User talk:Ironholds/archive 28

DYK for Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)

Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

To you I present a giant thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kind words in my nomination. I couldn't have gotten the mop and bucket without your support and it means a lot that such a valuable content editor was willing to give it. I hope that our paths continue to cross for a long time to come and I'll live up to your nomination! You just watch me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of An Analysis of the Laws of England

Hello! Your submission of An Analysis of the Laws of England 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! Worm 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

IAR

RE: this, right, that's what WP:IAR is for. This article is just nonsense. Thanks for the unnecessary AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous page for deletion

• User:Renamed user 4/Problem editors (MfD discussion)

Useful historical information? Or things to be let go of? Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I see it as failing WP:UP#POLEMIC, and have commented along those lines at the MfD. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for An Analysis of the Laws of England

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of the Laws of England is a great little article! Bearian (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've got GAs for William Blackstone and the Commentaries coming up! Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How many DYKs do you have now? >9,000? Lara 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

176, kthx. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pashto Language

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.

I have decided to seek administrative intervention as of today. As you gave a 3O on the section in question, I thought you might be interested in stating your opinion. Chartinael (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Pintson

Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I deleted Pintson, 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\ 03:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Headdesk*. I meant to hit G3, but evidently flubbed up somewhere. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deuce

Deuce (as a producer, song writer) qualifies for a personal wikipedia article, I am confused as to why you are redirecting his page to Hollywood Undead's. I realise there are currently three pages on Deuce and I am trying to sort that out, there shall only be one page left within the next half hour. M4yo (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the requirements, as Aron did in fact PRODUCE swan songs, (an album of which went GOLD) he does qualify for his own page, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4yo (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Erlrichman himself to ensure that his wikipedia page was up, I spent quite some time doing it too! Is there anyway I can get the original template back (as you seem to have deleted it) so that I can put it up in a few weeks when Deuce's album is released, in which case he will definitely qualify with no false loopholes such as now. M4yo (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask what authority you have to threaten me with editing restrictions? I stress that I am not arguing against as such and simply want to get to the bottom of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4yo (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 1181 Syston Squadron ATC

Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 1181 Syston Squadron ATC, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GedUK  22:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Team

Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Richard Dixon Oldham

Is there any reason for dropping mention of Oldham's path-breaking observations on Archimedes' Stomachion in Nature in 1926 followed by his article in The New York Times that August, given (a) that these articles created quite a sensation at the time, but (b) they were completely overlooked in all the media hype, even in the NYT, of the more recent speculations of Revel Netz?

Well, I didn't have any sources on this contribution he made. If you know of some, do let me know. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What counts as sources for you? Are Oldham's own articles insufficient? You can look up the article in the issue of Nature for 21 March, 1926 online (maybe for a fee, depending on what access you have), but Roger Bilham has the article posted at his website.

What are you doing about the issue of Oldham's pioneering identification of the Earth's core? This was a remarkable achievement for someone who regarded himself as a geologist, not a seismologist. Sir Harold Jeffreys, who actually identified the core as molten, has an informative discussion of Oldham's work.

I have put these queries on your talk page, because they go to the heart of Wikipedia's policies on sources: your revision of this entry is retrograde in getting one of Oldham's major contributions wrong, even if that is a common error for which there are published sources, while eliminating another contribution in the face of Oldham's own publications.

Wikipedia is primarily based on third-party sources; we work on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". If you can link me to these sources, I can find them; a guy called "Roger Bilham" isn't too useful (I'm not a scientist, I'm a law nut - I just wrote this for my own amusement". Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Molten core?

Does Oldham really argue that the Earth has a molten core, or just that it has a core? Surely, the data available to Oldham was insufficiently refined to allow the inference that the core was specifically molten and that identification came later (as the previous version had it). Have you actually rechecked the 1906 paper to verify that it supports your assertion? If so, it would be helpful if that information could be included in the article, as otherwise it might seem that the article is rehashing a common, but mistaken view of Oldham's accomplishment that the previous version attempted to rebut.

You can find a wealth of information about Oldham at Roger Bilham's website; as you may be aware, Bilham is working on a biography of Oldham.

For you!

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} has given you a Hannukah gelt! May the chocolate fill you with warmth and love this holiday season, but don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/Hannukah2}} to your friends' talk pages.

Oy vey! Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Santa Santita

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A Discourse on the Study of the Law

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many GANs!

My goodness! I can't believe how many articles you posted to WP:GAN. Anyway, I took a look at one of the articles you nominated, Arbitration Act 1979, and it did pass the GA criteria. I hope to look at more soon. Minimac (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks dude! I'll try not to work so hard :P. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Roxana Briban

Hi, I would be interested in further expanding this article, if you could email me the information you mentioned when the article was up for deletion. Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you and yours...I think. Jack1956 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Blackstone

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC Help - Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher Article

Thanks for the help on IRC concerning Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher concerning the source for his DOB (date of birth). Feel free to ask for any feedback on the english wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

William Dolben (judge)

Hello, I've just reviewed your Did You Know nomination, and although the fact is verified, I think it may need revising - I've added a note underneath, so I'll perhaps check back tomorrow maybe? Thanks. Rob (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Giles Eyre

Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Justice of the King's Bench

Dravecky (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Dolben (judge)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bianca Lesquesne

Hi, there was an edit conflict with Bianca Lesquesne - you put a A7 on it while I was still searching for sources. In view of the delicate claims, I've blanked the page as a caution, although perhaps not a directly an attack page, there may be real people out there with the same name. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for letting me know! Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Senior Railcard GA

Hi Ironhands, you have quick failed Senior Railcard without creating a review page and explaining why. Some investigation eventually led me to the review for 16–25 Railcard, which is fine, but you still need to say why this particular article failed, even if it's just a case of copying the discussion from the other GA page. Cavie78 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd rather have withdrawn it rather than you failing it... Never mind. All Saints Church, Patcham should be in better nick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think Jonestown would stand a chance of GA (with fair use images removed) ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the Hands off our Forest page

What does the '2' you added after the reflist do? Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately the effect is not visible on Internet Explorer. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Wythens

Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of William Morton (judge) for deletion

The article William Morton (judge) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Morton (judge) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why are my edits most certainly not the normal pattern? Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Secret trusts in English law

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Secret trusts in English law you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 4 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Lord Roem (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment; you might have tried to customise your message :P. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

haha. Just saw this. ooooops. :P

Here's a better one below.

Your GA nomination of Secret trusts in English law

The article Secret trusts in English law you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Secret trusts in English law for things which need to be addressed. Lord Roem (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dong Xoai Review

Hi mate, Happy New Years to you, I would like to wish you (and your family) a joyous and safe holiday. Thanks for your review of my contribution to the Battle of Dong Xoai; I will implement your suggestions within the next few days

In a rush :P

I just saw you add the good article tag to the top of the page. You know there's a bot for that? :P Good job my friend! I look forward to seeing more articles about made-up areas of English law! :D Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha! No problem; look forward to seeing your reviews! And if you ever encounter a law article and go "that's rather shoddy and needs expanding!" I'd be more than happy to take a look. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you'd want to see this oddity ... I don't see anything here that indicates you knew about it. If you want to run, I'll cheer you on. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Knew about it, working on answers, but thanks! Ironholds (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm excited. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

I was tempted to oppose because you didn't tell me you were running, but thought better of it! ;) I think you'd make an excellent admin, my friend, so the very best of luck to you. If you need to vent, then my door is open. Happy new year, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too! Thank you very much for your support; it greatly reduced the nerves :). Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's important to keep a cool head in an RfA. You don't want to accidentally say something you don't mean, like magazines aren't reliable. ;) Good luck with the rest of your trial RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to wish you luck too. I have posed a question for you, but just wanted to say that I do want to support you if you can persuade me to overcome my meta-doubts. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support, partly because of your answer to my question, but also because of your responses to other questions. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• In reference to your question answer about this diff—it was Hubpages (now a redirect), not HubPages that you tagged. Hubpages was deleted three times before being redirected to HubPages. Ucucha 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that my perfectly innocent question at your RfA blew up in the way that it did, but c'est la vie. If this bid is successful then I'm pretty sure that you won't end up in my little black book.</joke> I tried it twice and vowed never again, so kudos to you for sheer persistence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's cool. I know you didn't mean to imply I was somehow a poor candidate. Hell, I consider any questioning of my abilities by you to be a compliment - you have such a low opinion of administrators in general that going "yes, Ironholds would fit right in!" would be deeply offensive. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  Gah. I tried to help with that situation, but but to no end. It reminded me of my four year old son who, when he doesn't get his way, strongly crosses his arms across his chest and releases a loud "Hmmph!" And then promptly runs to his room and shuts the door. Childish mess I should have avoided all together. Lara 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

This is just to inform you that, as part of my RFA support, I have threatened to physically assault you should your RFA succeed and then you prove to be a poor admin. I'm sure you understand that this measure is for the betterment of the project and, thus, won't protest to such an agreement. Good luck and kindest regards, Lara 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lara, I'm disappointed in you: assault is not a punishment usually supported in law, so it seems odd to suggest deploying it here. If Ironholds does surprise is all by turning out to be a poor admin, would it not be more appropriate to enforce a modest punishment from the range of those applied by the English courts, such as this or this or this? Obviously, such measures would be applied in a sincere spirit of WikiLove. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, while it pains me to know that I have disappointed you, I feel as though these three alternatives are too extreme. For the first, to what end? Until he admits he was wrong and apologizes, or until he suffocates? For the second, his hair is too pretty to chop off his head. And for the last, did you see the comically long and oddly erect penis in the lead image? I couldn't get past that to even consider subjecting Ironholds to such a fate. Lara 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that oversized penis is hideous, so we won't subject him to that. We'd probbaly just better stick to the humane form of peine fort et dur, where the weights are added quickly to minimise the suffering.

Howzat for moderate? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh! I don't know. Doesn't seem appropriate. Why go easy on him when we can make him suffer through torture? See, he once subjected me to tickle torture, specifically to my feet. As such, I think it would perhaps be appropriate to subject him to either foot roasting or foot whipping. Is this an acceptable alternative to the punch to the spine? Lara 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You slapped me; the tickle torture was justified. Also, foot roasting would make them nom-a-licious. Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your sequence of events if off! Lara 13:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I've already supported, so Q13 is only a bit of fun - you don't have to answer it. Just wanting to provoke a bit of philosophical debate... Robofish (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's cool! I like explaining things like that. There's an episode of The West Wing in which President Bartlett, an economics nerd, is asked to give an economics briefing; apparently the problem is that he's "a bit academic" and sounds like he's giving a lecture. Welcome to my answer :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats - the odds on your becoming the first (at worst, second) admin in over a month is close to the inverse value of the improbability engine used by Zaphod Beeblebrox in HHGTG! Collect (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully I didn't open it on a Thursday. I've never got the hang of Thursdays. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. The über-inclusionists have already taken aim, and more comments like this could lose you the he-seems-cute-vote. If you don't watch out, you might find your support ratio plummeting to a humilitaing 95%.

Not that your skinniness worries me, of course. You obviously need someone to cook for you ... ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a perfectly good cook! I can make rice and everything :P. Ironholds (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG, ilu. Lara 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the LSC v. Velazquez

I sent the email - not without realizing a mistake and sending a second time - and I must thank you for searching for those sources on your own time. Your help is much appreciated. :) -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

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

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rallye rim

The article Rallye rim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: WP:V, WP:PRODUCT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wcheck (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

William Blackstone GAN

Given that you seem likely to pass an RFA at last! I thought I would check for an open GAN (because you usually have one :P) and review it in celebration, which, surprise surprise, there was. For reference the review page is at Talk:William_Blackstone/GA1 and I hope to finish it within the week. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! I'll get on to it tomorrow mornin'. Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that didn't go as promised... still its less time than the GAN delay. Must look at this tomorrow. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool! Just poke me when you're done. Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Badgering

Sorry if that rant i just posted on your RFA was unwelcome, but the last time I came across our big time pal he was leading the attacks on FlyingToaster. Im sure you know what Im saying. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. I'm always okay with people complimenting my hair :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations Oliver, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's your t-shirt. Meet your cabal leader out back to learn the secret handshake and get your keys to the admin's lounge.

They say adminship is not a trophy. They're wrong. Here's yours. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations man. It's been a long time coming. No don't screw it up or Lara will hurt you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats! Well deserved :) AD 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Raise your glass to the first admin of 2011! Congrats, IH. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Congratuations! With some sort a record for supports, too. Now go get some food: we don't need skin-and-bones admins ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nicely done. Proud of you. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you all! I will send out proper thank-yous on Monday when I am not sleep deprived and subject to an emotional rollercoaster (not related to adminship, do not fear). Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Beeblerox is correct. If you fuck this up, it's going to get violent. Keep it together, you. And don't do anything I wouldn't do... or a lot of stuff I would for that matter! Lara 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Time for a toast. Lara

• Congratulations on your new adminship job! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oyez! Oyez! Make us proud, old man, and remember: you don't have to save the project single-handedly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a fine job. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congrats!!!! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Use the tools well and don't hesitate to ask for advice or support if you ever need it. --John (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratz, admin!!! =) Bejinhan talks 03:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Reyk _YO! 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Well done Ironholds. I hope to be able to congratulate you in person in February. CT Cooper · talk 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• About flamin' time :) Congratulations on earning the right to mop the halls. I trust that you won't let me down, and I echo Lara's comments - essentially, don't bugger this up! Well done. BarkingFish 13:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• I never congratulate anyone upon a successful RfA ;) Good work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congraturations. You are become a winnar. Quarter insert continue please. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations on becoming one of the untouchables, from a humble second-class editor. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sheridan (actor)

The deletion by you of this article per CSD A10 seems improper. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. Welcome to the admin ranks, this is what it is like. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion endorsed by the way, we already have an article on the same Thomas Sheridan, father of Richard Brinsley Sheridan so it was a duplicate of an existing topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You did forget to delete the talk page though, which is a typical noob admin thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

...oh FAIL. Mind grabbing it? Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Already  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankee! Oy vey, this does not bode well. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It bodes fine to me. You had a judgement to make, and you made the right one. You just did't press the button a second time, which is a detail easily fixed, and just the sort thing that comes as you learn how the tools work.

Good work, admin :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, Colonel Warden. You're a consistent one. Just as you did with his pre-admin actions during his RFA, you're now doing a fine job at pointing out his good judgment. Keep up the good work. You could be his official biographer! Lara 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's even worse than it looks. See my comments on CW's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Boggle. Just boggle boggle boggle boggle boggle boggle, cos you couldn't make this up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I did facepalm when I got the little orange bar "my first deletion was created by Colonel Warden? Talk about fulfilling stereotypes, shit." Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems there is a need to keep an eye on someone's edits. It's not Ironholds' edits, though. Lara 14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• (reply to Ironholds). Thanks for the offer to userfy the article. Please could you do this so that I can puzzle over the details of the Sheridans as I have an interest in other related articles such as Thomas Sheridan (divine). Trying out the userfication process will be more fresh admin experience and I encourage you to use it readily as it seems a good way of resolving matters of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is really no point in userfying. I already gave the COl. the ref he was using, the article was one sentence, and the same information is already in the lead of the existing article. There's no harm in it either I suppose, but there is no way it could ever be developed into a stand alone article because we already have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually, both CW and Ironholds misread the situation. A disam page was needed, and the person who did see things correctly and made the necessary moves and fixes to deal with it was BHG. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

congratulations!

Congratulations on receiving your secret code to the janitor's closet! Here are some words of wisdom passed down to me, when my mop was still shiny and sparkling new, by the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always make the wrong choice. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block button sparingly. Enjoy the eloquent insults and beautiful photographs of male genitalia you will receive absolutely free of charge when you do block. Remember when you make these errors that someone will be more than happy to point your faults out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. :-) KrakatoaKatie 05:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Craig (scholar) to Robert T. Craig

Thank you for moving the article according to standards. I was wondering if you might be able to rename it once again to "Robert T. Craig." I noticed in my research that is the name he uses in all of his publications. I appreciate the assistance.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ironholds. I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look at how I judged consensus for the recent move request I closed at Talk:The Hatter#Requested move (December 2010). Although I've been an admin for four and a half years I have closed relatively few moves, and this close has been challenged by a couple of people at my talk. Treat it as a post-RfA exercise if you like. Or, if you haven't time or inclination, feel free not to. We are volunteers after all. Best wishes in either case. --John (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernhard Weiß (musician)

Hi. Could you have a look at this. I removed your redirect as it causes circular linking. Thought it best to let you know :-)
Regards TINYMARK 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

True confessions: I just wrote this for my own amusement

I presume that you understand the danger that you represent to Wikipedia? http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/faculty/bilham.html http://cires.colorado.edu/people/bilham/ http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Oldham.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.31.18.69 (talk • contribs)

Er. No? If you have information, stick it in the article. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, there is no Cabal...

And you are not now part of it, and now that you are not a part of the Cabal that does not exist, I have not come to uncongratulate you. --Jayron32 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to get my morning coffee. Milk with no sugar please. You do realise that's the job of the newest admin? Before Lear's Fool gets promoted would be nice please. Congratulations. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like one or two spoons of Do It Yourself, Sir with that? :p Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that's the admin attitude :) --Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

fnord! LFaraone 03:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what, the Cabal got disbanded overnight? Shoot, I liked the cookies. bibliomaniac15 07:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shhhh. Quiet. --Jayron32 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

While I enjoyed congratulating you over a pint today, I feel I should add my official congratumulations on-wiki. ;) Have fun and let me know if I can be of any assistance—I think I've just about figured out what everything does now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaaay :D! AGK [•] 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations an' all the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah! About time! Well done, I know you'll be a fab addition to the hassled ranks :) GedUK  21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Thank you very much for your help on Marilyn Douala Bell article. I do have some difficulties with the templates and i would really appreciate help. i'm a little confused on which is the best template to use. thank you very much and best regards. --Iopensa (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:)

Daniel (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi :) Just a suggestion

Hi Ironholds. Just a suggestion. While blocking promo-usernames, you could also consider not enabling the autoblock. For example, in this case, you have enabled the autoblock, which will disallow the user from creating another new acceptable name from the same ip. Just thought I'll leave you a note. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh balls. I seem to have missed the unclick button! Time to go fix that. Thanks for letting me know. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay!

...on becoming an admin!

In other news, I've been busy with RL but will soon be incorporating more into the LSC v. Velazquez article with the stuff you sent me. Have a great year! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, same to you! Let me know if you need any help. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated congrats as well. Us admins who can actually write are too few and far between.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Us? Speak for yourself. Oh wait... GedUK  14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one welcome this new Admin overlord...

Thank you for your kind words during the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravure idol. I agree with your position on the state of discourse at AfD, (though I would like to state for the record that I did try to find more sources, and those that I did find did not strike me as reliable enough for a standalone article.) I commend you on your deliberative style, and your well thought-out closing statement. I only ask that you not get lazy over time, all too often admins tend to just declare the result and sign off. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to avoid laziness; one-word closes are sometimes acceptable, where it is an excessively clear decision. Ironholds (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lambton Mount

Hi, thanks for that. No I haven't heard of DYK before. I actually redirected this article from its original location Lambton L. Mount. It needs a bit of cleaning up, and more detail added to it. There is a good obituary for him at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/16795150. Lukeoz (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the info, good to know!! Lukeoz (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fleetwood John Pellew

I happily deleted this per A7 - I think WP:NOTDIR #2 Genealogical entries covers it - then had a qualm when I saw that you had deleted and then restored it, but was re-assured when I saw it was you that had tagged it A7. What gave you pause - did you just want a second pair of eyes? Welcome to admin-land, by the way! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I've never been entirely sure if admins are allowed to speedy things without it going through a tagger, and if so, what guidance there is (feel free to help me out) so I went "oops" and reverted. Ironholds (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant policy I know of is WP:DEL#Speedy deletion "Administrators can delete such pages on sight," so provided it meets the criterion you're covered. I hadn't thought about it until I became an admin and noticed pages in the CSD list which had been tagged by experienced admins like RHaworth. I realised they must be looking for a second pair of eyes, and thinking about it I decided that was a good idea except in really obvious cases with no shadow of doubt. I couldn't easily define that category, but examples would be attack pages, clear copyvios that I had detected myself, or immediate re-creation without improvement of something just deleted. It's probably the sort of issue where an attempt to define it exactly would not be productive - just ask yourself, am I 100% certain about this or would another view be a useful check? In the Pellew case, I don't think you could have been criticized for just zapping it, but I would have done as you did - tag for someone else to look at it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair nuff; brilliant! Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied

Why would Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied violate WP:DFTT? It's only a category. (But it still may show off how many socks Access, a once trusted contributor, has) Regardless of that fact, Access wants attention to his socks, probably not a category itself. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it have any practical purpose? Note "most indefinite block templates placed user pages in Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages from September 2006 until July 2010, whence they were routinely deleted after at least a month along with associated user pages." - the idea is that we should avoid noting the work of socks unless to do so is necessary to help fight them. Is there any reason to assume that this category is necessary? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the socks are mentioned in the SPI archive. Secondly, a CheckUser has already stated that nothing can technically be done about it, so the only thing we can do is follow RBI (revert, block, ignore), which basically make his sockpuppet categories unnecessary. As far as I know, sockpuppet categories should only be used for technical purposes (such as future CheckUser runs) and not for counting how many socks the sockpuppeteer has created. Filling a sockpuppet category with loads of accounts is a way to feed the trolls. HeyMid (contribs) 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ironholds. Your deletion of this category is an unacceptable out-of-process deletion. WP:DENY is not a CSD crterion. Please read the header information at WP:CSD. It is clear and direct for a reason. Out-of-process deletions are offensive to the spirit that this is a community run project. The out-of-process deletions of categories is further problematic because it encourages the unilateral emptying of categories after it is red-linked, a practice that spills over to the emptying of categories before listing at WP:CfD, or before their autodeletion as empty categories. Clearly, these practices need to be frowned upon.

Would you please undelete the category. I suggest that you then list it at WP:CfD to (1) seek formal agreement that the category is inappropriate; and (2) to demonstrate that you understand the correct process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are any number of such categories; they serve a purpose, especially for long-term abusers. ("Any number", alas, is defined as "as many sockmasters as we can identify at any given time". The number mostly only increases over time. Sometimes they are combined.) I have no opinion on whether or not this sockmaster is (or will become) a long-term abuser, but I agree that deletion of the category under CSD is out-of-process. If you feel it really merits deletion, I suppose a CfD discussion would be in order, but I would encourage you to self-revert this category deletion and avoid such a discussion.  Frank  |  talk  05:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• If consensus is that the tag removals were inappropriate, I'm willing to re-tag the socks. But we shouldn't attract users to create hundreds of socks; that's something that may feed the trolls and turn them into long-term abusers. HeyMid (contribs) 07:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• I apologise for my newbie error, and have now restored the category. If you lot wish to debate deleting it, do so, but not here; it would be inappropriate for me to get involved again. Ironholds (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remember that the next time you speedy delete a page and then restore it, don't forget to remove the speedy deletion notice. Could you also restore User:Wpeditmanbob2? Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 10:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Fail. Done, and done. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow. Less than a week and you've "offended the spirit of the community". ;) I think folks need to calm down, it's not as if he broke the wiki and there's almost nothing an admin can do that can't be swiftly undone by another. I wouldn't worry too much, mate, I think I was dragged (kicking and screaming, of course!) to ANI within a weeks or two of getting the bit. You're doing a great job from what I've seen, but it's only when you fuck up that people start to pay attention. ;) The only question is am I an admin because I'm a cynic or am I cynical because I'm an admin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ironholds undid a bad call and is to be thanked and congratulated. The thing probably should be deleted, but some of have have attachments to differing philosophies. Congratulations to my old friend on his recent promotion. I am sure he'll do well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Right result, good job, no harm done, case closed...thanks!  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the positive feedback on the John Robert de Laeter article and the minor edit. I will likely have more questions in the future. Thanks, Citrum quaerendae (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 11:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Counts of Dunois

I agree entirely, I intended with the name of "list" for further counts, but Wikipedia nor any source I could find listed any more counts of dunois past it's creation and subsequent merger. Perhaps it should be moved to "Counts of Dunois"--ForgottenHistory (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can go ahead and move it.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Thank you for the message.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth to all of you!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Perseus, Son of Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

--Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Organic lawns

Thanks for the compliment - I was expecting to receive severely rapped knuckles for my remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo (Paul) Benedetti from someone (but just got a mild implied reproof from Yopienso - who is a friend of mine here and elsewhere on the net even though we live so far apart as to be unlikely to ever meet). I find that being rude sometimes stirs people up into sorting a problem, and that at other times being coolly polite gets the opposition so mad they do something REALLY silly... I won't offer you a whisky, but please accept a glass of the virtual Calvados I shared with Athanaera at New Year, to celebrate 10 years of Wikipedia. (Heck - I've been here for a quarter of that now. Worrying...) (It wasn't virtual here... Nice.) Peridon (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's based on final salary, I think.... Peridon (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Same subject -- G4

So, next time I want to recreate a deleted article, all I need to do is change the name, and it's no longer G4-eligible? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this does not qualify for G4. It's the same article: a content fork out of the main shooting article that consensus is either ambivalent or against. It was deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was recreated. Ironholds, can you explain why you think it's different enough to justify a separate AfD discussion? SDY (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it treats the same subject, but it's not substantially identical -- it's much longer, for one thing. Also, as that AfD was speedy closed, I don't think it's appropriate to use it for the basis of a G4 deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It treats the same subject and has exactly the same intent, which is a sub-article that covers the wailing and gnashing that several users, myself included, think is content that is not appropriate for wikipedia. It's got more content, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no consensus for the split article to begin with, and creating the new subarticle is just an end-run around that lack of consensus. My expectation was that G4 existed to avoid people just ignoring the previous AfD decision when there is no change in consensus. Is that a misunderstanding? SDY (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a WP:BOLD move, and the deletion discussion is determining whether it was appropriate or not. However, WP:CSD#G4 is specific when stating "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version", which this isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So it is what I expected, but really more for just blatant copy-paste of a deleted page rather than new words that say the same thing. SDY (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• If it has content developments, it is not appropriate for G4. The tag clearly states that. Ironholds (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy does not, however. SDY (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy...This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". That's the policy, that's also in the tag. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed some changes to the wording of the policy to try and make that clearer. "Substantially identical" seems to apply as far as I'm concerned, since it's still the same article by intent even if all the words are different. SDY (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the policy was meant to be interpreted as "if it's the same subject, regardless of topic, delete it, even if it's got more content and different content and new content" that exception we're arguing over wouldn't need to exist. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The intent, as far as I can tell, is to avoid "broken record" deletion discussions where someone continuously posts the same non-speediable content to force repeated deletion discussions until they find someone who will close as keep (i.e. testing into compliance) as an abuse of the deletion process. Changing the arrangement of the deck chairs really shouldn't matter. SDY (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• It shouldn't, no, but adding extra lifeboats should. Anyhoo, the current consensus seems to be against you - I'll keep an eye on the proposed tweak. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglesey churches

Many thanks! My aims are to turn {{Anglesey churches}} into a sea of blue, and User:Bencherlite/Operation Anglesey into a sea of green GA icons. I'm rather enjoying it so far, but still have some way to go... Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem; need any help with sourcing, I've got full JSTOR access. Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GA for British Library Philatelic Collections

After focusing on this article at the BL editathon I'm thinking of getting it reviewed for GA (with the prospect of an additional BL curator review in parallel and review comments being used to target work and collaboration for further improvement). It's a bit inter-discipline so I was considering plonking it under Law mainly due to a lack of backlog in that topic as the main point of tax stamps is they implement tax legislation (the collections are not just postage stamps but all types of revenue stamp/impression). Any thoughts or other suggestions? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a stretch even most lawyers would baulk at! :P. Technically, a single element of stamps implements tax legislation, yes, but by the same standard, an article on the British Library should be there as well, since it's a legal entity under the British Library Act 1972; I don't think we'd stick it under law, however. I'd advise just shoving it under miscellaneous, or conferring with the other BL editathon peeps - they might have a better idea. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that it's a poor fit for most categories. I have asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#British Library Philatelic Collections as the GA regulars probably know better how to think through classification. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Divisional secretariat

See this link, which is on the bottom of the pages - it contains a list of divisional secretariats. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'll run AWB over the lot of 'em to make the switch tonight. Shouldn't take long. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure - always happy to flex my AWB muscles :-) . I won't be home until late, but barring unforseen computer issues, it shouldn't take more than fifteen minutes to fill the bill. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dorset Sprinter close

Good for you; far fewer admins than should rule for policy over headcount.  RGTraynor  18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; that's what I'm attempting to counter. Normally I spend a paragraph lambasting people for not leaving proper rationales (and drop a note on the talkpage of anyone who gives a particularly good one) but that might get rather tiresome rather fast. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

While I absolutely support your intentions, I'm not convinced that AfD was the best place to start. The !votes that you say were disregarded for not being based on policy both cited notability guidelines as a reason to keep in addition to the emotional arguments, even the IP. Add that EEng's delete !vote isn't based on policy, and that the nomination statement sounds a lot like the examples at WP:Not notable, and I can't see a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The nomination statement includes "does not pass WP:COMPANY", which is a valid rationale; however, if you have a problem with my close, feel free to take it to DRV (and let me know, of course). Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If I thought there was any chance of it being overturned, I would. But closes like this follow the same pattern at DRV: three users say endorse as "within admin discretion"; one says endorse as "standing up to inclusionist fanboys"; three say overturn as "closed against consensus"; two or three of the AfD participants !vote the same way as they did there. If the closing admin finds the overturns unconvicing, it gets closed "no consensus to overturn"; otherwise, it gets relisted, where everyone who endorsed !votes delete and it gets closed in accordance with them. Far better just to wait about three months and recreate after the inevitable Buses Magazine coverage takes it so far beyond G4 and WP:CORP that no-one challenges it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, never been there :P. When you're up for recreating it in a format which won't raise eyebrows, let me know - I have access to LexisNexis and a few other places, and can scurry around looking for sources for you. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article update

Hey Ironholds! I know you are busy with your new admin cabal activities...but when you have a chance, I would love to get your feedback on the current status of my article (Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

After a peer review, I have now nominated it for GA-status!! :D -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review request

Hi. Can you review Sholay? Its sort of the Citizen Kane of Bollywood...Not my article but I saw a request for it as part of the indian cinema group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

re: irc

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_reactions_to_the_Giffords_assassination_attempt Thanks! And congrats on your new adminship- I'm pretty sure I've run into you before and thought you were already an admin! I bet you get that a lot. Best, l'aquatique[talk] 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)