This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ironholds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Our standard for notability for companies can be found here. To break it down; you need to provide multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources (books, journals, reputable news orgs) that cover Crypto Street in substantive detail. So, at the moment we have:
Two internal links to other Wikipedia pages. A couple of things to note here; the first is that we can't really cite Wikipedia articles (we don't consider ourselves a reliable source). The second is that a company merely being founded by people involved in another, notable organisation does not create notability.
A LinkedIn profile; this is self-authored, so not independent.
A crunchbase article. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source, but it doesn't seem to discuss Crypto Street.
WHOIS records; these are primary sources and don't prove anything except that the company exists, really :/.
A link to the official website (which isn't independent).
What I'd recommend is searching for news coverage of the organisation; occasions on which there have been fairly substantive coverage of the company (so, an article that covers them in detail is fine. An article that mentions them once, probably not). The standard is 'multiple', or, to put it another way, 'two'. Hopefully that helps :). Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please actually look at this article and tell me which one of the provided links constitutes a reliable source. The norwegian Wikipedia articles? The facebook page? Or the links to the homepages of various websites, some which belong to the subject himself--Jac16888Talk19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Having looked over that article history, I'd say it's time for you to go to AfD rather than user talk pages. AfD is designed for settling these sorts of disputes. LadyofShalott20:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, the BLPPROD still applies. I wouldn't call any of the links provided a source at all, but even if you were to argue otherwise they were added after the blpprod and therefore need to be considered reliable to allow the blpprod to be removed, which clearly none of them are.--Jac16888Talk20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
They are not good references, but clearly there is disagreement - from highly experienced editors - that the BLPPROD is applicable. What's the point of arguing about it here when we have a perfectly adequate place to discuss articles over which there is disagreement on whether or not they meet our criteria? LadyofShalott20:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Or more likely two editors saw links and didn't look to see if they actually were reliable references. I see no reason to waste anybodies time by taking this to AFD and keep this self-promotional unsourced fluff piece for at least another week--Jac16888Talk21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Jac, I'm not going to address your comment simply because I refuse to indulge users who turn up with assumptions of bad faith. Come back and ask again when you can do so politely, and we can have a conversation about this. Ironholds (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not assume bad faith, I assumed that you failed to actually check the links that were added, was I wrong? Anyway fine, I've the restored Blpprod as incorrectly declined--Jac16888Talk22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
If you think there's a distinguishing line between assuming incompetence and assuming bad faith....well, that's your prerogative. I'd suggest trying to approach situations with a bit more tact in future, however; in my experience people tend to listen to you go "you're wrong!" more when you don't open with a set of sarcastic and rhetorical questions. Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand my question; why is my presence required? Or, how do I have any interest in the debate? Are you asking for me to examine it as a random editor, as an administrator....? Ironholds (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but, warning in advance, I may not have the background to be able to make a judgment call that's any good :). Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ironholds. The consensus seemed pretty strong here regarding applying the COI template to the Talk page of articles about organizations (starting with a trial). Jimmy Wales even proposed a template just like it here:
"I'd like to see every company article and biography article tagged with a very simple "If you are the subject of this article, or in some way work for the subject of this article, and you think it needs to be improved CLICK HERE and follow these steps." And the steps should be super easy."
And it got support from both sides of the COI debate. The problem I'm having is to get someone to actually apply the tags. My bot request was ignored/archived and folks I talk to don't know how to get BOT work done. Do you know how to get it moved forward? Seems like a no-brainer to me. CorporateM (Talk) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I joined the BAG IRC channel and will see if I can get someone to help there. If the template works out and I can find a technical person to help, I would love to setup a wizard for it like they have at AfC someday. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Velocette MAC (WD) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Billy Hathorn
Hi, courtesy note, I've just unblocked User:Billy Hathorn. It is a pragmatic unblock: The block was impossible to enforce since he has access to numerous huge and busy ranges, trying to revert and delete everything had no effect, and since he is absurdly active this will at least allow to check whether there are further problems. Moonriddengirl spot-checked a few of his more recent articles and no problems jumped out, so I think this is the least uncomfortable way forward. :/ Cheers, Amalthea20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
See the contributions for User:Cypresslogs391. There is the same inadequate sourcing. The article Rush Wimberly is sourced to USgenwebs , but the actual source is the book copied there. This is the same problem as before,. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are users blocked?
Hi!
If you want to do your analysis on data from the Danish-language Wikipedia, I will be happy to help with translating block rationales. --Palnatoke (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds really fun! Do you want to drop me an email so that I can send through the logs, for example? ironholdsgmail.com :). Ironholds (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am starting to write an article on the Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802.. Exciting, I know! I noticed your work on Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and my partner (Worm That Turned) suggested that I ask you to review it for me User:Staceydolxx/sandbox. I haven't finished it yet.. obviously. But I wondered if you could help me with places I might be able to find a copy of the Act. I can find lots of places where people talk about it being rare to find; but can't find a copy of it! I have emailed my library but they have been slow in replying.
Hey; pleasure to meet you :). this appears to be a copy, although I can't validate it, unfortunately. So, in terms of retrieving the legislation, I normally have two failsafes:
Has the legislation formally been repealed? If not, it'll be in Halsbury's Laws of England.
If it has; one alternative, if you've got the time, is to go down to Parliament; they maintain a lot of rare and obscure pieces of legislation. For my thesis I had to review a piece of legislation written in gvoernment Latin in the early 17th century; involved a fun trip to the law library :).
I'm happy to take a look at the article itself, too; would you like me to try and hunt around for a few more sources, too? Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me =) I think Dave just found me a link to the full version of the Act here. So I am going to try to use that to fill in the Contents of the Act bit. Also, I have found a full copy of the recommendations from Dr. Percival; I'm not sure how much detail I should go into on this?
London is a bit far to just pop in! But thanks for that advice; we might use that as an excuse for a trip in future!
If you can find some more sources that would be great. I think this Act is very significant but there doesn't seem to be vast amount written about it; there is lots on the 1819 Factory Act which seems to get mixed with this one.
I'll see what I can get :). Ah, yes, the Statutes at Large! Grand resource. So, I tend to go into a lot of detail as to recommendations that lead to legislation; see Statute of Anne, for example (although that's, ah. Rare, in terms of statute articles).
So, I've found three journal articles that discuss the legislation - two in the context of industrial law, one in its impact and prominence as a shift in jurisdictional thinking of the state. If you drop me an email so I've got a working address for you I can send them over. Happy to review the article itself when you're comfortable with it. Additionally I found reference to books - The Early Factory Legislation (Maurice W. Thomas) and A History of Factory Legislation (B. L. Hutchins, A. Harrison, Sidney Webb) which seem to cover it - I don't have access to the books myself, but they're both pre-1950s, which in my experience usually means you can find a dirt-cheap second hand copy via the medium of googling (see this, for example! A steal at, ah. 12 pence.) Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hope you noticed.. Article got to DYK! Yay! Thanks for your help! - P.S. I will be back to ask for your help in the future :P Staceydolxx (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your use of WikiLove is appreciated and is good for "employee morale". I was reviewing my old ones, and saw one that you gave to me when I was still a frustrated newbie, and it really made a difference for me. I see you pop up on my watchlist rather frequently awarding wiki-love, so I award you the first ever (that I'm aware of) Barnstar Barnstar. GoPhightins!02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Aww! Thanks so much :). It's always good, I think, to go around encouraging the good as well as mitigating the bad; I try to spend some time every couple of weeks thanking people. Glad to know it's helped :). Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh stop, you
Well, I'm glad some people have drawn benefit from those articles. It actually started when I was researching topics in related fields...I was citing the same authors so much that I figured they should pass the WP:GNG at that point, given their contributions. And thank you for the monitoring you're doing here on the Encyclopedia, adminship seems like a very time-consuming, tedious yet necessary task. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense :). FAC is kind of an..unfriendly..environment some of the time. I often put things up for GA first just to give an opportunity for copyediting and reduce the quibbles at FAC. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for the Original Barn Star, and such an encouraging citation.Best regards to you too.Chhandama (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Adventure: Text Mockup (feedback welcome!)
Hi TWA folks!
It's been a long time since we worked on The Wikipedia Adventure together, but this spring I proposed the game for an Individual Engagement Grant and it was accepted :)
I spent the last two months refining the script and getting ready to build the game using Guided tours. I am working with an amazing designer and getting expert curation tips from the Grant program leader.
I'd love to have your feedback on it, before I get started with the build. I would love it if you would leave any thoughts, tips, comments, recommendations, suggestions, ideas, or concerns, at WP:TWA/Feedback.
Wow, thank you very much for the honor. *bows* I have always been particularly enthralled with historical weather events, and I have even done extensive research on historic tornadoes in Saint Petersburg, Florida, and other Florida cities. I have the books Tornado: Nature's Ultimate Windstorm and Significant Tornadoes: 1680-1991 in my home library, along with some 400+ microfiched newspapers—well, more accurately, 400+ images of microfiched newspapers on my flash drive(s)—covering old weather events. I have always been irritated that so much information that is available in local historical societies and library archives is not general public knowledge, so I have been making an effort, properly and exhaustively sourced whenever possible, to both add new content on tornadoes to Wikipedia and to correct the many errors, improper citation formats, false claims, etc. in available articles. Anyway, I am glad to be of service as time permits. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Glad to have you here! I totally appreciate the mentality; I got into legal history research and writing primarily because of my frustrations in the same way :). Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Ironholds, thanks for rethinking your oppose on Kumioko's RfA; I was thinking of asking you to do that myself. Whatever issues with Kumioko there are, they're taking a beating there already, and I'd hate to see more piled on. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
For the barnstar. Always nice to know an admin appreciates one's contributions especially on these obscure but worthwhile articles. Thanks also for autoreviewer rights. - Fantr (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I just saw in my Notifications that you reviewed the articles Near 3 kpc Arm and Far 3 kpc Arm, but I can't seem to be able to find these reviews. Were they good, were they bad? Should I be able to see comments from you somewhere regarding these reviews? Cheers. Gaba(talk)01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It just means I checked them as part of new page patrol; no comments means no problems :). They're lovely articles, actually - brilliantly referenced and very self-contained. Thanks for writing them :). Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the article and providing your comments that it needs to cover more viewpoints. As the primary author of the article, I wanted to know if you had any suggestions for non-fringe views on consumer arbitration that are not adequately addressed in the article as well as suggestions on incorporating those points of view in the article. (I went into writing the article intending to cover all aspects of consumer arbitration and not be a POV trainwreck that many of our other arbitration articles sadly are at the present.) Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t02:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, let me start by saying I think it's a great article - fantastically referenced, neutral, not dry enough to cause drowsiness (and that's a difficult thing with articles about arbitration!) The primary issue is that it's very US-centric (I was trying to find the worldview template, but couldn't). As an article on Consumer arbitration in the United States it would be fantastic; as an article on consumer arbitration generally, it's not generalised enough. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
... for my first barnstar in over nine years! Much appreciated. But I regret to say I'm very far from a legal eagle. Not even a legal sparrow. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you A7'ed this a while back...I'm surprised that no one has brought this up, but that site was, at one time, one of the biggest music websites in the English-speaking world, a serious competitor to MySpace. This is attested to by a number of news articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). If these weren't present in the deleted article I'd be happy to add them to a restored copy. Do you think you could take another look at this one? Chubbles (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the recent posts, I have doubts that there are some misunderstanding. I was actually talking "in favour of" and "to attempt to help" Darkness Shines. This has been further clarified at my talk page! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Qworty question
Not questioning your decisions — I don't see any point in leaving talk page access for someone who's community banned for something like this. I'm simply confused why you revoked talk page access afterward; was it this, or something else? Talkback please. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Because it is standard practise for banned users (see the ban/block distinctions table). By definition the revocation on those grounds was done after, rather than before, he was banned. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Back in April 2009 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. I see that it has been deleted at AfD before, but that was six years ago, and the closing admin said "No prejudice against re-creation", so I don't think it's a G4 case. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the Ray Burggraf page, and lend some advice about how to further conduct the cleanup you requested about a week ago? After consulting other articles for reference, and the suggestions on the Talk page, I believe I have removed all potentially COI prose in good faith. As an editor with a personal (unpaid, familial) bias for the subject, however, I would like to check and make sure this is the case. I would be grateful for any additional input you may have to offer. Thanks!Global Microscope (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So, the key problem appears to be a distinction between voices. By that I mean that Wikipedia is ultimately an aggregation of other sources; while we can make statements of fact in our own voice, we cannot make statements of opinion in the same way - so, we can say that "Burgraff has been described as having 'technical mastery over the translation of Florida's ecosystem into forms, colors, spaces and light'" - if it's a direct quote - but not say it as if Wikipedia is verifying his mastery. That's not our role. I'd suggest as a primary task putting statements of opinon into their proper context, rather than phrasing them as statements that we think he has [positive attribute or skill]. Other than that it looks largely fine; I'm happy to go through again after you've made these tweaks, if you want :). Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see what you mean. Happy to fix it...or at least try. I'll dig back through those references and let you know when the re-write is complete. I'd be very grateful if you'd take a second look. Thanks so much!!Global Microscope (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem! I'm very grateful for the article :). Let me know when you've dug through, and I'll make a second pass. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. If you get the chance, would you mind taking a look at the latest version of the "Ray Burggraf" article, and let me know if it's on the right track? (My eyes are starting to swim with edits!)Global Microscope (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks fantastic! Only one tweak I can see, which is we usually don't include credentials (Order of Canada, for example) in-line in articles. Otherwise, great work :). Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination) as Delete. Most of the delete !votes had argued that the article consisted of original research or synthesis because there were no criteria specified for what entities would belong on the list. However, during the deletion discussion, I suggested that it would be easy enough to craft such a description, and the nominator suggested that he or she would consider withdrawing the nomination if I succeeded in doing so. I had intended to follow up on this, but didn't have a chance in the short time that remained before you closed the discussion as delete. What do you think would be the best way for me to proceed? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to restore the article in your userspace to give you the time to work on it, if that would work for you? I appreciate your day-job and arbwerk are hardly low-intensity :). Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If you look at a diff link or a history page, you'll see 'thanks' next to 'undo'. Brand-new feature as part of Echo, which I'm involved with in my professional capacity, and I decided to take it for a spin. Seems to work really well for the use case, which is "people making minor, helpful edits that don't justify something big like a barnstar" - I really like it, and really appreciated your edit :). Ironholds (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I finally got Persondata to work on my machine again and took it for a spin. It had been broken for the longest time, but new hardware and settings fixed the problem it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
We got off on the wrong foot and I took a big part of the blame and apologized to you. You made an offer to continue the conversation on your page which I took as an intention from your side to help me further to pinpoint the problem as you apparently disagreed with comments made at the technical village pump. I'm no professional at all when it comes to programming and (especially) Java Scripts unlike you, who seem to be knowledgeable in this matter according to your user page. So I ask you again and for the last time (that's a promise), Can you and are you willing to help me solving the problem or not? As a starter, a simple yes or no would be sufficient. Thanks for any response, either way,TMCk (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Heck, I'm not a professional at programming either :). My line is "I'm not a programmer, I'm a coder. Programmers know what they're doing".
In regards to the bug; if you are genuinely convinced it is a problem with MediaWiki, I would suggest adding an entry to Bugzilla. If you're not sure how to, I am happy to do it for you; just say the word :). Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I prefer civilized conversation where one helps out another. Problems are mounting (have a further problem by now with ECHO, one I didn't have when it was implemented). My time, just as yours, I guess, is limited and right now there are other issues I'd rather spend my limited time, at issues that are present now and belated input would be senseless/useless. So far I'll rather live with present technical problems as they don't "run away" (unless of course they get fixed w/o any input from my side.) But if not, I'll gladly take on your offer in the future. As from your comment I take that you're familiar on how and where to address technical issues and thus I'm sure you'll be able to direct any or most technical problems I encounter to the right place. Thanks so far, TMCk (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, yes. So far I'm genuinely convinced the problem is not on my side. Let's find out if I'm right at a later time.TMCk (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Although it's kinda late (night), I have some spare time on my own will, so to say, and thought I tell you about the further problem I occurred today. Maybe you can forward it to the approbate venue or advise me about. The ECHO works fine by now when it comes to talk page notifications, but today I got a notification (got a red #) which wasn't about my talk page but, as I found out after much searching, I was mentioned at ANI by someone. Now besides that I wasn't informed about the thread (which I should've by the rules), the notification is still there after visiting ANI. When ECHO started I was able to click on the notification tab, could see the notifications and after that they were gone. Now nothing pops up when I click/double click this tab and I'm stuck with a red notice. Problem is of course that if I'm not able to access and purge those notices the number will keep adding up with me not knowing what actually is going on. I checked my preferences and saw that despite me removing all but talk page notices, 2 more were added by default. My thought is that what ever "they're" switching has something to do not with me having java script enabled on my PC but with "them" kinda making it mandatory to use the latest Java there is. Like I said earlier, I'm not an expert at all in this matter. Do you have a clue about what might go on or where and how I should address this issue? Sure, I probably can find this out on my but it would take much of my time which I could spend much more constructive on and off WP. Appreciated for any input and help you can give me.TMCk (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Waiting several days, it seems like I was right in the first place about you and you had no intention to help but only to smash an editor who disagreed with your COI POV. I leave the rest to your imagination.
And don't bother me again as you've already waisted plenty of my time for nothing but your excuses I shouldn't have believe in the first place.TMCk (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed your last message (which was, yes, 2 days ago...well, 1 day ago, technically, it's not 5am yet); I got a ping that I had some talkpage messages, came here and assumed Stacey's edit below (which created a new section) was the thing I was being pinged for.
In reply to your request, I am happy to stick the bug(s) in bugzilla if you do not want to, but I would suggest you create an account too so you can follow the conversation over there. What I will need is:
Your operating system and browser (and browser version number);
Any screenshots you might have;
A concise description of the bug(s).
For reference, a simple "hey, you haven't replied" tends to work a lot better than "don't shit me again". I expect you to, in our future exchanges (and your future exchanges with anyone else) see a modicum of good faith demonstrated by you, as well as a modicum of civility. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your reply. With the "old" notification system" the problem you're pointing out wouldn't have happened (I had to say this :) ). I do assume good faith after your response and will work on getting the info together. And of course, if I don't get a response after a few days I'll reming you just as you said ;) Thanks,TMCk (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it would still have happened, and regularly did. And, yes, you assumed good faith after my response. Assuming good faith is "in the absence of information, assume the other person is well-intentioned" not "with information that the other person is well-intentioned, assume they are well-intentioned". That would not be an assumption, that would be an informed opinion. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No need to argue on old or new problems and pass on any kind of blame to anyone. Just let me thank you for being willing to help me out here.
Previously, (in regards to other ECHO problems I posted a lot but was just lucky that someone with more knowledge than myself posted the bug I was encountering myself at Bugzilla. I opened an account there but still couldn't make much out of it besides watching until finally the bug was resolved.)
So here are my (by now) 2 problems and the information you asked for:
Latest problem: Since I was mentioned at some page with my user link I have a red info square displaying the # 1. When ECHO was introduced I was able to click or double click that square, see the notification(s) and than they were back to zero. When I click or double click now it doesn't pop up and is inaccessible so to say. Maybe something implemented later and not compatible with an older version of java? Just a clueless thought. I might add that talk page notices which have the addition of the small orangebar were still working (clickable) while this new bug appeared.
The first and still persisting problem: When editing a page, wiki-mark-ups (by now rarely) show up and instead I just get the copy-and-paste version. This happens to any pages no matter how fast or slow they load and I do not get a time-out or similar. Even a page that loads rather quickly might or might not give me the clickable wiki mark-ups. I'd posted this problem at the time at the technical village pump here were I pointed out that I have the same problem on my laptop which BTW is in no way connected to my main PC besides being connected to the same DSL router.
I've presented screen-shots for this at the village pump, (I had to use image shack since I have another problem uploading to WP but that I'm not concerned of right now): copy-paste screen and screen with wiki mark-ups enabled.
Technical data you asked me for:
-I have IE 8 in use on my PC as well as my laptop (the latter I usually don't use for editing WP but used to check if the same problems I have on my PC appear as well. Since if they do, I rule out my PC being the actual problem.)
-Both computers run on windows XP; PC on SP 2 and laptop on SP 3
I'm much appreciated for you trying to help me out with this and if you need any further info or any other kind of input from my side just let me know here and I'll respond as soon as I can.
PS: Will give you a kind notice this time if there is no response from you within a couple of days ;) TMCk (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Little update: Right after I saved this post I checked again at my laptop and managed to open and nullify the red notification. Thought that might help.TMCk (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, this explains the problem, then; IE8 is not a fully supported browser. I would strongly suggest upgrading to a newer version of IE, or alternately using one of the open alternatives, such as Firefox or Chrome. All of the problems look like they're JavaScript related (I would note that the wikimarkup edit-tools are actually maintained by volunteers from enwiki, not by the WMF developers). Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Request
some one is (POV pushing, dubious edits, deleting the montage, and unexplained edit summaries) the page Andhra Pradesh, ur intervention is required or kindly report the issue to administrator Murrallli (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am an administrator. Talk through the edits with the user in question, and do so with politeness; discussion is the first port of call in any dispute. Ironholds (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! Sorry for the late response but I took some time off for a while. Also thank you for taking the time to review what Ive done and promoting me. It means a lot. Hope all is well and happy Wikifying.
Thanks for my first barnstar. You know I was easily fed. A cheeseburger, a barnstar, I'll take them all Z22 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Back again!
Hello,
Thanks to your super duper help last time; I thought I would come a pick your brains again! I have just written Police protection provisions article and I need a bit of help with it. I have listed a few things on the talk page that I'm not sure about.
Its not as interesting as the last article; and if you can't be bothered with it, I won't be offended =) Though if any of your page watchers fancy giving me a hand that's also very welcome! =)
Looks great! I'm afraid I can't find any additional sourcing for expansion or covering the pre-Childrens Act stuff, doing a cursory search :(. The title definitely works for me, and my mind is blank on images, but it's before my morning coffee, so I'll take a second pass later :). Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments =) I have put in a bit of background about previous police powers dating back to an Act in 1889 so that will have to do for now. The title was all I could think to put it as without making it a lot longer to explain its part of section 46 of the Children Act 1989 in the UK.. I presumed as there wasn't a previous article with this name it will be okay. I've no idea for images but if you think of anything; let me know! Thanks again, ツStacey (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Treaty of Compiègne (867) reference question
Hi Oliver- I saw your "unreferenced" tag on the above article and wanted to ask your advice. I translated the article from a stub on fr wp. Do you know if there's a preferred way to note that on a page without it being a big template at the top? Maybe simply a Source section with a link to the fr article, or a link in References? I found Template:French_Wikipedia -- do you know if those are typically used? Didn't see any guidance re this topic on Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thanks in advance for any pointers. Erictalk13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Later note: I tried adding that interwiki fr translation template and tentatively removed the unreferenced tag. Please revert the removal if you think it should remain, ok? Erictalk15:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem! So, there's no preferred mechanism I'm aware of - it's worth noting that we cannot use Wikipedia as a citation because Wikipedia is fundamentally not a reliable source. What you've done (incorporate the citations as well as the text) is probably the best way to handle it :). Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! By the way, a bot came by and moved the template to the talk page, which I can see a rationale for, but am not convinced is the best implementation. Erictalk12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Consensus when no two participants pick the same value
I'm intrigued by your comment at the KW block duration thread. I'm posting here, rather than there, because I am more interested in the generic issue, than the specific KW issue. I want to explore the possibility that one can have consensus even if everyone who responded picked a different value.To give an extreme example, suppose ten people responded with 100 days, 101 days...109 days. I don't think any closing admin would have any trouble closing with a block length of 105 days.
That obviously isn't the situation here, and it is tainted by the large number of indefs, which I would like to prohibit, but that's another discussion. I think that if everyone were willing to commit to a time certain, even if all those values differed, we could consider some ways to identify a consensus. The arithmetic average is not such an answer, if there are three values, 1, 5, and 75, then 27 is the average, but is not really a good choice. A better option might be the geometric mean (7.2) or the Harmonic mean(2.5) or even the geometric–harmonic mean, which I haven't calculated.
A more likely candidate is a median. Half the respondents wanted more, half less.
There's also the mode, but it could have some odd results.
It is also intriguing because there aren't many situation where math (beyond trivial counting) makes much sense in a determination of consensus. Afd, and Rfa, are largely binary, the results is either keep or not, promote or not. Consensus on wording may have more than two options, but they aren't numeric in the sense that one can pick something in between. A block length is naturally conducive to such a calculation, and not much else.--SPhilbrick(Talk)22:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Or truncated mean, or.... :P. There are a lot of different ways we could count it, but I'd argue you're missing a human factor here, which is that our decision-making process is ultimately dependent on admins or others to close discussions, which means any calculation needs to factor in how they weigh the arguments (difficult, mathematically) and also rely on them doing the groundwork in calculating [value]. That's not, unfortunately, something that can be relied on :/. I agree it's a wider discussion; I actually had similar thoughts around the current main page-related RfC, and was thinking of writing something up about it. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I miss the human element - I didn't mention it because it is usually the only thing. If I implied that I want to use math as a substitute, absolutely not. I'm not on board with "any calculation needs to factor in how they weigh the arguments". I'd go the other way around. If there is some math to be applied, which is rare, but exists ant he case of proposed block lengths, I'd apply the math first, then use that as one element of a review of the other factors. While I work in a field where we have to convert all subjective human actions to simple numbers, and I earn my living do it, I don't advocate trying that here, the typical admin doesn't have that sort of training, and it would be too challenging. I just thought it was interesting that one aspect of our needs for consensus was amenable to some math.--SPhilbrick(Talk)00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Aha; gotcha :). (you're a stats-monkey in real life? high-five!). I'm not sure what the solution here is, if there is one; what I'd really, really like to see is a shift to more formalised, boolean decision-making. Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin(talk)19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Ironholds. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ihardlythinkso
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Thank you for the barnstar! As for the username, I've got a particular interest in FAL's obviously, but some of those old bolt guns like the SMLEs and others catch my interest as well. They're nice shooters, and you gotta admire the history behind them. Have a nice day!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I shall! And, agreed. I was taught to shoot on a Lee Enfield and had to pick one up when I had an opportunity. The FAL was simultaneously too late and too early for me :). Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Court of Chancery
Dear Ironholds, Thanks for writing to me regarding the footnoting style of my recent contribution (new section) to Court of Chancery. To be honest, although academically qualified, I'm not fully up to the game - and also quite exhausted from the busiest two weeks of this year so far, professionally speaking - with the current Wikipedia format of footnotes. I am therefore inclined to take up your kind offer to step in and beautify those two notes. Incidentally, are you an Administrator? I ask because, as someone who's done alot of editing and contributing in the past few years, but completely lacking the techno- and "corporate" experience to become an Admin, it is always nice to know one or two, especially in the odd edit war. Thanks again for your vigilance, and for bringing the footnotes up to the mark.FClef (talk)00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead, weave away. I gave it a subsection because that would respond nicely to Web searches, and also be highly identifiable within the article, which is quite dense. It is a very important, and somewhat discrete (not "discreet" . . .), point, bearing on the history of the language. But it occurs to me that if you keep the copy intact and get the chronology right, the words will still be there. Thanks for care. FClef (talk)11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Leon Pape, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. scope_creep 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the memories
...sings the ancient song of the ancient Royal Navy (and also Sinatra). I'm very interested to the Falklands War, and I made this article in it.wiki a Featured Article. This story is indeed fascinating, and there is indeed more than I wrote there, about the SBS boarding party and fears of the argentine intelligence officer aboard. If you need a collaboration on maritime and war articles, ring me, please, but for now thank you for the Barnstar. --Pigr8Melius esse quam videri14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello... I noticed your tag placed on this page, but I am not quite sure why or which part(s) you feel are written in a "fan-style". Would you mind clarifying exactly which part(s) of the article appear to be fan-biased vs. purely informational? I'll be glad to re-word anything that is not written objectively-- I just cannot pinpoint any such bias, myself. Any examples would be a great help. Thanks! ChinchX (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article. The Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do. SilkTork✔Tea time12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Ping
Hello, Ironholds. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Threats from blocked IP
Just an update. He jumped IP and continued. "We will also be launching an Operation against Wikipedia for being libel-mongers and will test the capabilities of your staff, system, and personal lives. That, my friend, is a promise!"[6]. It gets better all the time Yintan 21:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh lord :/. If they do try anything and anything stretches into real-world uglies, in whatever form, my alter-ego can probably help contact the pertinent staffers. JFYI. I can't promise they can do anything but better than nuthin'. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I think we're dealing with some 14 year old script kiddie who thinks he's quite the Anonymous Hacker. I really can't take this seriously. Yintan 23:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Me neither; his "I'm not threatening you! I'm just saying if you don't do what I want I'll sue you!" amused me greatly. Ironholds (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys, you're not dealing with a '14 year old script kiddie', the person threatening you is (Redacted) from 'STOPhaus' a serious group of spammers who hate Spamhaus and have vandalized this same Wikipedia page many times before and is the same person who made the edits to the Spamhaus "CyberBunker dispute and DDoS attack" section. That section should be reverted to 19:42, 19 June 2013 (Trivialist) really the last correct version. The current version calls Spamhaus "Terrorists" and claims various illegal activities invented by this 'STOPhaus' guy. Cheers FirenzeNove FirenzeNove (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If they act like a child then it's really not relevant to us whether they are one or not. I've redacted the name of the person you believe it to be, per WP:BLP and because we don't need to know who it is because we don't care. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No Man Is an Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 26 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Command by negation, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the military doctrine of command by negation, developed by the United States Navy in the 1980s, is similar to the Auftragstaktik doctrine used by German armed forces in the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Command by negation. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.
Hi Oliver,
I'm not sure that this is where I should be trying to reply to you - but here goes. Though I believed that the term 'intend' was explained in "Make a Signal" by Jack Broome but, on checking, the reference to it that I was expecting is absent. I'll check other sources. If I can't unearth it then I'll remove my amendment.Peter R Hastings (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I just happened to reach User:BlueLupine's userpage where I saw a barnstar from you for "a fantastic article" Rachana Shah. It then went through two AfDs[7][8] to be deleted with BlueLupine's seeming acquiescence. Could a merge with Timbuctoo (novel) keeping a redirect have been possible? I can't see any of this, of course. You weren't involved in any of the discussions but I thought you might be well-placed to judge. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Jc and Oliver: I want to get to work on preparing a new RfC designed to deal with the problem that we're losing active admins faster than we're making new ones ... so the new RfC may or may not deal with tool use in general. Wikipedians seem to me to react to PC2 as if it's some kind of tool, so PC2 may or may not be part of the discussion. Are either of you interested in being closers in the new RfC? Would you like for me to put off even discussion about a new RfC until you two are ready to say something about the PC2 RfC? - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
At the moment I'm waiting on JC. I'd rather wait - I don't think PC/2 is in any way related to adminship since other than the reviewer right it has no impact on them. Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I really don't know how I managed to get the article unreviewed. Certainly didn't do it intentionally. I think it's probably something to do with adding a tag using the editing tools available in Firefox. Could be part of the process to unreview it, or it could be a bug in one of the scripts. scope_creep (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Help please
Hi, I'm having a helluva time trying to solve a thing in my sandbox. It's a wikitable. I needa make rows (when applicable) for the Genre and IG sections (I used this ---- instead). I have tried everything, reading, copying, help:sorting, but to no avail. Can you please point me in the right direction, maybe helping me find somebody to do it ? Thanks a billion ! KrenakaroreTK22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's true that you have made the "only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter." about Kiefer Wolfowitz (I have no interest whatsoever in going on IRC myself, but the reports that you said this seem reliable), then you are very lucky that this channel is technically off-wiki. Some "jokes" are in such incredibly poor taste and so offensive that they are bound to get a very negative reaction when the subject hears them.
From WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks: "Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases."
Since the subject of your remark is not able to reply on the IRC channel, he made the wrong decision and replied on-wiki with an unacceptable but understandable reply. As could be predicted, he received a long block while you came of without even a warning (at least here, who knows what has been said on IRC or elsewhere), strengthening the belief that some editors have more rights than others and that admins are free to do as they please. To correct this a bit, I have unblocked him and issue this warning here. Further similar remarks, even when on IRC, will get you blocked for personal attacks. Fram (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine by me, although I disagree with your interpretation of the off-wiki attacks section; the crucial phrase is "aggravating factors". It's acceptable for us to say "X is behaving inappropriately on-wiki" and then use off-wiki examples of inappropriate behaviour as additional evidence pointing to a systemic problem. I disagree that off-wiki actions can (in and of themselves) constitute grounds for such a block, although personally I believe they should. I would note that, contrary to your initial statement, I am not a functionary (to my knowledge, anyway. Did I get the OS bits when not paying attention?) There are complicating factors here I'm happy to discuss via email, although I suspect that posting them here is likely to merely continue and accelerate this dispute. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
While I'm here, I protected your page since it seemed like a coordinated sock attack was going on. Might have been an overreaction on my part, if so, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I see you're more on the side of administrator evaluation of a request instead of arbitrary judgement based on a figure, which I quite value! In addition you're somebody I have a deep seated respect for from your extended work here on en. I was wondering if you would consider the increasing quality of my articles and evaluate if I should be given such a flag.
Full disclosure, I'm not sure which outcome I expect, but any feedback you provide, positive or negative, will surely help me to grow as an editor! :)
@The Illusive Man: okay, so I've reviewed your articles. My thinking can be summarised on "probably not right now, but looking good!" There are a couple of things that lead me to the first part of this conclusion.
First; yep, your articles are looking great - but there aren't many of them :(. Note that I'm basing this primarily off direct creations - if you've got substantive contributions to articles that existed before you fixed them up, let me know :). I'd like to see more examples before I feel comfortable handing over the right.
Second, and this doesn't directly factor into my decision, but just hints from one content contributor to another - if I look at Archaeology South-East (Company) for example, there's no lead. The first section is a perfectly good one, but you'll need to remove the header :). My only other thoughts are "bare URLs! Noooooooooooo" and a couple of proposed referencing tweaks. For example, if you use the Reflist template instead of a references tag, you can divide the references up unto columns (which is nice). You might also want to look at the formatted cite templates, like Template:Cite Web, which you can use to handle things like italics and handling access dates automatically. If you click on the icon in the toolbar that looks like a matched set of parentheses, that automatically drops out the pertinent templates :).
So, long story short; not right now, but great process and great articles. If you've got other contributions for me to review and factor in, bring them forward - and if not, I'm happy to reconsider when you do. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike Eagle: Holy milhist, Batman! ;). Good to see a contributor in this field - I write some bits and pieces myself, although they're mostly a bit further back in the past. A fair number of articles according to the labs tool, and I see from your userpage there are several excellent ones that don't register according to the software. Consider the right granted :). Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This deserves better than just the little heart from the notifications toolbar. I'm pleasantly surprised ... when I saw it was coming from you I thought it was for my TemplateData edits. Guess I should do some more of them ...
Heh; those edits are much appreciated too :). It's a great article, and your help with TemplateData's rollout has been more than welcome. I'm not going to be in HK, I'm afraid - I was fully intending to, but a family wedding got in the way :/. Thinking about it I should probably tell the organisers. Oops. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Ehrmagawd, your pointers on my article creation were fabulous! Thank you so much, I will use this to bolster my existing articles and tailor all new articles to these points!
A true example of an editor going waaaay out of their way to help a total stranger, and improving the Wiki in the process! Cheers! TIM(Contact)/(Contribs)03:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, and I don't mind waiting an extra week or two on this one if necessary. It's clearly close. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to screw with expectations, I've now completed the tweaks ;). (couldn't sleep). I hope they work for you. As an aside, because I couldn't find the appropriate place to note it in the GAN; I've removed the image, since I'm probably not competent to assess Australian copyright law as it relates to that of the United States. Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you remember having spoken to me on IRC several months ago, but I brought up our past conversation on the Arbitration requests page. Kurtis(talk)04:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Not particularly; actually it's kinda amusing (particularly with regards to Zelda. I've had to deal with the admins over there, and this explains how they always turn up in a group). Anyway; no problems at my end. My apologies for the troll thing; as I recall, I'd spent the past 40 minutes being WHOIS- and PM-spammed :/. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, it's fine. No worries. I'd be scrounging for the nearest beer myself if I had to deal with that horseshit. -_-
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the people on Zelda Wiki are cliquish. I still edit there sometimes, but the secrecy in which everything is conducted really puts me off. And people think Wikipedia is run by a small group of people...
Well, to confess something to you...Secretly Wikipedia is run by a small group of people. 40,000, to be precise, which on the grand scale is tiny. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
