User talk:Ironholds/archive13

National Sausage Roll Day

I agree with you, but I couldn't resist it. Please accept my apologies and have a great day. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not such a good idea in hindsight I guess, although I had planned to move it to my userspace. Anyway, back to being sensible again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Age Concern and Help the Aged

Dear Ironholds,

I've removed the redirect you placed on this page, because, as I indicated on the change comment, Age Concern and Help the Aged is a new legal entity (with new and different charity and company registration records to those of the pre-existing organisations), created as a result of the merger of Age Concern England (a member of the Age Concern federation) and Help the Aged. Both existing brands will continue in use for some time yet, and the 300 or so independant charities in the federation will continue to be known as Age Concern for the rest of this year.

I hope this explains.

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Just wanted to let you know that you're on the 3RR at WP:RFA. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, perfectly aware; I've stopped for that reason. I'd planned to leave it at 2 (I don't want to get into a war) but really it needed to be reverted to back up Daniel's warning. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. April Fool's Day is being a pain in the arse this year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We really need to set something clear out. Evidently the blocking of users for certain things in 07/8 wasn't enough to get people to think twice; I had to warn one user for creating a hoax in the mainspace. After I contacted him he said that he agreed it was over the line but "couldn't resist". Oy vey *goes off to grumble about users and common sense*. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should skip April 1 next year. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice. Take a leaf out of Gregory XIII's book and just go "alright peons, we've reorganised the calendar. Bad news; you've lost several days. April fools, Valentines, Hitler's birthday and the Superbowl final. Why? Because it's a massive waste of time thats why, all those silly ads and pansy athletes. What do you mean "fuck off grandad"! Don't swear at me young man, I'm the fucking pope! I've got a bellend-shaped hat and everything!". Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

I really wanted to email this comment, but your email isn't enabled. You've compared yourself to John Oliver, which really makes me want to fly in for a meetup in Manchester or London to see for myself. "Oh look, the prodigal son returns. Going to come back and edit, or are you just following up your vote at my RfA with another stab for users you don't like?" is funny, and I offered some evidence in support at the link Majorly gave ... but I think I see a strong sense at RFA that the community doesn't want comedians, especially when their talents are applied to people who have already been judged. This was I think the central issue in Baseball Bugs's RFA. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've never compared myself to John Oliver in any way other than a purely physical sense (I look like a skeletal, less appealing John Oliver) but I see your point. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I aim for brutal honesty and longwindedness, two traits that I'm sure will serve me well in my wiki-career. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well honesty won't get you anywhere near RfA :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AURORA trial

I just wanted to address the request for deletion on the AURORA trial on the grounds that it is not a notable clinical trial. First of all, it was only published in print YESTERDAY (still not available on the online New England Journal of Medicine) - give it a few weeks to make a splash. Secondly, I disagree that it isn't notable. Statins (of which rosuvastatin is a member), are widely prescribed medications and are considered standard of care in diabetics and in patients with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as end stage renal disease. This trial has the potential to change clinical practice for a large patient population; the financial implications of this study are potentially huge. Give it time, then revisit. Wawot1 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Give it time" yes; We don't add articles on things that might be notable in the future. If it will be notable in the future, come back and post it in the future. Secondly, even if it was the most important trial in the history of the world it still fails Wikipedia's base notability standard which is that it has been mentioned (in detail) in multiple reliable, third-party sources. Thirdly, I note you said it was only published yesterday, yet you created the article before that. Wikipedia is not A publisher of Original Thought; we are an encyclopaedia, not a journal. I must assume from you having the information to post before anything was ever published in reliable journals that you are involved in the study in some way; my advice to you would be to read our Conflict of Interest policy and revisit the matter if and when this study has the references to pass the notability standards. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

vanity fair prints

I don't have any vanity fair prints.06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#Require 24-hour waiting period before voting

If your ears are burning ... - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

.So what's been happening? Talk to you on IRC. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

War Draughts

Hello,

Earlier today I nominated War Draughts for speedy deletion and it was deleted. It was then re-created by the same user. I do not think Speedy deletion requests via Twinkle go to AfD do they?--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops,sorry. Thanks a lot!--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lord Denning

Two snippets of possible interest:

1. From Sir John Mortimer's interview with him: Denning acknowledged that though as a judge he had sentenced people to death and "It didn't worry me in the least", he had changed his mind about the death penalty, which he now regarded as unethical. (Mortimer, John. In Character, Penguin Books, London, 1984, ISBN 0-14-006389-7)

2. From At the Drop of Another Hat, by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann, in a song about one-upmanship:

Swann: I've been asked to sing at Salzburg in next year's Fidelio.

Flanders: I've been asked to screen Lord Denning – for security, you know.

Or not, as the case may be. Tim riley (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Ironholds's Day!

Ironholds has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ironholds's day! For your dedication and diligence to the project, enjoy being the Star of the day, Ironholds! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Well deserved. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both :). Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually jealous. WilliamH (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're always jealous of me, what with me being the charming, witty and handsome man that I am </sarcasm>. Srsly didn't see this one coming. Not complaining, though, as you can imagine :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IAVE page

Can you repost the IAVE page that was deleted? I wrote the original on the IAVE website, and would like to have it up on Wikipedia as a starting point to a more interactive description of the organization. I've added a note about the "GNU free document license" to the original. Thanks. Anthony Carlisle IAVE International Resources Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAVEIRC (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)IAVEIRC (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

rage quit

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 7#Rage quit → Multiplayer video game. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Case of the Hooded Man

A possible Good article candidate? Punkmorten (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Case of the Hooded Man

On April 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Case of the Hooded Man, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid

Thank you for supporting the Oxford bid to hold Wikimania 2010! We're currently in the final stages of the bid process - the jury will be announcing their decision by the 16th April. We're currently putting together the local team for the bid (who will do what if the bid wins); if you're able to be on the local team, please put your name in the appropriate place on m:Wikimania 2010/Bids/Oxford/Team. We'd also welcome anything you can do to help refine the bid in these last few days. If you have any questions, please let me or User:Seddon know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Pride

Hi. Not sure exactly if im doing this correctly but I was working last night on an entry for Dublin Pride. Got up this morning to do more work on it and it has been deleted for "blatent advertising". There are plenty of other entries for oother prides in other cities.

We are a volunteer organisation which raises money for chairty with a corporate structure. No-one is paid and the aim is not at all to raise money for the volunteers.

So can someone put it back please so I can get back to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin-09-DP (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) --Martin-09-DP (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping 2

Per your request at the above link, I thought I'd let you know the time has come. —Cyclonenim | Chat  14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent articles on ports

I think you saw the same thing I did when you posted this on the creators talk page. I have a sneaking suspicion that all of these are copy/paste jobs or something of the like and they may be copyright violations as well, but I can't find the source anywhere on the web. I was just curious what you think the course of action should be on these articles? My thought was to wait a few days to see if the creator fixed up the articles and if not to nominate for deletion, but I also see how that could be taken as over aggressive. So I figured I'd ask before doing anything brash. Here are the links to the articles:

• Navlakhi
• Magdalla
• Jakhav
• Dahej

I have already undone a good faith on Bedi, Gujarat [1] because the article was in decent shape already an I didn't think doing that to a page was appropriate.

Anyway, I was just wondering what you thought. Thanks for your input in advance! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the above statement; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiptradenews (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have hoisted the details in the interest of the Shipping Trade and for the students to know about the Ports of Gujarat region. Secondly,I am serving as the News Editor for a weekly Publication " Shipping & Trade NewsLetter". a weekly publlished from Jamnagar, Gujarat State, India. The details of the noted Ports are marine details. If any one wants more details of the respective Ports. may please contact, as I may try to provide the same,if it may be available with me or may arrange to collect it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiptradenews (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disarrey

I only found 95 google hits for this band but a few seem to be separate from myspace. I tagged it for notability and sources. Give the creator a while to "show us the money" and if he doesn't it can be AFDd. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gruban v Booth

On April 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gruban v Booth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You helped a lot during the M249 FAC :-) Pattont/c 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

TRF 1907

Thanks! I'll have a look at what redlinks are fillable tomorrow, though I suspect some of the Acts down at the end will have to stay. Do feel free to hack anything else you'd like around! Shimgray | talk | 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prosystem (Emulator)

Hey, I am new to Wiki and learning as I go. Please discuss with me how to save Prosystem (Emulator) I added to wiki. I tried following the same page as other emulators So I am not to sure why it was considered non-notable. Thanks Jack of All Trades ~Wolf~ (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to show why it is notable; the subject of the article needs to pass WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the notability guidline. Let me know if I am missing anything... I am still new at this and don't want to mess up:
"Significant coverage" - This is the one I am assuming is the issue? From what I read, do I just need to write more about it?
"Reliable" - I think I did ok here, everything I wrote was information I got from their homepage.
"Sources" - Definetly got that on there. Their hompage. Right? DO I need other sources like emulator sights?
"Independent of the subject" - I am gathering that this is to avoid self puplicity, which I am not creator or refferance myself.
"Presumed" - I would asume that it is not presumed since I soure the homepage.
Thanks for your time in helping me! Let me know what I am missing. Jack of All Trades ~Wolf~ (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

no, reliable, independent sources. The sources have to be 1) reliable and 2) independent before they give any assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like a few credible Emulator sites? Jack of All Trades ~Wolf~ (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find them; Honestly I doubt they'd be considered reliable, though. Things like awards won, coverage by news sites and so on, that would be much better. Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping in, but I had your talk page watchlisted and this caught my interest. A quick google search turned up one, possibly two books where this software is discussed for emulating retro-gaming hardware. I'll check the second one but I'll add at least the first as an inline citation. Tothwolf (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

"Last time I checked being an administrator doesn't have any relation to RfA"

— Ironholds

You may wish to re-word that comment. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

haha, thanks for that! Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Financial Executives International

Ironholds, I am new user to Wikipedia, I noticed you marked the Financial Executives International wikipedia page I drafted for speedy review under CSD 7; after you marked it for speedy review I added some more content as to the significance of the organization's work and added more external links and a number of references from news articles, I also posted some questions in the discussion section, including, for example, that this is a professional association similar to a number of other "professional accountancy organizations" and "professional associations" (in categories by those names). Is it possible to temporarily restore the page and review it or for you to suggest what is still missing or what makes similar professional accountancy organizations writeups' significance seem more obvious and I can try to provide that information if it is not clear from how I wrote up this one. Thank you. Regards, Eorenstein (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there; I'm not an administrator, so I lack the permissions to view and restore deleted pages. User:Toon05 did that actual deletion; I suggest you speak to him. Ironholds (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, To add to my earlier note: I just learned that Toon05 marked the article for CDS 11, blatant advertising, so I am now stuck in between your criteria for deletion of not specifying enough of the significance of the professional accountancy association, and between Toon05's view that it was blatant advertising. As I noted in my earlier comment to you (and now I posted comment to Toon05 too) Financial Executives International has a very similar mission and impact to various other professional accountancy associations, if you and Toon05 can help me understand how the article I wrote (with 3rd party references included) differs from (in terms of meeting wikipedia standards) similar professional accountancy organizations I would really appreciate your advice in how I can improve the writeup to both demonstrate the significance and yet not appear to be advertising. Thank you very much. Eorenstein (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated, I can't really do anything with it. If blatant advertising was what Toon tagged it with, blatant advertising was what he deleted it for, so thats the issue you need to combat. Again, I'd advise talking to him. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Financial Executives International

OK, thank you

Eorenstein (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		Awarded for excellent work new page patrolling, a necessary evil whose contributors' toil often goes woefully under appreciated. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Johansen test

Is the context enough? Jackzhp (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, tag removed. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Farmhouse article thingy

Hi, IH. I'd deleted that same thing a few moments ago as unintelligible. There are a couple of blue links in that thing; do you think it's worth letting run as a prod? It's just useless in its current form. Anyway, thanks for all the good work you do.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You got it. One "whack" coming up. Have fun tonight! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia log? Need a hand...? I'm at work for about twenty more minutes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My favorite! Off I go. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Diplomacy World page

I've added some new content to the Diplomacy World page and I also think the page is similar to [Charge!] magazine page of the American Civil War. Please let me know what else I can add to convince you that the page meets the notability guidelines.

Xatsmann (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WeeChat

Re the {{prod}} on WeeChat, I noticed it myself the other day and was already working on it. It isn't difficult to establish WP:N for this particular subject but it has been time consuming to rewrite the article to include more information and inline citations. Tothwolf (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion request

Hi

you have deleted an entry made on the Hartlepool entry on the grounds that it is an 'advertisement'. I guess my failure, apart from being an inexperienced newbie, was not to substantiate the entry with citations (which I could have done). This has apparently got me banned until 20th May - harsh given that, as mentioned, I am a newbie and this was my first entry. Whatever happened to "you've made a mistake, you're new so, ok, we have removed your entry; now, be more careful next time"? What are you - self appointed Judge and Jury? I thought you were studying Law in England, not North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogwulf (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Readergirlz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Readergirlz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readergirlz. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about your user page

Can you tell me how you get this to show up your user page: Talk | Awards | Contributions | Created Pages | DYK's | Sandbox | Sandbox 2 | Sandbox 3 I'd like to do the same thing on my page but I couldn't find the code for it. Thanks for your help

Xatsmann (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I figured it out on my own. Thanks anyway since I did use your page as template for mine.

Xatsmann (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at User talk:Dank55/Apr.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion request

Hmm, too close for comfort, Ironholds? Look, I understand your point, but references can be provided. I am finding it difficult to understand the protocols of the entry, however, and so far my citations are returned in preview with error messages. I cannot figure out how to do it even with the advice of the help pages. The last sentence, for example, which you say is an advertisement, is a direct quotatuion from an official Association of Colleges video made in 2008. I accept that it is a judgement made by them, and maybe subjective, but it is nevertheless an independent viewpoint. The Northern Echo in August 2007 described the College as "once again the leading college in the North East' because of its examination success - please note the paper's use of 'once again' in this context. The description of the build is a matter of architectural fact and is based on plans publicly presented by the architects and referenced on their website. I apologise for being new at this, but I have been informed that I cannot post amendments until 20th May - if you did not ban me, then who did? I don't much care which direction I'm walking; what matters to me is that this system should be reasonable and fair - particularly to newcomers. A welcome is nice, but not if it comes with censure for genuine mistakes caused by inexperience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogwulf (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion request

Commander Bob Broadhurst - please check the article, I hope is ok now!Mein Kopf (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Central Florida Law Journal

You nominated this article for A7 speedy deletion. I had originally deleted it, but recently restored it due to an assertion of importance or significance that was made at my talk page. Just a heads up. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request

You nominated User:Jregenstein for speedy deletion. I read up on the appropriate use of the user page and removed everything. JRIV 01:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Intention-craft.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Intention-craft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles edited by only one user

Hi. At VPT you mentioned this category. I've been looking, but I can't find it - can you point me to it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

excellent info - thanks for that from me as well SatuSuro 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Horsey (died 1546)

On 20 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Horsey (died 1546), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Horsey (died 1564)

On 20 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Horsey (died 1564), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Violet-dp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Violet-dp.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carter

Best album to leechbuy is 30 Something. Cheers matey,  Chzz  ►  03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikips...

...is engaging in some underhanded activity, and that needs to be stated openly and out front. He is not allowed to just say and do whatever he wants in furtherance of getting a user banned, especially changing his evidence after others have already commented on it. My original complaint was that he dragged my name into it, on a totally false premise, and didn't bother notifying me about it. I have no opinion on Collect's fitness. It seems like he's been pretty contentious, though not to me. But I'm rapidly forming an opinion on Ikips' fitness. Are you going to let him get away with this stuff? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you want it brought up someplace where it won't be noticed, while he's allowed to continue his misleading activities. That's dirty pool. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I want the bogus "evidence", mentioning my name, removed from that section, and I want that fact stated somewhere openly. Ikips cannot be allowed to pull this shenanigan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want lectures about procedure, and I don't care where you stand on either Ikips or Collect. I want something done about Ikips throwing my name around as some kind of "evidence". Do I need to take this to ANI, or can something be done without resorting to that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On the advice of user Soxwon, I'll back off from this. For now. But I've got an ANI posting ready to go if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this point, I've got no ill feeling toward you whatsoever. Don't mistake anger and frustration for hatred. :) And it's just as well I didn't go to ANI, since I hate "running to Mommy". I go there to help other users out, but I very seldom post complaints myself. Especially if there's a risk I could "Plaxico" myself. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Violet Douglas-Pennant

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Violet Douglas-Pennant, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordsee case

I appreciate your response. May be you can improve the article. I dosnt seem to be elobrative.
Thanks again Oniongas (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

It would be appreciated if you stopped blanking pages and redirecting them to another link. Thanks. Math Champion (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Geodirectory

Hi Ironholds, I have declined your speedy request on Geodirectory - while it's obvious that the article was based upon that page, it's different enough that in my opinion it doesn't quite meet the criteria of being a copyvio. Note that this is not an endorsement of the notability of the article subject, which appears rather borderline as well. Happy to reconsider if you strongly object to this, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Hmm, I still think that given that the sentences are not identical it can't be seen as a blatant copyvio; but on further reflection, just to be sure I've stubbed the contentious material out of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Lord Mansfield

Awadewit is perfectly right, now I look at the house rules. Very happy to check your article against some recognised texts and put in new citation refs if that will help. Would of course then declare an interest when making further comments on the existing text. The wiki-orgy in Holborn sounds macabre, and so I may very well stroll down thither from my Islington redoubt. Tim riley (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email on Mansfield citations, via Wikipedia: its contents go on a bit, and would clog this page up more than somewhat. Tim riley (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two more articles by Alfietucker

Hiya; I'm afraid I got itchy and have launched no less than two more articles today: David Brown (musicologist); and Irene Wicker. They've probably appeared slightly prematurely ("Irene Wicker" in particular might do with more solid references, but I haven't got them). Anyway I thought you might want to know, and if there's anything you can add to them or do to improve them I'd be v appreciative. All best wishes. Alfietucker (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Women's Royal Air Force

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Women's Royal Air Force, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention

I have brought you to administrator attention in repsonse to Deepnet Explorer. Just thought I'd let you know. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Victor Harold Freeman

Thanks for defending this article against deletion. I was really surprised to find it nominated considering he was an MP. At least someone's reading my stuff though! Graham Lippiatt (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis Case

Knowing that you are an administrator aswell as studying to be a lawyer, I wanted to alert you about a very, very bias article on the Troy Davis Case. Troy Davis is a man about to be executed for killing a police officer. The article has been written by virtually one user user:SelfEvidentTruths. The article does not address any evidence against Davis and is very POV. I was wondering if you could either help me with a clean-up or suggest what could be done.JakeH07 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I'll go there now. JakeH07 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete my page!

Hey ironholds, i have proof about my Grunt Production Studios page! i edited it and it looks better.

Quick TransLation

I have removed your tag because I have justified the interest of the article on the talk page. Pah777 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your reply

I actually know all about Wikipedia policies, probably more than you do. I added the Deepnet Explorer situation to the incident archives because I considered it an incident, as I didn't see how you tagging a worthy article for deletion was constructive. By the way, it is notable and it wouldn't be very hard to find acceptable references for it. Thanks anyway. --Sky Attacker (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Emilijus Zubas

Hi Ironholds, what makes you think that Emilijus Zubas fails wp:athlete? ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your note on my talk page, regarding your sudden redirects

I'd noticed you redirecting a number of articles recently, and the two I reverted are the only ones I have an issue with. Formian for instance I don't have a problem with at all. That particular article is rather brief, and doesn't have many sources, and as a topic and concept within its parent genre of D&D it doesn't have enough to be valid on its own. However with Graz'zt for instance, it has been covered in dozens of sources by different publishers and several novels. It has a long history in print, and on those grounds I have to strongly disagree with you that it needs a redirect. If you still feel the need to redirect, please try to get some consensus on the issue (might try posting the idea over on the D&D wikiproject, as they're slowly but surely trying to clean house on the various D&D articles on wiki to improve what needs improvement, and cleaning up stuff that's too niche even within the genre to stand on its own. If you want to push the issue more, and don't feel the page does or could meet whatever criteria you had in mind, send it to AFD and see how that goes (snowball keep is my feeling, perhaps more contested with Fraz Urb'lu).Shemeska (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess what....

He doesn't like you.[2] Yintaɳ  22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like you, either! >:( — neuro^(talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep AFD

I think you're getting sidetracked by the author of the article. You seem to be getting pulled into his argument over the reliability of the Bible as source when the real issue is that it is not a source for the article at all. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; that secondary argument is, I thought, over. It is being used as a source in the article (in fact almost the only source in the article) and since the primary problem is the lack of sourcing and the synthesis issues I thought establishing that the bible isn't a reliable source is the way to go. His primary comment on reliability in his "reason to keep" was "As regards to the reliability of sources, I contend that the Bible can be used as the historical records of Israel and there is no other document of that age that has so many copies in circulation. The Book in question is Genesis which is the first book of the Bible. The chapters in question are not mythical fictional or symbolic. They are concern the patriachs of Israel". My statements were merely a counter to that point. Ironholds (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whiskey Howl and Speedy Deletion

Please give me a bit more time here. I will attempt more clearly establish notability and then add more detail over time. I still have to add to the talk page.

Note the redirect from my original misspelling of the band's name.

Dreadarthur (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original Whisky Howl page, involving a misspelling on my part of the band's name, should be deleted.

Dreadarthur (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy

Hello there, I was just wondering if you'd like to comment on some tetchy discussion on the talk page. I put this up this morning. I don't seem to be doing a good job of explaining. Wikidea 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

National icon

i am still working on it, give me some time. Canadian (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Hey, sorry to bother you, but i am having a little problem with the image section. can you help me out a bit. Canadian (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

When I added the image section, the part comes up as red. It does not show up. Hope you can fix it. Canadian (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

4 Song Demo

Hey, why is it such a big problem having the page up? It may be a demo but it also acts as an EP and the bands first release, surely that warrants a page? Wikiwiki82 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

4 Song Demo

Nope that wasn't me, I know the guy who's making that article though. So is there anyway I can keep the article but change it some how so it fits in with the rules? Maybe put it under the singles tab or something, I think it deserves to be on wiki in some form. Wikiwiki82 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, sorry I'm not really used to editing stuff on here haha. I can't seem to find any articles mentioning it, but what if it was confirmed by a band member? Also what's the deal with album art almost always being taken down? I put it under fair use but more often then not, it gets taken down. Wikiwiki82 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't think it worked like that, now I know for sure. How about this article though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fake_Sound_of_Progress_(EP) That's a demo with no sources and it's still up there, along with the two demos before it.

I use the standard "Album Art" licensing when I upload covers, I thought that was supposed cover all the bases? Wikiwiki82 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what if there was a direct link to download the demo, would that count as a source?

Also if I go ahead and create pages for the three singles, would I need to find sources for them as well? Or as they are part of the album would they be ok? Wikiwiki82 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

48th United States Congress - summary

For several years I have made an attempt to build a consistent set of articles with a consistent format. Another editor has for those years distrupted that attempt, such that I have given up for a year. Creating another title is my attempt to do so now. I appreciate your suggestions, but would also appreciate your careful thought and patience before taking actions as I am trying to address a long term problem. stilltim (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your patience and help rather than the possibly perceived threats of undoing my work. I will not be done in weeks and there may be many aspects of the problem you do not understand. There are over hundreds of these articles and the other writer has changed only a handful of them leaving a mess. You are correct they are proseless, but the source is identified and quite accurate. You may not like the layout and I would be interested in improvement suggestions, but let's cooperate patiently or I'll just go away and the mess will remain. stilltim

Please be patient with my work and professional with your response. There is much tiny detail that is not so obvious. If you look closely over time you'll see the consistency being restored. I am begining with some of the more similar ones to rethink these things. Go easy, I am not the problem and am open to suggestions. stilltim

• FYI, I think stilltim is referring to me as the "problem" editor, but I can't be sure.—Markles 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ehh, no idea. As I said, I'm going to start listing them for deletion if I can't see any improvement soon. Creating pages to fix editorial disputes is not how it works. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry for breaching Wikipedia polcy. I am new to WP and I did not understand them properly.

I need to clarify some issues and I would like to resubmit my article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out issues with references.

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr N Hawkins, to demonstrate it is not original research, you will have to find references, from others besides Ron Wyatt. If this is just one of Ron Wyatt's theories, you can add the information to his article, rather than a new seperate article. Ron Wyatt made several sensational claims, without scientific evidence, so if others have written about these, then they could become notable. (Thanks to Ironholds for hosting this conversation!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You can resubmit it any time you want, but it will probably get deleted. Your continued assertion that the Bible is a reliable source, however, indicates you obviously aren't willing to conform to Wikipedia's rules and standards. Until you are, your page is not going to be included. Ironholds (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt claimed to have a blood report that said 23 chromosomes - I can't imagine how he could have misread it that badly. No evidence provided for claim that the Israelis have the Ark, or that a licence has been given to excavate at one of the 4 alleged Calvary sites (this one 'Gordon's Calvary'). Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Campus Co-operative Residence Incorporated

I'm declining deletion, as it asserts notability. It needs fixing and expanding. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC and Reply to Buster

Hi Ironholds. You are completely right that Collect has dismissed this RFC and will probably not wade through the comments. Early on, I was in favor of stopping the RFC for that very reason. But an RFC has other purposes. As I pointed out to Dedaduls969 (or whatever number comes after the name), the RFC can also help concerned editors to become better organized in content and network for a future ANI should that be required.

In my experience with Collect, he responded only to the threat of punishment in instances where he had an agenda that was at odds with Wikipedia conduct, common language, and common sense. So for me, this RFC is now an important fact finding tool (albeit with some useless pettiness and rancor mixed in).

Collect has taken a wikibreak, and perhaps this RFC was one of the triggers for that. I'm actually a little optimistic that his self-imposed timeout may give him some time to reflect on why so many editors took time to comment. And if you personally believe that "votestacking" has tainted this RFC, Soxwon and I took care to notify many editors who were both cooperative and combative with Collect. Mattnad (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronets and Knighthoods

Very different things my friend.

Have a read of point number 4 at the naming conventions.

And dont just take their word for it so while you are at it read what the Peerage Project have to say about it in their own guidelines!

I dont expect an apology but one would be nice! Kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A Handshake

Agreed. Thank you for extending your hand. The dynamic of this Encyclopedia building that we do can be devisive. But, like in our real worlds, a friendly gesture goes a long way.--Buster7 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. At the end of the day that is what we are here to do; build an encyclopedia. And when it comes to that, we should (ideally) be able to put any other factors aside. Oh, it might not work perfectly, and it might not work all the time, but we can certainly try. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

re PRODs and stuff

I have made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of rollback which may quickly resolve this matter. I invite your input there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets hear ya then!

Lets hear ya then!

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Gummer, Baron Chadlington of Dean

Hello! Your submission of Peter Gummer, Baron Chadlington of Dean at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Synergy 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Knotts

See the history ... do you want to AfD this one? Should I have speedied? (Watchlisting) - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't mind what happens. AfD is not worth the effort; they always seem to bite me on the arse. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Not that many people die in trials on the NASCAR circuit, and the death seems to have gotten a lot of press. My sense is, per WP:BLP1E, "the event is significant" and "the individual's role within it is substantial", but I'll AfD it myself if you disagree. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think it should be left, leave it. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association

On May 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 11:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peerage titles

It's rather confusing I know, but often the "of blah in the County of Wherevershire" isn't part of the title at all, but the territorial designation, if it were part of the title it would be listed as Baron(ess) Whomever of Someplace, of blah in the County of Wherevershire. The position of the comma is all important, since like Lord Mandelson there can be more than on territorial designation. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)