User talk:Ironholds/archive22

Filmbuff1109

why is there something wrong with Stoned (2010 film)???? its a real movie.well why not i made this film with hopes that i could get it noticed if you notice i said "limited release" which means i wont get a good gross i thought promoting it on the internet would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbuff1109 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspect weaver

Hi there. Not sure if there has been a glitch somewhere, but at GAN you've got the above article marked as on hold, but the article talk page isn't showing a GA review as yet opened. just checking. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, i definitely don't want to review it, i was just doing a housekeeping check. That's fine. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You nom

The tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2010 Khyber bombing has been removed from the page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Re-instated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-Pierre Warner

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Pierre Warner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at IBen's talk page. -- Google Chrome Extensions Gallery

iBen 16:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at IBen's talk page. -- ~~~~~

iBen 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dialogus de Scaccario

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dialogus de Scaccario, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review

The points requested for the May Revolution good article review have all been adressed. MBelgrano (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC

According to the revised FAC instructions (Template:FAC-instructions), you cannot nominate another article at FAC while your previous article is still there, and Court of Chancery is still at FAC. I suggest you remove the second nomination. I hope the Court of Chancery will get some more attention, though; I noticed it got no full reviews yet. Ucucha 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Do you want me to delete the FAC or do you just keep it until Court of Chancery is off FAC? Ucucha 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to delete; thanks for telling me about the problem. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you have no dab links and no dead external links and no images that need alt text in the article. Ucucha 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes on the prose of Court of Chancery wouldn't hurt. I was recommended to use Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) before one FAC, and I'd recommend him to anyone seeking a good prose polish. One side benefit is that his talk page is widely watched, so you might get a few more eyes on the FAC as a result! Bencherlite^Talk 22:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

... so there's at least one advantage to being on the "wikipedia's most hated list", a convenient advertising spot. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Despite having replied here, I didn't realise that the Court of Chancery was at FAC. Duh! I'll try to get through it over the next day or so. I'm inevitably going to have quite a few questions – got a few already. I don't want to clutter up the FAC with them, so would you prefer them on the article talk page or the FAC's talk page? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'm done. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at IBen's talk page. -- ~~~~~

iBen 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Brilliant work on Insanity in British English law, and I know that you spent a quite a while writing that article, so this is well deserved, also awarded for your extensive work on articles concerning English law in general, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Ironholds (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Exchequer of Ireland

On February 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exchequer of Ireland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

insanity in english law

i have just reviewed your article and hav put it on hold and awaiting your thoughts. very good artcile on the whole. 02blythed (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am about to check your replies. My spelling and grammar is not good due to the fact i have dyslexia which affects my grammar especially and also my spelling. Sorry you could not understand. 02blythed (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

have reviewed the article again and i believe that the added points i have made, have no bearing on the artilce passing GA so once read it through again, i will probably pass it. Also i do not use firefox, i should probably use word when I write on here to avoid the mistakes. 02blythed (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now passed the article. congrats on the article. I may change to firefox in the future, thanks for the advice. Now back to university work. 02blythed (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a british law student in my third year. Next year hope to do LPC. 02blythed (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also i forgot to add it would be good to know what you are planning to do in the future, any more high profile articles planned like the insanity one which is highly important in criminal law anyway if not law in general. If you are inviting me to assist you unfortunately my uni work is intense as you are probably aware if you remembered the sullivan case (my mind went blank for the case name, lay people would not know that) and I need to concentrate on that, so unlikely to have time sorry. I would like to know what your plans out of interest are to see if similar high profile articles will be expanded in the coming months. 02blythed (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UCTA is high profile. Contract never my best and well the tort aspects with warning notices of danger to escape liablity of property damage are interesting. I am not in the london area am up north. sorry. Unable to help due to workload as above. Good luck with this and your future work.02blythed (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Squids

Here are the 5 squids I owe you.

• 
  Sepioteuthis lessoniana
• 
  Loligo vulgaris
• 
  Sepioteuthis sepioidea
• 
  Dosidicus gigas
• 
  Todarodes pacificus

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Obscene Publications Act 1959

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Obscene Publications Act 1959, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church, Kaunas

Hello Ironholds. I saw you've put a template in the article mentioned. I think it's not necessary. The whole text has been written using a single source, which is right now the most complete book concerning Orthodox churches in Lithuania. What's more, the article doesn't contain any controversial statements or quotations. I read on one of the help pages that it's not necessary to make inline citations if the whole paragraph derives from one source. In this case, the whole article - which is not very long - derives from the book indicated. Regards, Onion Dome (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final fantasy vi-2

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Ironholds. Recently I've been getting a niggling worry. Since I just recently realised that copy-pasting info withing wikipedia without attribution is copyright violation, and in the past (by mistake and with very good intention), I have accidentally and apparenlty broken the copyright law only a very few times (two were incorrect warnings, one was apparently an infringement not to my knowledge, which was the deleted page List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal), when I didn't know that reformatting statistics from a copyrighted page was infringement), I don't know to what extent it's punishable by blocks. Of course I always and truly always try to never break copyright law, and when I'm not sure, I always try to ask, it's very easy to make the mistake, I do not know whether on wikipedia it is legally punishable. I'm not sure since many people on wiki do break the cop. law and only end up by being blocked and on the copyright page it says that the only consequence is a block or at most a ban, but since the copyright law is not just a wikipedia matter (like vandalism) but a legal matter, if one can be prosecuted otherwise (i.e. outside of wikipedia). Please reply as soon as possible.--Theologiae (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've never realised it was so serious. Anyway, most editors do have at least once a copyright notice. So would you just say that if you've perhaps, as I said, by accident done such a thing (and I still don't thing I actually did fully do anything wrong), the best thing is to not repeated. Just explain the full matter to me please. I'm a bit confused. Would you say that someone who maybe had one slight incident could be prosecuted or only a person who as a long history of doing so. Help me out here.--Theologiae (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I respect what you're saying, but this has to be taken seriously. What, so anyone whose talk page says "copyright infringement" even for misunderstandings or just once could be put in jail or face court? Surely if you've only broken it once or it was just a mistake you cannot be taken to court. I never read in the page of copyright violations that it was that serious. Well that shows you that you have gotta be careful sometimes. Just tell me what wiki states about this. For example, I won't make names, but I've seen x editor and his/her talk page has one or two of the copyright notices. So does that mean that if someone wanted, they could challenge them in court. I think that wikipedia has to make this clearer. Serious matters such as this cannot be taken as a joke. Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Since I respect the law in all ways, and the idea of breaking it horrifies me, and I think anyone else would be so too, I think that wikipedia should make it 100% clear that copyright violation = law breaking and law breaking = suing or court sentence. I didn't read that anywhere, and to anyone who, just like me, even by accident did do such a thing, it should be stated very, very cleary. Thank you anyway for your help.--Theologiae (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'm more worried for others than for myself. I did not break the copyright law. Most of the messages on my page were either misunderstandings and one was a case in which I still do maintain that I did not ever break it. Ok, you're a law student, let me see if you can help out here... I created a page called "List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal)". I just saw some statistics from another page, and I didn't copy them. I just rewrote them as they were, changing the format and style. This happens in most other articles. Instead, I got a message that I copied from a copyright source. Recreated the page, changing even more the format, and I got the same message. Now, you don't think that violates the law. If in that case you agree with what I say, then I never broke the law, except in the case of copying withing wikipedia, in which I promise I will take on board. I am just so busy right now that the idea of possibly having broken the copyright law makes me feel sick (literally). Could you help me and see if I am truly fine or I did in some case break copyright with that page. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no no, not that. I never copied from yahoo. Let's get that straight. I want to present to you all the cases of my copyright problems:

• 1. I created an article called 1693 in Italy, using info copypasted from the wiki page 1693 sicilian earthquake. But that info that I had copied from, apparently, had been copied by another editor onto that page. Ended result: page remained and the fault was not mine, but that editor who copied from that article without my knowledge. Case ended and I was not accused, except an ugly notice remains on my page

• 2. I created an article called List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal). I saw a table in a page called euromonitors. I rewrote it onto the page, without any copypasting and in a totally different format. I was accused of breaking cop. Case is still open and page was deleted twice,*

• 3. The recent one, History of Italian cuisine. I copied from an old version of the page Italian cuisine. Obviously, someone copypasted the old wikipedia info onto yahoo answers. It was that person who broke the copyright law, not me. Case ended, but page was deleted for other reasons.

(Now to return to *. That case is unresolved and even though I still believe that it was not copyright breaking, I want to see your opinion.) Reply...--Theologiae (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Any last advice before I go--Theologiae (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Sdfesdgbs

Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I deleted Sdfesdgbs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to continue the discussion, but i need to ask so more questions

Hi. I bet you think of me as a pain, but you're the only person who knows about this sort of legal thing so much. First of all can I make one thing present. I am not an adult - I am very young, oherwise known as a child, and I still go to school. All these legal things confuse me and since I am going through some very hard times, I really do not want to make any mistakes or get mixed into any legal tangles. So, I was just wondering, since on wikipedia to copy info within the encyclopedia you have to provide attribution, I was wondering if you've written something yourself if you on another article and you copypaste it onto another one if you need to attribute that too.

Also, how do you understand if images are free, copyright or were wrongly made ones like the File:Milano Collage.jpg.

Please reply. I'm being so pedantic, because as you said, I do not want to make any more mistakes like this in the future.--Theologiae (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One last thing. So we get cleared of the copyright problems, I also talked to a close relative of mine, who has a law degree at uni, about the copyright issue. He told me that:

Firstly: if the info is deleted, and is no longer retrievable, the case is officially dismissed. It's virtually like saying the violation is over.

Secondly: even though one made the edit him/herself, the legal issues would be created with wikipedia, since it's not your personal website. Wikipedia could accuse you of having done the thing by blocking or banning you, but in the end it would be the Wikimedia foundation or Jimmy Wales who would end up with the lawsuit. It's like some parents had a bad child. Yes, he could be told off, grounded or banned from going out, but in the end if he caused damages, they would have to pay the fine. It's the same thing with wikipedia.

My relative comes from a different country, and he knows about wikipedia to some extent. But since he went to law school, like you, he knows what he's talking about. The best thing I'd say the new warning for copyright breakers doesn't just say "for legal reasons", but "for reasons which might seriously harm the encyclopedia and cause legal problems". Anyway, I've been dismissed from most of my copyright charges, but I'm more worried for others than for myself, and also for wikipedia, since I'm very fond of it and I wouldn't want to see its downfall. Reply please--Theologiae (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your reply. My relative is a foreigner (different law system) and only knows wiki to some extent. He practices common law, not internet law, and is more into judiciaries. But what he meant by the copyright being dismissed is that since it is no longer retrievable, you cannot accuse wikipedia unless you have the material proof. He also made the comparison to stealing. If you steal an apple, but then just before you are about to leave the shop you put it back, you have technically ended the case. If, instead, you kept it, then you could face court. I know this is quite a thorny and difficult area, but I just wanted to clarify it. Probably the best thing to do is to continue editing normally and also advising others to do so too (as I said, I'm more worried for the foundation and others than myself: I do not no longer have any more copyright charges since they were all either false warnings, misunderstandings or errors themselves, so the many notices on my page don't actually mean much at all, if not nothing). Just one thing I was wondering. I often come across many copyrighted sights which have exactly the same things wikipedia says (thus, they must have copied it). But wikipedia is a copyrighted sight so when they to copypaste and put it on their web it firstly confuses bots (they think you did it) and it violates copyright. Just like the yahoo answers. That info was an old version of the page, so obviously someone thought it was a good idea to simply copypaste the info onto yahoo answers and then wikipedia gets the false accusation of infringement. Surely doing that is copyright infringement. What should I do in these cases? (Yeah, as you probably found out, I'm suffering from copyright paranoia)--Theologiae (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds (literally) of websites which copy info from wikipedia, some without attribution. I'll provide you with some if you want to. The thing is that, since wikipedia info changes, but their version remains the same, if you perhaps want to restore some of the info that was on the old version, it will come up as if you copypasted from the website, just like with the history of italian cuisine. That was old wiki info, but obviously someone copied it onto the yahoo page, and when I tried to retrieve it, it came up as if I had violated copyright when I had only just retrieved some info. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:TPrincesig.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:TPrincesig.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:400px-Survivor.borneo.logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:400px-Survivor.borneo.logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for insanity in English law

On February 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Insanity in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mozilla Add-ons

You have been reverted (C. A. Russell's 2010 February 25 03:35 UTC edit to Add-ons for Firefox). You effectively performed a delete and redirect without going the appropriate channels. Moreover, your summary asserts that your reasoning was that it failed to prove notability, despite the figures of widespread usage in the article. In reality, I probably wouldn't disagree with a merge with Add-on (Mozilla), but your actions were sloppy: you didn't integrate any of the information from the article for Mozilla Add-ons into the general add-ons article. Instead you simply redirected users to a subpar article for a related subject. I'm in the process of restoring the article.

If you want to see the articles merged, you might solicit help from other editors. I know there are many who have an interest in Firefox and related subjects. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't say that the Mozilla Add-ons certainly meets the notability guidelines. I said that the article made some attempt to meet notability guidelines, and you didn't go through appropriate channels before inserting your redirect.

"Two birds with one stone" is a phrase that describes a set of phenomena that doesn't necessarily include the options here. In reality, the option to do nothing is on one side of the effort scale, doing a proper merge is further, and restoring the information that existed before you removed it is somewhere in the middle. I was willing to invest enough effort to do a restoration, but not enough to merge after your redirect, so I opted for the former, give that between doing it and doing nothing, it's the one that is most informative.

And I suppose I'm allowed to skirt civility guidelines, so long as I do so with a smile and faux pleasantries in place of being a dick overtly. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined on Mojo (album)

Hi Ironholds, I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Mojo (album) since the A9 criterion didn't apply to that article. CSD A9 is for non-notable musical recordings where the artist's article doesn't exist. In this case the artist is notable and has an article (Tom Petty). Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I know; I added it after hitting the wrong button. I was actually trying to remove the damn thing myself when you E/Cd me :(. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some back catalog work needed

Hi, Ironholds. :) There are a few articles from earlier in your editing history that may still need revision to separate them from the DNB. As soon as you have an opportunity, could you please take a look at the following to make sure that the content is sufficiently rewritten or conforms to NFC?

• George Hammond Whalley
• John Stonor
• William Tresham
• Ralph Sandwich
• Charles Jocelyn Hambro
• Thomas Reeve
• Roger Hillary
• George Treby (judge)

I've been sent a list of some close passages in these articles that I'd be happy to supply it to you if you want; just drop me an e-mail. I believe all of the concerns predate our conversation of Nov. 2008 about such matters. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work; I'm only sorry these passed me by near the end of '08, when I was attempting to clear up my own messes. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Though this is late

... do comment here. Thanks, Blurpeace 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Kadooli

Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I deleted Kadooli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically "no content whatsoever" is a valid rationale for a page which contains no content whatsoever :P. My apologies; I was unaware that the article had been blanked, as opposed to being created blank. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Basketball Association of America GAN

I have addressed the issues to the article Basketball Association of America. Thanks for the review. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruth D. Thorne

Thanks for your note. All fixable through judicious winnowing, no? I think I got it all, though I'm not satisfied with the overall tone. She seems notable, so the net benefit is in keeping and improving rather than simple deletion. Also, there is a distinction between flowery writing and shear promotion-- the spammy part was actually much less than than encyclopedic part. I think the five minutes I spent removing the spam was well spent. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

David Pugh

David Pugh conservative politician Isle of Wight

I have removed the reference to David Pugh living with his girlfriend Rachael. This is not true and is certainly unverified. Rosalind Rosalind567 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tag on Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office (Virginia)

I decliend the speedy on Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office (Virginia). Some sentences were copied, and i have rewritten these. But I don't think the page as a whole is th3e kind of blatant copyvio with no useful non-vio content that ought to be speedy deleted. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair does; virtually everything from the second sentence down was a copyvio, but if you think you can shiny it up, good on you. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize at fist how many pages have been copied from, i think i have now done sufficient rewriting. Since this is simple statement of uncopyrightable facts, limited rewriting should be sufficient. I can well understand your not wanting to undertake such. But i would suggest that stubifing to just the lead section and the infobox would have been reasonable, as those were not apparently copied. Thanks for spotting the cvopyvio. DES ^(talk) 22:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Could you have a look at User talk:Eubulides#Template:Infobox UK Legislation? Thanks, Ucucha 21:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Macrophage

User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages promote WikiLove through sliding through Wikipedia devouring vandalism and smiling on those who keep Wikipedia healthy by increasing its resistance to vandalism. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! --~~~~

Email etc

Thanks for your reply; I was out of chambers on a trial for a couple of days at the end of last week so was a bit lax at keeping up with emails. Will reply soon. And thanks for the GA pass too, glad you liked it! Bencherlite^Talk 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stoned (2010 film) deleted

I went ahead and deleted this as WP:CSD#G11. It reeked of non notability, and went on to say "limited release" in, I think it was Dobson, NC. The release date on the thing is today, and that's too big a coincidence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki train

cool idea, unfortunately i think i'm snookered at work, i'll try and make it along to a London meetup Tom B (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Hey. Sorry Wikidea's intervention (whose concerns I have to say seems almost entirely inappropriate to me) made you withdraw the FAC. I'm still interested in helping you polish it "off the FAC record" so to speak, if you're willing to let me help. I have to say there is one specific aspect in Wikidea's complain that seem pertinent, though: the article does appear short on legal devellopments and interpretations that have occured since its passing. It seems a bit dubious there would have been no significant case law related to the Act in the last 10 years...

Anyway, I find your articles generally very well written and sourced (if for my issues with pagination, which have more to do with the nature of the sources than anything else), and have enjoyed reading over them, so I hope I can help with this one (and any further others you may decide to drag through FAC). Circéus (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I had vaguely noticed the dispute at Pepper, which is why Wikidea suddenly bursting on the scene at FAC looked... well... suspect. I'm kinda busy with separate copyediting stuff I promised to work on, so right now I can't really get into what looks like it could evolve into a pretty bitter dispute. I'll advise you to step away from the article for a couple days (let the dust settle a bit: you do too much good work to let something like that dog you down). I'll look into it ASAP and see what I can do/say. Circéus (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Contested prod of Our Little Life

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Our Little Life, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart/test

Curious as to why it says test in the title? Typo? CTJF83 chat 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps a sandbox page would work best? CTJF83 chat 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok :) CTJF83 chat 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For future references: subpages don't work in the main namespace (we need to be able to use the slash in article titles). Circéus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Required notification

Your editing behavior is being discussed at WP:AN. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: SnapComms

Hello there! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SnapComms, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Winning an award is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  20:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)