, and will provide the court with my counter-argument shortly. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary judgment in your favour, with costs (to be assessed if not agreed). Next! Bencherlite^Talk 17:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I can expense all my outgoings and get VAT back on that. Sweet. Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nottingham

Yes, I am still at the University of Nottingham. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, what's happening? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a student, but I am at the Uni of Nottingham. What's going on? The notice on the watchlist didn't provide any info at all... Also, the 'sign up' link there is broken. Modest Genius ^talk 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed that, and about to write a big explanation of what's going on. I'll poke you when it's live. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds,Regarding your e-mail. I am currently trying to juggle my degree workload peaking with a run in the University of Nottingham Students' Union Exec elections this late Feb/ early March. In short I don’t think I have the spare time to dedicate but thank you for the offer.  Francium12  01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hi Ironholds. Just a reminder: when you do this, you also need to do this and this. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fail. Thanks, matey. Ironholds (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Universities, wikipedia, and so on

Hi; I'm a student at the Open University, which might not have a proper "campus", but there's a fairly active online community, including sizeable student groups that cover northern England. Is there any potential for Wikipedia events at the OU? I'd love to lend a hand... bobrayner (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of a way to coordinate it, I'd be happy to help put it on :). Poke me with any suggestions for getting people together. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

See below ...

Hey! The "party" food is booked ...

Hi Ironholds ... I saw your ad. I'm thinking that you and your respondents ought to also get your names signed up here too. If you guys are looking for a place to meet then I'm already organising the food and drink! The date is April 9th. I'm particularly interested in wiki-linguists as we intend to announce a challenge event that should appeal to polyglots and those interested in QR codes. Hope you don't mind this ad on your talk page but I'm guessing you may attract wikipedians who may enjoy seeing what the power of wikipedia can do to a smallish museum ... and the food will be free! Victuallers (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You just had to pick the day after people get back from Wikimania. And the day after my birthday, nonetheless! :P. I'll see what I can do, but I may still be on a plane. One of the two things my family left me is the hereditary need to climb a fucking mountain in Israel (long, amusing story) which will delay my return somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For you my dear Ironholds we will change the whole of the arrangements to make it April 9th ..... otherwise I might have to admit my error (and once I admit one that might start looking for others ...). Thanks. See you there Victuallers (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Assessment

Hi mate, I am wandering if your free to assess the Battle of Kham Duc for GA class?Canpark (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A tad busy writing at the moment, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely not. Will have a hunt for Bribery Act stuff when I get a moment, though won't be at my desk (which has my note of the access codes!) until some point next week. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A puppy!

Dear IH, here is a puppy from the basket! I hope we can put behind us our differences and work together for making this a truly great source of information. Cheers! Basket of Puppies 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For clearing the NPP backlog! Great job! →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't finished it yet ;p. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean you've not played with Special:Nuke yet? Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As fun as that would be, I can imagine it fulfilling the expectations of some of the more frothing-at-the-mouth idealogical fundamentalists. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Spot the noob admin who still worries / cares what other people might think!!) Well, block them first (without email or talk page access, of course), then use Special:Nuke to clear the NPP backlog (blocking anyone who creates an article thereafter will keep the backlog down to zero, incidentally), then to cover your tracks cause a server crash by (better not say, but [1] has some clues) and blame everything on server errors making it look as though you've been misbehaving. Oh, and keep my name out of it... Bencherlite^Talk 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And after doing all that, revdelete all logs pertaining to my actions and this conversation, and then revdel the logs of the revision deletions. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What could possibly go wrong with this cunning plan? Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, now I'm done. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being annoying, you only did article space, entirely ignoring all the other namespaces... those category talk pages won't patrol themselves, you know... Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny story; did you know that Special:Nuke and related functions work well on say, eliminating all the contributions of a single user? :P Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't possibly begin to think what you might be hinting... Bencherlite^Talk 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just musing on the nature of administrator privileges. And now, back to my dissertation. I have to prove all of British academia wrong and somehow read Lord Irving's constitutional law textbook without pissing myself laughing. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary

I carried-out a quick copy edit of Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary while you were adding the sources temp, which I have left. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Global Missions EJOURNAL

Can you explain to me why you decided to delete the early stage entry called Global Missions EJOURNAL? You called it unambiguous advertising? I don't understand how reading the content posted in edit phase could be construed as advertising or self promotion. EJournal is a theological publication provided free of charge to approx. 38,000 subscribers in 61 countries. No advertising has ever been sold in the publication, and never will be. I am an educated Christian missionary and pastor who has beeen encouraged to post information about EJOURNAL on WP. I tried to do that for the benefit of people around the world who receive assistance and financial support from my Global Missions organization. I am not interested in financial gain, only to present a publicaqtion used by people seeking to know Christ and grow in their Christian service whatever that mat be in their lives.

Maybe you should contact me off line and explain to me the proper way my information can be posted successfully. I am not hiding behind a phony name, like you are. Show yourself.

Call me at [removed]. My name is Steven K. Haught. Easily found on the web associated with Christian and Theological content. I hope to hear from you very soon.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaught (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Rev delete

You seem to be online can you Rev Delete things for WP:BLP violations

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson&diff=413995092&oldid=413994593
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson&diff=413994593&oldid=413994573
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson&diff=413994573&oldid=413413614
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson&diff=next&oldid=413995092

Thanx. It links to a Facebook note which encourages people to put sexified picture up around Brown campus where she goes to school. Its pretty nast stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ironholds (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

thanx nasty stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Newbies

Hi Ironholds, just a reminder, when you speedy delete articles that no-one else has tagged please can you inform the authors. This was a redlink, I might welcome them myself but I don't have a template for "welcome to wikipedia, the article you wrote has been deleted for x reasons". ϢereSpielChequers 08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder; when you remove a BLP PROD from an article on the grounds that there are references there? Try to ensure there are. It's helpful! Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds. BLPprods are for articles that are unsourced, not merely unreferenced. I twice tried to get the BLPprod policy broadened to ignore Myspace, Youtube, LinkedIn and facebook "sources" as I think that those four sites are sufficiently common and freely user generated that there is a real risk that such things could be self published by the hoaxer/attacker rather than the subject; If you think I've breached that policy then please tell me where. If however you are referring to the times when you've an article that didn't meet the BLPprod criteria, please remember the idea behind BLPprod was to reduce the danger of BLP violations. If you want the criteria broadened to any BLP that doesn't have a reliable source I suggest you look at the past RFCs on that policy.

Rather more seriously, was that an isolated mistake when you deleted the article without informing the author, or do you think that is an acceptable way to treat newbies? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. If no references are found and added within a ten-day grace period it may be deleted. This is to help prevent incorrect material remaining. (All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.)" - the links given are to our referencing guidelines. This implies it's references, and not just external links. The article is now completely unreferenced and undeleteable, so well done for that.

Yes, I regularly treat newbies like shit; sometimes I even find out where they live and throw eggs at their house. It was a mistake - for some reason twinkle's settings are currently borked at "delete" or "warn and don't delete" but no "delete and warn". Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have your reassurance about that being a mistake, I was hoping that was the case but thought it best to check. As for BLPprods, a correctly applied BLPprod does indeed need a reference to a reliable source to remove it, but the test is lower for applying a BLPprod in the first place. In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people you were one of those who supported the unsuccessful proposal to tighten that to a requirement for all new BLPs to contain a reliable source. That was a few months ago and if you started a new RFC you might find that consensus had shifted, if not that far at least as far as my unsuccessful proposal to disregard Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube and myspace "sources". ϢereSpielChequers 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you gents don't mind my butting in here, but it seems tempers are being frayed over what is a relatively minor issue.

@WSC: I have to say that, if an article gets to the back end of the BLPPROD process with just social networks, youtube and similar crap, even if it was there when the tag was added, it seems to be fairly common practice to delete it. All it takes is one reliable source and it can be restored, so it's not really a difficult bar to meet. The majority of candidates I see only just surpass the requirements for A7.

@Ironholds: I don't know how helpful this is, since I don't do much CSD work, but my own practice is only to delete on sight when it meets one of the general criteria I tend to tag or leave others for other admins if I stumble across them. And the only notification I provide for most of my G10 and G11 deletions is a block notice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ, I'm fairly close to you on the CSDs, though I tend to delete "most awesome people in the world" and prom queens rather than just tag them. As for the BLPprods, though I only add a BLPprod if it strictly meets the criteria, nowadays I only decline them if they meet what I tried to make the criteria. I.E. I neither BLPprod nor decline BLPprods on articles "sourced" to social networks and anything that could be set up for free. But if you have a site like this or even a Professor's bio on a university website then I tend to the view that the risk of fraud is minimal and such articles should be tagged for improvement rather than deletion. We need to remember that BLPprod was introduced because some editors thought that unreferenced BLPs were our highest risk area for BLP violations. We now know that the high risk BLP areas are usually elsewhere, so we need to be cautious about extension of BLPprod if that means further distraction of our volunteers away from high risk BLP areas to low or medium risk ones. I also think that on such a high profile newbie facing process our written and unwritten policies should be brought in line. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrispy!

You recently deleted the page Chrispy for insignifigance. Chrispy has many followers and a large enough fan base for most people to qualify him as "signifigant". So Why? Peblairman (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability requirements are found at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither youtube numbers nor youtube as a source are considered evidence of significance. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Modifications done

Hi Ironholds,

I made the suggested modifications for the SigmaXL page to clarify the article and add more inline citations. Please have a look and let me know what you think.

Regards, Statsrus99 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The changes are a great improvement, and I've removed one of the tags. However, Wikipedia is designed so that content is readable by the layman. Sentences like "SigmaXL utilizes the “Y=f(X)” model in its dialog boxes where Y denotes a key process output metric and X denotes a key process input metric." really aren't; is there any way you could clarify a bit more? Thanks for your hard work so far; regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes done

Hi Ironholds,

Thank you for your suggestions. I have removed the sentence that was not clear enough. Please let me know if you have any other comments.

Regards,

Statsrus99 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! Tag now removed; thanks for your work :). Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Società Anonima Decostruzionismi Organici

Hallo! Is it better now? Please let me know if now the page of Società Anonima Decostruzionismi Organici is corrected with right references. Regards, Emmerys.

Yep, much better! I've removed the tag - thanks for your hard work :). Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora

Good closure, I think, although I came up with a keep outcome from my analysis. Yours was not unreasonable enough for me to make an issue of it. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will, on the other hand, so watch out at DRV in short order. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Noted; thanks for the head's up, and the compliment. Keep safe - or keep safe, I guess. Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Norwegian diaspora

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Norwegian diaspora. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Your deletion rationale was flawed, the nominator objected to the title and that was resolved by the renaming, made about 3/4 of the way through the debate, negating those delete votes based on the name. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Richard; let me know when you've created the DRV discussion and I'll post my thoughts :). Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in place now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's There? (film)

Per the discussion showing the author's admitted newness to the ways of Wikipedia, and his assertion that sources are pending for its imrpvement, and since he may not know how and who to ask... might I ask for him that the article be userfied to User:Hansen Dee Ford/Who's There? (film) and he be notified that it might be improved and worked on in that userspace... and that he might check back with one of us before seeking a return to mainspace? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure; now done, and I've poked him Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll poke him too and offer assistance. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Erskine, Thomas (1760-1823) (DNB00)

Have the article at enWS completed, at least through the first proofread. Feel free to click on the hyperlinked numbers for the pages if you see errors, and that will take you to the ProofreadPage component where you can correct the text against the image. Just to note that since the MW upgrade, it has broken the ability to partially transclude pages, so the article has not been topped and bottomed, and won't until the fix gets implemented (hopefully early this week. To note that

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Erskine, Thomas (1760-1823)}}

produces "Erskine, Thomas (1760-1823)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.

billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant; thanks for all your help. All the best, Ironholds (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Amir Hashmi

I've been keeping an eye on Amir Hashmi since you tagged for deletion on 14 Feb.

User:Hashmiamir removed the delete tag today, and added his own sources template, on the basis that he added his own site, http://www.wix.com/meercare/meercare , which, if I interpret Verifiability correctly, would be a questionable source in an in-line cite but is less of a problem where it is in External links. But, article still has no viable citations to warrant the removal of the tag, and back-up any claim, and is completely orphaned.

Also I can’t understand why no-one picked-up on a glaringly probable COI with the Amir Hashmi article being created by spun-name Hashmiamir who has the article duplicated in his user page… that not quite a crime I know.

However, this is where it gets more interesting - the origin of some of the text; I had to chuckle at the sheer cheek of it:

Under the Hashmi’s style singing section, read from “Amir is responsible for the modern evolution of Sufi Music; his style of Sufi” to the end, and compare to this from 2006: http://www.niceshoogle.com/forum/index.php?topic=195.0 Its not just a blatant copy vio, but he’s inserted his own name for someone else… priceless! No wonder he can’t reference the article :)

Double whammy - this text from 2006 was plagiarized here in 2007: http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=699600&TPN=2

With pleasure, Acabashi (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You promised to mentor me on some articles

Hi Ironholds, I am not sure you remember me, but, when you closed DR for Blame Israel first. you said you'd mentor me on another article. So, here I am looking for your advise about writing an article about this book. This book has quite a few positive reviews, but I was not able to find a negative one. I would appreciate your advise and your help with the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Noted; I've found a pile of sources - drop me an email and I'll foward them to you. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent. If I am to write this article would you be able to help me with copy editing and POV issues, if any?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

here it is. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. Would you like me to provide advice on the talkpage, or edit the article itself and then explain why on the talkpage? Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  To tell you the truth :-), I'd like you to fix the article itself as you believe it should be fixed. It will take probably less of your time than writing advices. How that sounds?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Works for me! I'll drop a note here explaining the reasons behind my changes afterwards - the objective is to show you my perspective on writing, so explaining my thought processes may be more useful than arbitrarily altering everything in silence. I've just got to finish a blog post on the Bribery Act 2010, then I'll be on it like white on rice. Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  BTW, if you'd like me to move it to main space before you edit it that your edit history will not get lost later on, when it is moved, please let me know, and I will move it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Naw, it's fine; I can move it with the edit history intact once it's done. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Okie Dokie, all yours now. The book is mentioned in this article Bruce Bawer, so could be linked from there I guess. Thank you very much for your time!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Revisions now made. Ignoring typos, the main two problems with it were;

1. A tendency to state views as Wikipedia's own. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a secondary source - we do not state things as hard fact, such as writing that "The subject of this book is anti-American sentiments in Europe, Muslim immigration to Europe, political correctness of some European intellectuals that prevents them from rising their voices against radical Islam" - rather, the approach to take is "The subject of this book is what Bower sees as anti-American sentiments in Europe, Muslim immigration to Europe and the political correctness of some European intellectuals which prevents them voicing concerns about radical Islam".
2. The use of original research. Stating that "most reviewers have agreed that the problem discussed in the book does exist" is WP:SYNTHESIS. While you did cite a review article to back this up, the review article does not directly state that, only quoting from several other commentators and reviewers - many of whom are not cited in Wikipedia's article. Bringing those reviews together and presenting them as the unified voice of all critic-dom is synthetic in nature.

• Other than that, it seems fairly clear; do you have any questions, suggestions or comments, or would you like me to move it to the mainspace? Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fantastic! Please do move it to the main space. I have only one question, could you please suggest a DYK hook?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Now done. How about "...that Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within has been described both as "an angry book, well written and well informed" and one that uses "wildly exaggerated statistics" and "begs innumerable qualifications"? Ironholds (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  I like it, but I am afraid it is way too long. The length of the hooks should generally not exceed 200 characters, the one you suggested is 258. What do you think about shortening it like this: ...that Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within has been described both as a "well written and well informed" and one that uses "wildly exaggerated statistics"? Still more than 200 characters, but maybe it will be OK--Mbz1 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds good, or you could go for "Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept has been described as... Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  OK Here's DYK nomination. I of course included you as a creator for both your offline and your online help. There's only one small problem: because it was moved from my user space, it now shows lots of wrong histories starting on February 5 for absolutely different articles like for example, here. I'd say it should be fixed somehow, if it is not so hard. Thank you again for all your help!--Mbz1 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Easy fix; I'll delete and restore. One moment. Ironholds (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Right, should now be fixed! Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'd like to ask you, if I could add a few quotes from the book in a section named, for example, "Selected quotes"? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, is The Corre notable enough now?

Tonight, Justin Gabriel and Heath Slater have won the WWE Tag Team Championship under the Corre brand. Source here. Would you consider it for restoration now? Tom Danson (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not unless you can provide multiple, reliable, third-party sources covering them as a group as well as as individuals. Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And where are the "reliable, third-party" sources for the Nexus? Tom Danson (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ironholds (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Active inertia

Hi Ironholds, sorry about the wrong tag. Hard to find an idea one, but the point is that it's an odd one-sentence article and probably a candidate for speedy something. I was just taking a bit of NPP duty, so don't have really strong feelings on the issue, but now that you tossed the tag, (and for my future reference) is the article now forced into the RFD process, or can we just do a more proper tag?? Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can find one, you're welcome to CSD it again. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Black Rock Ranger

AfDs work like so. The nominator turns up with a reason for deletion. "delete" commentators turn up and either include their own reasons, or agree with his. "keep" commentators turn up and either fix the issues that the first two groups have raised, or, if they feel the issues are irrelevant (or simply don't exist), argue this out.

...

FuturePrefect makes a similar argument, also weighing in with the idea that Burning Man's overarching notability gives subsidiary articles notability.

— Ironholds, Articles for deletion/Black Rock Ranger, 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While no one likes to be spanked, thanks for sharing WP:NOTINHERITED with me, as I was not familiar with it while writing my comment. I was also under the impression that an article is not to be edited while AfD disputes are active. I have had some latent experience of how AfDs worked before hand, but your recommendations will help me to make comments more inline with what Wikipedia wants and needs. Thank you. --FuturePrefect (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Managed File Transfer Maturity Model Deletion

Hi Ironholds, I saw that you deleted the article that I created last week and I wanted to touch base to see what kind of changes I need to make to it in order for it to be Ok. I know that I mentioned solution providers in the article -- which could have been a red flag and I'd be happy to delete those if it's helpful. The goal of this article is to help people that are looking into Managed File Transfer to help define the characteristics that technology experts consider when evaluating Managed File Transfer as a resource to their business. It's meant to serve as guidelines. Please let me know what needs to be changed and I can make the modifications. Dbrennan17 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an admirable goal, but wikipedia is not an FAQ and WP:NOT#MANUAL; we exist as a third-party, neutral encyclopedia. This means that we can't provide say, purchasing guidelines for companies. Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for a challenge

If you are looking for a challenge, there's Wikipedia:DRV#Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America. It has a few days yet to run. FTR, I do not (yet) have an opinion on the merits, so I'm not encouraging a particular outcome.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I've tried to keep out of the discussion so far, but closing it would be challenging. I like to think of AfD as like sleeping rotas in the Royal Navy. Whatever option you pick, you're getting fucked in the arse by someone. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 18#Bedat & Co

Will you close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 18#Bedat & Co since Bedat & Co has been moved to mainspace? Cunard (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid DRV is not an area I have any experience in - heck, I wasn't aware that one existed until you messaged me. This is the bit where I hide under my bed and wait for people to shout at me :P. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. I'll crawl under my bed too (and hope no monster is hiding there ready to jump me) since puny non-admins are absolutely forbidden from closing DRVs. Only the big boy (and big girl) admins are allowed to do that. ;) Cunard (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the discussion of the child policy in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2 ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bit old, isn't it? :P. Ironholds (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please help

Hi Ironholds, could you please help with that? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like gatoclass grabbed it while I was semi-AFK; neat. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Userfied pages and categories

Hey there, I just stumbled across this page which you userfied. I found it via Category:Online dating in which it was included. I may be wrong about this and will defer to your judgement, but shouldn't userfied pages be removed from mainspace categories? I removed the page for the time being, reinclude it if you think it should be included in the category. --78.35.232.249 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that; my bad. Ironholds (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The WITF wants you

The World Intelligence Task Force would like to recruit you as an agent. If you accept, comment under the pending section on the project page. It is a relatively new task force and we need new members right away so if you are interested please don't be shy. At this moment in time we only have three members. If you want more information, please go to the project page.

Actually you jave. In fact all of the editor i messaged have with the exception of new editors.

Now that i dont know if you read the project page you'd know i have three editors working for me and one of them is in charge of finding editors who have done edits in intelligence. Shes not at my home right now so I can't ask her but I will as soon as she comes over and get back to you on that one. Gabriele449 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Ironholds, join the WITF we are very low on members and I already have a task for you. Gabriele449 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will put you on the assessment squad that way you wont have to write article and you'll still be a massive help to the force. Gabriele449 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this your not apart of the project you just help me create Manual of Style pages, ect Gabriele449 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

You're going to get hell from this, I'm sure. But kudos for wading in and explaining your rationale in a logical and sensible manner.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I like to think of closing difficult AfDs as like picking a prison gang. Whatever decision I make, I'm getting bent over and fucked by someone. Ironholds (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's an, uh, interesting analogy for difficult AfD closes—I'd not thought of that before. But really I came here to offer kudos as well. Not so much because I agree with the delete decision (though I do), but because I thought your first paragraph was very well articulated in terms of how to think about that particular AfD, which was indeed somewhat exceptional in terms of a lack of policies to guide us. I think either "delete" or "no consensus" would have been acceptable as a reading of consensus, but you framed the overall issue quite well and I don't think you'll have much to worry about in terms of a DRV challenge or anything like that.

I recall that I voted "neutral" in your recently successful RfA as I had some vague doubts, so I was particularly happy to see such a thoughtful closing statement from you. Please continue to prove my "vague doubts" to be wrong and maybe even kind of dumb. I'll be pleased. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support; I will do my best :). Ironholds (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased contributor, here (or so I'm told) but I think your administrative action was right on the mark and represents the standards to which I had hoped Wikipedia was held to in the first place. The level of clarity in your statement cut through the obscuring rhetoric extremely well. You deserve many accolades. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking on a difficult close. Wordy, but not too wordy; far better to explain in detail. I was fearing a soulless "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks kindly to the both of you. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Great close - nobody would have faulted you for picking a timid no consensus but by getting down to the essence of the two aspects of the question you clearly picked the superior decision. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled on this post today which made me double check to make sure it had'nt gone to DRV. I gotta says this is the third contentious XFD I have seen you close recently the other two being Blame Israel meme and the Connecticut Churches mess. Your long winded explanations seem to satisfy every one that you are taking in all opinions and evaluating the merits. Be careful We may ask you to be an Arbcom member before long. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, scientific testing shows that I'm too ornery and easily distracted to make an arbcommer ;p. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

Hi IH, can you tell me how you got the message about the university meets on the watchlist announcements? I'm hoping some of these uni newbies will be at the GLAM event in April. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:GEONOTICE; I'd ask Seddon how to do it (I'm not entirely sure. I can tweak them, but not create them). Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

thx Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things

(1) I accidentally clicked delete on your user talk page and it said that I can't delete it because this page has >5,000 revisions. Seriously!?

(2) Any chance you could talk a look at Template talk:Did you know#Oliver H. Lowry for me? NW (Talk) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A professor writes (as does the Lord Chief)...

"Hello, Ironholds!", says the LCJ.

"What are you doing editing Wikipedia, when you could be reading my legal history books and journals instead?", says Sir John Baker.

I finally remembered to upload them... Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I've read almost everything he's published, and used a large chunk of it as the basis for articles, so no worries there. Any chance your influence with the legal profession includes getting me a pupillage? ;p. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bribery Act 2010

You have a review at Talk:Bribery Act 2010/GA1, my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted; looking through it now. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And you've got yourself a GA. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Regards, Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)