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.
Good day, sir! Thank you for the notice of deletion regarding my article. I will improve it as much as I can. Thank you for noticing my lack of references and the notability of my article. Good day. clai (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!
The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.
Hello Ironholds,
Please do not delete this entry. I have removed the word proposed. This legislation has taken an important step in a huge issue. It represents a bi-partisan compromise merging several others pieces into one that will now move forward. It was voted out of committee; while the text is still "young", it is bi-partisan language that has been worked on over the past year.
Sure, but it's also not legislation; it's proposed legislation that has, according to the source you proposed, a 3% chance of passing. WP:CRYSTALBALL would seem to apply here. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
I was tempted to send you the copyedit barnstar, but that might not be appropriate, so here's a beer instead! Nettrom (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi sir from last two days am trying to create a page of our radio fm named Malayali FM... internet radio station working from USA but many times the page got deleted basically dont know the reason they telling about copyright reasons but we hav all copyrights please help on this..thank you lijuLijuvj19 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You might have all the copyright, but we don't ;). Wikipedia is an openly-licensed encyclopedia: content published here must also be openly licensed. My advice would be to contact our volunteer support team at info-en@wikimedia.org and let them know that you want to release your content under an open license, and ask what you need to provide to confirm it.
Please be aware, however, that our open license will mean that anyone can reuse your content, at any time, for any purpose, not just Wikipedia. You should bear this in mind before donating it. --Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Mihku Paul fan tag
Thank you for flagging the entry on Mihku Paul as not-neutral in tone. I have tried to clean up the language, adding an additional scholarly reference, and wonder if you'd be willing to take another look.Ssenier (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@Galhalee: totally! I'm sort of...overwhelmed with work at the moment, but would it be okay if I worked on it this weekend? I'll try to leave explanatory edit summaries for my tweaks so you can see what's going on :). --Ironholds (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ironholds: Sounds excellent! I've already noticed some editors touching it up so I'm less fearful that it will languish in a dusty forgotten corner. I welcome your input as well. Feedback on the talk page especially. Galhalee (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Look forward to see you at Berkeley today!
Hi there. Thanks for signing up for the WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon at Berkeley that is happening today. I look forward to seeing you! We have changed the on-campus venue due to the response we've had, via Wikipedia and Facebook. Please take a look at the event page. If you get this message too late, we'll have a sign on the door of the former location directing you to the new one, which is only a short walk. See you then! SarahStierch (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Twinkle automated message - it was generated as you were the first editor to post on that person's talk page so you are technically the "article creator". -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:-) 130,000 children goes missing every year. It is obviously not a hoax, some have estimated up to 230,000 as well.[1] But whole page doesn't contain any word like "kidnap" or "kidnapping". So probably it wouldn't need be needed to mention. OccultZone (Talk) 18:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say hoax, I just said it wasn't a reliable source. 'Going missing' and 'missing reports' and 'kidnapping' are all very different things; you're talking 230,000 reports, some of which may be duplicates, of a child missing for any length of time in any circumstance. That could be kidnapping, sure, or it could be 'got lost at the shops' or it could be 'ran away from home'. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds, it's me again :)
I just finished a new article, can you help me to check my grammars? I've tried better this time, and i also use some English references, i hope it will be much easier to check than the last Sanghyang Adi Buddha. Sorry for bother you :( but thank you very much for your attention :) My best regards Okkisafire (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting; I do not understand why it jumps back and forth so much :/. For example, it's mentioned in two different places that the statue might have been considered ruined and only kept because destroying an image of the Buddha was inappropriate. Why twice? --Ironholds (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
wiki for Wm Davy SL needed?
Hi Ironholds, hope you're well. Thanks for creating the page about William Sharp McKechnie a few months ago. :)
Interestingly, a counsel in Somerset v Stewart, William Davy SL, isn't on wiki yet, and I was wondering if you thought that he was worthy of notice. wikisource has 'Davy, William (d.1780) (DNB00)' , and I wonder if this will suffice to be copied wholesale.
Thanks ironholds, you are a star. One thing baffles me, though: the decision in Somerset was handed down in June 1772. Your reference has Davy died "one year later, in 1780". Hope you agree with my para changes. I'll think about adding the DNB00 stuff to leaven the wiki with humour. I'm amazed that you found Wise and on Sunday. You must have access to a photographic memory, and a large library!66.225.161.37 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, my bad; Wise deceived me with ambiguous sentence structure :). I have a...strange. library; four biographies of Mansfield next to a pair of books on the Assize Courts next to a history of the Exchequer...and so on for another 300 books. Ironholds (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
strange indeed, in the sense of wondrous I would think. Can the holder of such a tool refrain for much longer from praxis? Hope you find my recent edits acceptable. 66.225.161.37 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Louise Noun - still peacocking?
Hi Ironholds,
I noticed you flagged the Louise Noun article for peacocking back in March of this year. I have rewritten most of the article to try to avoid this, but I'm still a little new to Wikipedia so I wasn't sure if I was able to remove the tag. If possible, could you take a look at the page and see if there is still evidence of peacocking? Any help would be much appreciated!
@UIKaren: it looks much better :). My only remaining concern is the sentence "However, Noun was firmly committed to her feminist principles and strove to further the cause of women through her art collection." - This could do with a citation, and I'd rephrase it as "Noun, however, remained committed to a women's only art gallery, citing her feminist principles" or something. Ironholds (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
My editor review
After making a complaint at AnI that I was being harassed, I voluntarily agreed to seek an editor review of my contributions to Wikipedia a month ago. The review has been lengthy but now seems to have ground to a halt and I would like it to be closed, a request I made to Casliber here. He was involved in the review and we are looking for an uninvolved person to make a concluding statement and wind up the review.
So why I am approaching you? Well, you are a respected member of the Wikipedia community, are a content creator and are interested in the law and wildlife. I view the role of closing my review as one where the evidence is evaluated and a conclusion is reached. To this end, I created a section in the review called "Examining the evidence" where I attempted to sum up what had been stated during the review. One person (Fram) disputed one of my statements but otherwise nobody else has queried them. Would you be prepared to close the review? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to help, but it's really not my area, I'm afraid :(. I can recommend some decent admins, if that would help? Ironholds (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might be your area because it does not involve actually reviewing my articles, but instead involves weighing up the points made by the different participants and coming to a conclusion. However, if you don't fancy it, any suggestions of the names of people who might take it on would be useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Keyes, I have a question and I don't know anybody else who might be able to answer. Is there a tool that would allow us to see articles which appear in a high number of different language Wikipedias, but not here on English Wikipedia? I just realized that there is no English version of the article about Polandball, and it got me thinking that maybe there are other topics out there which have articles in, like, twenty different languages but not in English. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
PolandBall is a hot topic around here sometimes ;p. That's a really good question! It sounds like something Wikidata would be able to help with - I wonder if User:Magnus Manske has built anything... Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally do not understand what the tag tries to say by please provide third party references while the notability tag say please provide secondary sources. Which ones should I provide? Plus, I think the user who placed the tag did it in error, like, don't we need to mention why they are notable? I relied on journals since the academics don't appear anywhere but there. And since when did the journals become sources that are too closely associated with the subject?--Mishae (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"Both". So, third-party means "not associated with the subject"; secondary means "not an original document". Journal articles are definitely secondary sources (they've been peer-reviewed), but not third-party. And I'd imagine the reason they are too closely associated with the subject would be that he wrote all of them ;p. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well he wrote them in association with other professors. Like, he is the main author, but worked with many co-authors. So, in your opinion, will this article be deleted? Because I wasted two straight days on a what suppose to be a notable academic, yet, the tag says that it fails notability guideline for academics? Like, honestly, what should be an h-index for physicists in order for them to be included into Wikipedia?--Mishae (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not about h-index, it's about coverage by other people. That's the fundamental rule of Wikipedia: can you show coverage by other, reliable sources? Journal articles where he is the primary author do not qualify: it doesn't matter that there were other authors, the fact of the matter is that he is primarily responsible for the content, meaning that it is not third-party, and that the content is not actually about him, meaning that it doesn't really qualify as coverage, either. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, how do I find coverage on academics? O.K. I substituted wrote with published, does it makes a difference?--Mishae (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Substituted where and in what context? And, I don't know. Has he won any notable awards you can find, for example? Does google provide nothing? his CV suggests CNN and others may have discussed some of his research. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No, CNN sadly didn't have anything, they have info on another person who have same last name: Aleksandr Gorshkov (figure skater), and that's it. So, that's the best that I can do here, I guess. As far as CV goes, someone mentioned to me that we can't rely on it.--Mishae (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We can't; I was suggesting you look at the "press" section for pointers to places that have discussed his work. Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, like conferences, but all the refs called it meetings, don't know why though. As a side note, I didn't found him being mentioned on the National Science Foundation, like 2 of his group members got it, but it wasn't him. And the other minor awards are not notable to us (Wikipedians) here.--Mishae (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The opening, primary presentation of the conference which he was invited to do by the conference organisers. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, under meetings section I created three subsections, can you see if they are notable? To be honest, this is the first academic who's secondary sources mention of some conferences. Usually I find such stuff in CV but nowhere else...--Mishae (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
User Animalparty have removed the meetings sections saying that its CV??? I got them from secondary sources to be honest, so brought it back. Can you please peak at their notability before he will remove them again? Like, I understand that maybe they are notable, but considering that I used secondary sources, maybe they are?--Mishae (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The removal was justified; three different sections covering meetings? Look, just write a brief biographical section that includes a sentence on places where he's been asked to speak/present/whatever. --Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
that's better. I'm still wary about the sheer size of the article, though; frankly I don't think there's inclusion-worthy information that would cover more than the lead paragraph. Extensive documentation of every paper he's ever written is unnecessary. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance that you could look over at least the part of the above article that deals with him being an English barrister? Since you seem to be the go to guy on historical usages of his era, I would mention that I am a bit worried about him receiving a patent of precedence, as opposed to becoming Q.C. other ways. I'd like the usage to be proper. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
While I'm not aware of this specific individual, patents of precedence were actually how QCs came to be in the 19th century (although the first one, for Francis Bacon, was much earlier); it gave them the run-around on the Serjeants-at-Law. So it seems like a plausible way for him to get the status. --Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI. I think this is actually a really good idea because getting practical usage and feedback on features from experienced editors before wide deployment was relatively well-executed back during the Curation Tool rollout, and has been missing IMHO from some recent feature development projects since then. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the two most active hosts at the Teahouse, let me emphasize that the Teahouse is a place for totally new editors, and experienced editors are there to answer beginner's questions. The Teahouse interface is working reasonably well right now, and I oppose using that project for beta testing of anything that isn't already thoroughly debugged. Instead, I suggest places frequented mostly by experienced editors (ANI perhaps) and not intended specifically for newcomers. If FLOW is embraced by experienced editors elsewhere, bring it to the Teahouse then. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
+1 The Teahouse user interface is different enough from regular talk pages as it is now. Let's not confuse new editors further with a UI which is completely different. --NeilNtalk to me05:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, my goal was not to canvass or split a debate onto Ironholds's page. I saw the potential for a "lessons learned" from the page curation tool. I suggest discussion about whether there is consensus to actually implement Flow at the Teahouse stay at WT:Teahouse, and I apologize for catalyzing the confusion here. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you think Charles Pinney (see DNB00 entry) is worthy? He was the Mayor of Bristol, and tried for failure to act in the Bristol Riots of 1831. An interesting record exists in State Trials (New Series) vol 3.
Ooh, thanks for the addition! Yeah, I think the Opinion and the general rule would both make interesting articles. I'll try to work on Pinney. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Something I've always wanted to do myself was collaborate on bringing an article of interested to featured article quality with another editor. I have fond memories of working with Viriditas on Loihi Seamount, my first major contribution to Wikipedia, and with his coaching me, utter inexperience and all, through a difficult multiple-FAC review process. I created and widely advertised a workgroup for a topic of interest of mine in the hopes of attracting collaborative editing, but at ends it was still almost entirely an individual process and I ran out of steam halfway through rewriting the last gasp, Mauna Loa. For a collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia too often feels like a giant pie—everyone has their own little content box, and when in it they are the king. Speaking of which, there's another slice of your editor retention problem (is that still a thing? been a while). I for one am loath to go back and deal with the stresses and vote-scraping troubles of FAC noms alone, which is largely why I guttered Kīlauea's forward momentum at GA, though it had a pretty good shot at FA.
Aha; gotcha! I'm probably not the best person to think about this right now, simply because I'm traveling (3 week long circumnavigation of the US) but if you poke me in mid-July I'll try to get my head back in the game :). Ironholds (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). I noticed you participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you please re-instate my rollback responsibilities? I don't know if you even remember, but about 2 years ago you removed them after I made a revert and referred to it as vandalism. I got the message and made apologies etc., and you invited me to re-apply for rollback the very next day. I just got around to doing that because I want to get back into anti-vandalism and half the scripts won't work without the rollback feature. I've been a Wikipedian going on eight years now, I've been working in account creation and trusted with personal information, so I hope you can find your way to trust me with rollback responsibilities. I promise that I won't make such an error again. Seriously. I've already pledged not even to use it unless I'm on vandal patrol anyway. Please? --Sue Rangell✍ ✉22:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember; I can't reinstate them directly (no longer an admin) but I can at least provide my thoughts to the people handling the request, and will do so now. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't talked to you for a long time, but now I need you the most. You see, one of the users in The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones article re inserted http parameters for archives, which the consensus have voted against of using per internet protocol. The discussion, which is more then couple of months old, I can't find, and in case of edit war I need to provide him it. I clearly remember that it was this year and that it was somewhere in April, but I didn't made a comment so it didn't saved. I also remember that the discussion was about whether we as Wikipedians should use http or https on sites like YouTube and Web Archive, and the result was that http parameters should go because the site will still direct you to either one. Can you help me find this discussion? I'm thanking you in advance.--Mishae (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember, I'm afraid, but I think it was on the Village Pump (technical) if that helps with searching. Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Deadurl
For a while, I was archiving refs, but only now realized that I also need to add deadurl parameter to them. However, I don't see much change in the articles, which makes me wonder if its a good tool to use or not? If it is, what does it do? P.S. I have read the template:Cite web description of it, and I am still confused. nWould like you to elaborate on it. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So, in your opinion its not worth it. Then I will remove it from every article that I have added in the past. Silly me.--Mishae (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying remove it, I'm saying 'I don't know how it works, but this other parameter is what I always use' :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, its me again. I'm now in an edit war with an anonymous user. He partially revers my edits because he thinks that The Huffington Post is an RS and my spacing removals. I already edited three times and I even opened a discussion on the article's talkpage. I also, put a message on his talkpage with no response. As an editor who knows me for a long time here, can you please intervene! Like, I am feeling that I might get blocked. :( Here is his talkpage: User talk:109.76.254.114--Mishae (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the Post can be a reliable source depending on what bit of it you're using. If it is an opinion piece, it's not a reliable source. If it's an actual news article, those are usually wire reports and so pretty reliable.
This particular source appears to be exactly that; a wire report. It's a reliable source (how are they going to get award nominees wrong out of some political bias?!). I'm also confused by the removal of spaces: as the IP notes, they're used pretty much everywhere else and they make the source code of an article more readable.
Yes, you opened a discussion. After the IP had suggested it, and after you had reverted multiple times. And you used that discussion to, it seems, suggest that feedback or styling from anonymous users is somehow not as valid as feedback from registered ones. Wikipedia was built, in the early days, by anonymous users. Many anonymous users are just as experienced or more experienced than registered ones, it's just not immediately apparent because their contributions are distributed over multiple IPs. Whether this IP is experienced or inexperienced, they are right, and I am disappointed that you would revert so many times before considering opening an actual dialogue. I would strongly suggest that you restore the IP's changes and, in the future, avoid assuming that just because someone is not registered they don't know what they're doing. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
National Alliance on Mental Illness Page
I saw in the review log you deleted quite a bit from the National Alliance on Mental Illness page suggesting it was spam. While I agree the page wasn't very good, I'd hate for my work to be deleted a year later. I'm a volunteer at NAMI, but I hate how hard it is to find any serious info about the organization itself so I wanted to help fix that. Could you take a quick look at the page and edits I've made to determine if they're wikipedia appropriate? I was just trying to make a good wikipage, but now am starting to question if someone else might view it as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domdom8D (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Calcutt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands. 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.
Hi, we have not talked in about a month! So, I was wondering if you can check the above article's synopsis for cohesion and/or tone. I talked to another editor and he said that its fine, but I am just seeking a second opinion from an experienced copy editor (not that the other user was not). P.S. I'm surprised that neither you or the other user (OccultZone) are members of the Guild of Copy Editors team? It doesn't mean that I will trust someone less though, but it will be an honor if you will have a will to put your name on a list. Like, you deserve no less then anyone else.--Mishae (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, shouldn't a lead be longer not shorter? Usually for start articles the leads are 2-3 sentences, don't you think? The reason why I asked is that it looked to me a bit weird that the first and last sentence don't go hand-in-hand despite talking of the same. Like, the last one elaborates on the first one, but through a long list of important-to-the-story activities. Like, our readers might get confused about what the story is about even though that all of it is related. In fact, as I read the book itself, I realized that the court proceedings are a huge component of a book, so I minimized so that the reader can understand the basics. Perhaps a change in style would be appropriate? Like, setting it up so that the sentences will go after each other (that's what I have trouble with)? I hope you understand what I mean, if not, I will be happy to explain it in more detail, even though that I think that the last sentence of my message summarizes my question perfectly.--Mishae (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
They should be longer but not contradictory. The previous version had it set simultaneously in the First World War and the 19th century. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, she runs away from her husband in 1915 but there is a part in a book which slightly mentions of her life between 1896 and 1916, like her memories. But I guess, its not an important part for our readers to read about either way, plus its only one chapter of her memories, comparing with the rest of the 269 pages.--Mishae (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I will give you a list of locations:
Abyssinian hospital, the chapter is called Marne, 1916
London, 1916
Camiers, 1915
and last but not least Thrupp, New Hampshire, 1896-1916; following by court preceding chapters from 1917 to 1930.
The later is a bit confusing since the place doesn't even exist as a separate Wikipedia article, which implies that the author is either talking about a village (which is a part of a bigger city of the Great State of New Hampshire), or she is talking about something that was renamed after 1915.--Mishae (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Big in Japan Combating Systemic Bias Through Mobile Editing. Wikimania 2014
Hi Ironholds, very interesting presentation! WRT to mobile feedback, the mobile team is not really providing easy feedback channels.
A mailinglist for feedback, seriously?
See also T67078, no feedback channel for beta features.
Or T63737, just refusing to listen, after an editor has made repeated efforts to find a feedback channel (and although the accidental-thanks issue has already been widely discussed and fixed for desktop).
Or look at the mobile teams mobile-upload garbage flood: That took a year of copyvios and months of begging at bugzilla with the mobile team refusing to stop this, T64598.
And one more example, that really irks me: The mobile team has decided to place editor names at the top of articles and link them to their user page - well not their user page but a "userprofile" constructed by the mobile team, which editors can't edit. This "userprofile" shows one image, as if this was your avatar or profile image. But it is not, it's just your last image upload and if your last image upload was a Hitler photo, that is what your userprofile is, thanks to the mobile team. Below the image is shown "Thanked by (user:Y)", as if we are facebook, with friends and likes. This is blatantly violating the objective of the "thank"-notification, and the explanations given when this feature was introduced: "When the thank link is clicked, the recipient will receive a notification with your thanks via the Echo extension. The thank message is only viewable by the recipient. No record of the action or message are displayed publicly." mw:Extension:Thanks. But the mobile team just doesn't care, they knowingly ignore this, see T58818.
Most things seem to work via mailing lists, at least in part. I directed people to mailing lists because those are the primary venues for having conversations, and because the disparity I was highlighting is a disparity in new contributors. Sending an email is easier than editing talk pages - well, somewhat. Mailing lists are still horrific, but a different kind of horrific ;p. Obviously this isn't the sole feedback venue, but it was the one easiest encapsulated; full URLs are much more difficult to remember, write down, manually type in, and so on.
WRT the mobile team: I would say that, on one side, I have had some very frustrating experiences trying to get changes there, even as a staffer (the 'blank emails to OTRS problem' was really hurting our workflows for a while'), but on the other they have a lot of work to do and a lot of code to write - they're not a particularly big team for the task they've been given (our entire site, for >=25% of pageviews) and so I can understand having too many priorities and tasks and features to juggle. I would say that as a former community liaison I think seeing "you don't give a shit about feedback, or about editors", would certainly make me less likely to engage, however. It's worth bearing in mind: the attitude people bring when they present issues has a marked impact on how seriously those issues are treated, because staffers are people too. They're subject to the same foibles as humans - an understandable lack of incentive to help those who are insulting them - and should be subject to the same respect.
I don't actually work with the mobile team on editing; this was a project I worked on in my spare time because I thought it was worth highlighting - that mobile efforts seem to be failing to attract a wider base of contributors. I do engage with mobile but it's around reader data and behavioral patterns rather than editor. So I can comment on the specific research, and I can comment on the state of readership (generally or on mobile), but the attitude of the mobile team around feedback and their processes for making changes is not an area of expertise, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! TerryAlex (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for making a mistake, I reverted it because I initially thought it was a "section blanking". You're right, those words cannot just be copy and paste, they need to be rewritten. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. --TerryAlex (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to hand, I'm afraid; I got rid of a lot of my books when I moved. My thing-with-the-most-sources-on is Lord Erskine, whose article I'm in the middle of a (slow, because work) rewrite of :). But I can check JSTOR if you're interested in improving the article? Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds, I notice that no page exists for Henry St Clair Feilden, author of the 1882 work "A short constitutional history of England". It might be interesting to note him in wiki for posterity. Do you have any reference material on him? 66.186.93.25 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Good question! I don't, but I can take a look this evening and see if I can write something up. Thanks for the suggestion! Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Having taken said look, I can't really find any biographical material :/. He has a two-line entry in an Oxford biographical dictionary but that's about it. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It's too bad that you couldn't find anything. I wonder if the work is notable, even though you couldn't find much about the author? (It's cited seven times, so it would be easy to de-orphan.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Query archiving
What's your opinion on using query based archiving? I have seen it on Tokyo ESP and decided to do the same with Chili Davis. Is it O.K. to do it? Like, I don't see it being practiced a lot which indicates it became obsolete. Plus, there was no discussion on the template's talkpage as of November 2013: {{Query web archive}}.--Mishae (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
So, should I revert my changes, or I should ask someone else about it? If I should ask someone, who will that be?---Mishae (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfamiliar with it also extends to "not knowing who would know about it", I'm afraid ;p. Leave the changes in, someone will revert them if they are a problem. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Then my other question weather I should continue with it? Like, it have some benefits (such as in case if a link will go dead in one archive, there is a chance it will be alive in the other) but it also just lists the link in 4 different archives which maybe not what Wikipedia wants. But, how do I know I am just an editor like all of you.:) By the way, maybe you know if there is a specific Village Pump discussion that I can ask this at?--Mishae (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, already did. There is no problem, but its better to be cautious especially with things that are not used often. If people at Village Pump will O.K. it, then I will continue querying. I just want to be on the safe side before continuing otherwise I might get in trouble. :)--Mishae (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that I pinged you there, I thought that without you it wont resolve, but for the first time in my Wikipedia editing career, it did. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco
The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I give up. I really don't get it. I don't think I've ever seen an AN/I discussion be closed, re-opened, and rushed to be re-closed again in my life. This seriously makes me ill. Dusti*Let's talk!*03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an explanation for it myself; discussion was very clearly ongoing. @Kww: any thoughts on opening the ArbCom case request, particularly given GW's note? Ironholds (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of the social dynamics seems rather curious. Like his being defended on the grounds he was provoked. Rather ironic in considering how provoking he can be. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't actually interacted with the user in question much. I think "HE WAS PROVOKED" is fairly commonly invoked in defence of people who are strong content contributors and also overly rude, because...well, what other justification can you provide? "Oh, threats to life and limb are how he says hello. He's a bit eccentric, don't mind him. FAC, anyone?". Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
He was definitely trying to provoke me. In the course of a long controversy where both of us were warned that going to ANI would result in sanctions he commented here: "You don't like my method? Take me to WP:ANI. You'll lose." (Right) And when I complained he had derailed discussion of some content issues he said here: "If you think that I am intimidating you then that is a behavioural issue and it would be entirely appropriate for you to take me to WP:ANI with a complaint. Bluff. Called?" Hardly a collegial attitude. He is so full of himself that when someone opposes him it is to be expected that matters might spiral out of control. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Copy editing
Hi, can you copy edit this article for me: Columbine High School protests. Note: the article was proposed for deletion because of three Denver Post refs at the time which implied on WP not news. I removed it, and expanded a bit, but I still need your help in making the article coherent. I hope nobody will object to the current version of the article with 2 refs from The Guardian and many other local to Denver news channels and newspapers.--Mishae (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Ironholds. I hope the City on the Bay is treating you well. You helped me a couple of years back by referring me to someone who was active in GA review. I have three newly nominated GAs (Catie Ball, Tracy Caulkins, Nicole Haislett) that are relatively clean and should require only a moderate amount of work to comply and be promoted. All three subjects are American swimmers who were Olympic gold medalists, so there also should be a certain commonality of subject matter and regarding potential GA comments. Know anyone who might be interested in taking on this little package-deal project? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm currently over on the east coast :). Hmn; good question. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, I'm afraid :/. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to, but work is hectic at the moment :(. Every time you see the announcement of some quarterly review on wikimedia-l, there's about a 60% chance that I was tasked with doing the data analysis that was presented in it, and that's...a big timesink. I'm just about finding time to occasionally twiddle my current draft and, on occasion, sleep. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Understood: that pesky day job gets in the way. BTW, what are you doing in Massachusetts? I thought all of the WMF's ops were in San Francisco . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
They are, but working remotely isn't problematic (I hope. I mean, I did it for two years) and the environment in SF was driving down my will to live. I did a road trip around the US (28 states, 8,000 miles, 19 days) and of all the places I went, Boston was the most computing-friendly place that actually wanted to build things rather than monetize them. It also has a lot of good schools and interesting researchers, and a lot of people I know :). Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Boston is well known as the highest concentration of quality graduate schools in North America (if not the planet). I thought you might have returned for another degree; sounds like you're keeping that option open. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
yeah, that was a consideration; I don't know if I'm going to do a PhD (I seem to be publishing enough without one), but I'd like to be able to without relocating several thousand miles. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So, you've gone native in Massachusetts, eh? Well, you should blend relatively well in Boston -- they talk funny, and they're practically foreigners. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Ironholds, after your (legitimate) revert I added a source and a citation. What's the problem with them? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No @Ironholds:, I think that the problem was mine, since I reverted you to recover the text, but I failed to write a comment to explain the revert (it was 6 o`clock in the morning, and I was still sleeping... :-))) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Gophering
Since you know some foundation people, is it possible you know a human being with a subscription to the SF Chronicle? I'm trying to find 2 articles in their archives but they don't appear to syndicate them to Highbeam/Questia/whatever (I may be wrong about that) however subscribers can access archived articles for free. In a semi-ironic turn of events I know someone who has the November 1991 issue of Analog in their basement but not (yet) anyone who subscribes to the paper of record in a major US metropolitan area. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
2 articles, both presumably book reviews of Emma Bull's Bone Dance, both bylined to Michael Berry. One from 9 June 1991, the other from 24 November 1991. Protonk (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk: No dice. It does not look like my school pays for the SF Chronicle as a part of our subscription. @Kevin Gorman: works at UC Berkley, who owns a set of the microfilm, he might be able to help you. As for the topic, I did find several reviews for the book in EBSCO. (Mostly from Library Journal and School Library Journal.) Would you be interested in either? --Guerillero | My Talk17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got the ones picked up by EBSCO (as well as what's in JSTOR, etc.). The three I'm missing are those two SF Chron articles and a review from Analog which I'll get from Mike Christie whenever he can fish it out of his basement. :) Thanks for your help. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You forgot the con "looking at the stuff that gets thrown at arbitrators, the job appears to be summarised as 'sandpaper for the soul'" ;). I'm flattered, but I'm also unelectable and (more importantly) not interested in the job. I have a tremendous amount of admiration for the work that ArbCom does (and the fact that they keep doing it, after...everything): it is not the work I excel at. I'm more for complex AfDs than complex conduct disputes. Plus, don't you think I look a bit tired?Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trial of Thomas Paine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad that I keep your talk page watch-listed. This article is a very nice piece of work that I never would have known existed otherwise. Well done, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014: Added an additional educational reference for learning R data mining techniques.
I am sorry that you feel that way. I have no intention of improving search engine rankings. I think adding that link is very relevant and will help new R users find their way around R quickly. I dont feel think is spamming. If you change your mind, let me know. Otherwise I have no problem not adding that piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selva.prabhakaran (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Selva.prabhakaran: I didn't bring up search engine rankings, you did :). Yes, you would think the link is relevant, because you wrote the site it links to: this is why it is advised that people do not link to things they are associated with (similarly, I avoid using my journal articles as citations). Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are well versed in R programming, I will consider the debate on relevancy of the site. I will then value your opinion more. If there was a wiki policy to not add references to one's site, I apologise and I will respect it. You did mention search engine rankings on my usertalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.217.109 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If...I am well-versed in R programming? This is the bit of the discussion where my reserves of good faith evaporate, so, you know. Warning in advance. Generally-speaking "I won't listen to you unless you prove you're qualified" is a poor way of engaging in discussions on Wikipedia.
Anyway. I wasn't aware we were seeing who could pee the furthest. But hey, since you're asking, here's my basis for thinking I might know a tiny bit about R:
The standard Advanced R Programming book? Okay I didn't write that one, I just edited it.
The vast majority of my career as a researcher and programmer has been spent in R, the only exceptions being writing Java or C++ that interfaces with R. I eat, sleep and breathe R. I do traffic analysis for a top-5 web property - the one we're sitting on, incidentally - in R. I occasionally debug R scripts in my sleep and wake up to scribble the solution down. At some point, that last one will stop being spooky.
So, now that we've established I might occasionally know what I'm talking about, in relation to programming in R: I've never heard of your site, and neitherhasanyoneelse. Even if Wikipedia was fine with the person adding the link, the site is not prominent enough within the subject area to be listed: we have a limited amount of space for external links and that should be spent on high-prominence, high-value external links, not a site that has existed for less than six months. As it happens, we do have a policy on adding external links that you're associated with, and it's not to.
By the way, while I'm here; your advice on for-loops and the apply family is inaccurate. for-loops are primarily slow due to a failure to instantiate a sufficiently-sized output object prior to the run, and/or the tendency of people to operate over non-primitives such as data.frames, which have copy-on-modify semantics and so are slow in any iterative scenario. And if you're going to point people to *apply as an answer for scenarios involving data.frames, you probably want to point them to Hadley's dplyr library as well to cover situations where they want data.frames as an output. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have just written an article but was informed that I copy pasted the whole content from another site. Can you help me with close paraphrasing thing? I substituted the tag with {{Under construction}} so that no one will delete it in a week. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, since you went by my article I will then need to ask either of your help here, since I don't want my rights as an autopatrolled to be removed either. On December 18 a bot have notified me of copy vio which I must contest was a close paraphrasing. The article is called Mikhail Agafonov and I need your help in restructuring of the article so that it will appear good in accordance with our policies. Can you be so kind and help me out? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If your defence is "it's close paraphrasing" you need a better lawyer. I don't have time to refactor the article, at the moment: work is hectic and I've got my own contributions to work on. You've been editing for four years, now: if you cannot work out how to create articles without skirting copyright problems (this is not the first, or even the fifth, time, you have come to me with a request like this) after all of that time, and all of these incidents, my advice would be to cease creating articles until you're confident that you can write them without needing the same kind of assistance almost every time. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
O.K. If you are so busy then say so, but don't call me a liar. Really, writing articles on musicians is hard without violating copy rights. Yes, I have been on Wikipedia for 4 years, that suppose to make me perfect? I'm sorry, but no one is. I will however take your advice on not creating articles for a short period of time (at least on musicians, since the rest are fine), however, I used to ask you only 2 times to help me with copy vio and 3 other times you mentioned were copy editing issues (which is not as lethal as copy vio).--Mishae (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Then what were you saying by "it's close paraphrasing" you need a better liar? Like, that's how I interpreted your comment. Either way, I am not upset. :)--Mishae (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk15:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
What I meant was that it wasn't by itself reason for "actual" speedy deletion, i.e. without the time delay for "speedy" deletions such as {{orfud}}. This is basically an orfud situation — were it completely orphaned, rather than being used solely on a non-mainspace page, it wouldn't be deleted without a few days' wait, so its presence on another page didn't particularly seem relevant. I understand your point about the potential conflict of interest, but again, I don't see that as being relevant to criterion F7 or to any other criterion; it's not blatant enough for G11, I don't see any other criterion that would even come close to being relevant, and it's definitely not a situation for IAR. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:KnowledgeGraph.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
For completing 1 review during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
_side;_2011-08-20.JPG)
