Jump to content

User talk:Ironholds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grandiose (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 4 December 2011 (→Tb: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Sources up to or exceeding the strength of a peer-reviewed paper

So in the case of Richard Dixon Oldham, are you measuring up to your own standards as a proud Wikpedian, one of the four hundred most active people in this online enterprise? I hope that the entry for Oldham can be preserved as a tribute page to your style of editing.

Under your style of editing, who is to say whether Oldham's paper of 1906 published by the Royal, the pertinent section of which is quoted in full at the publically accessible portion of Bilham's website from whence comes the picture of Oldham, is a reliable (primary) source? If you think there is a stigma attaching to Oldham's paper, on which the claim to any discovery of the Earth's core rests, might we be told that? You are a proud Wikipedian, one of the four hundred most active Wikipedians. You expose yourself. I hope that the Oldham entry can be preserved as a tribute page to you. You have yourself sorted.

  • There's no need for sarcasm. I am trying to be polite in this conversation, and would hope you would do the same. The question is twofold: firstly, whether Oldham's paper is an acceptable source for the information in and of itself. It is, assuming that he at some point in the paper clearly states the statement you wish to include. If, instead, you are interpreting the paper to mean [what you think he says] or [what you think he intends], this is not acceptable; it constitutes synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Secondly, whether Oldham's paper, clashing as it does with another source, supersedes another source. I would, upon reflection, agree that it could supersede the other source, assuming that (as said) he clearly states what you wish to be included. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and in the politest possible sense, you have yourself sorted. Of course, in the process, you are getting yourself tied up. Is the source you are quoting, William Bragg's tribute thirty years after the event, peer-reviewed. Even if it were peer-reviewed, what guarantee do we have that Bragg has read Oldham's paper from 1906, but without interpreting it to mean what Bragg thinks Oldham says or what Bragg thinks Oldham intends? The pertinent section is quoted in full at Roger Bilham's website: there is no mention of a molten core. It was breakthrough enough in 1906 to be able to infer that there is a core. There would be a serious question of whether the equipment and method at that period could sustain the inference that there is a molten core, so had Oldham made that stronger inference he might well have been right in retrospect, but wrong at the time. A significant point here is that this was not actually Oldham's research area, so you would expect him to err on the side of caution. Then there is the question of what Harold Jeffreys thought he was doing in going on to investigate the rigidity of the core and why it is said that it was Jeffreys who was the first to show that a large percentage of the core was most probably liquid, that is, molten.

I suggest that, upon mature reflection, you will see that I am not at all being sarcastic, but rather more simply holding you to your reputation as a proud Wikipedian, one of the four hundred most active Wikipedians. You have got yourself into what might be termed a post-modernist dilemma in reading scientific papers - or, in this case, in not actually reading them. What you are doing, and what I suspect Bragg was doing, is reading back into Oldham's work the contemporary understanding of the Earth's core. We know Oldham discovered something about the Earth's core; we know that a large part of the core is molten; so we conclude that this is what Oldham discovered. But that is an anachronism.

I hope that the entry, along with your lawyerly disquisitions upon it, can be preserved as they are as a tribute to Wikipride. I shall try to persuade the relevant Wiki-working group of the merit of such a preservation order. If I could award you a Barnstar for Wikipride, I should gladly do so.

  • Consider this conversation terminated. Come back if you can go more than thirty seconds without being facetious - your snide and patronising attitude clearly indicates that, whatever your purported intentions, actually helping fix the article - which I have repeatedly invited you to do - is not your priority. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is your Wikipedia. You are the proud Wikipedian. But it is you who have no interest in revision. Was Bragg's tribute peer reviewed? Did Bragg get Oldham's paper right? I put it to you that it is you who have no serious interest in getting things more nearly right.

You say that I am sarcastic or facetious. But that is a calumny. I am seriously pointing to the serious difficulty that you have created for yourself.

By your own admission, you took it upon yourself to edit the entry for Richard Dixon Oldham for little more than fun and fancy, without going back to Oldham's papers, in the process editing out information that accurately reflected the contents of Oldham's writing, replacing it in one case by inaccurate information and in another by no information. Not unnaturally this approach is unlikely to encourage others to intervene to reinstate and perhaps enlarge upon the accurate information. Moreover, when taxed with this, you have argued in a manner that makes it virtually impossible to edit the entry based on Oldham's work, because of the requirement to know Oldham's meaning or intent and, adding insult to injury, you have used highly subjective language in denigrating your interlocutor. You interlocutor is only pointing to the very serious problem that, in your lawyerly manner, you have created in the matter of reading scientific papers. In that this might appear to personalize the problem, I should add that you are far from alone: you are upholding Wikimores - if you will, Wikipride - but this issue goes to the heart of the debate on ``paradigm shifts" in science launched by Thomas Kuhn in, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

But now comes a rather neat denouement, because if we go back to the secondary source that you cite for Oldham's discovery of a molten core for the Earth we find no mention of the core as discovered being molten: here is what Bragg says, ``In a paper, published in 1906, analyzing the seismographic records of fourteen world-shaking earthquakes, Oldham established the existence of two distinct sets of deep-seated waves, traveling at different speeds; and, from the way in which the waves of distortion were damped out in depth, he deduced the existence of a central core in the earth, four tenths of the radius in thickness, which contrasted in physical properties with the external shells. In this way Oldham pointed to the pretty analogy between seismic waves as a source of information regarding intratelluric conditions and those of light which, on analysis by the spectroscope, give information regarding the composition of the sun's atmosphere".

The natural inference following what you have written is that Ironholds, on reading this passage, knew that Bragg meant or intended ``molten core" because Bragg knew that Oldham meant or intended ``molten core".

But I feel I owe Bragg an apology. All Oldham was able to say at the time was that there was a contrast between the core and the mantle, in that it could not be mantle all the way through; and Bragg has that right after all, so much speculation why he might have it wrong was in vain.

  • Very nice. For the sixth or seventh time, at least, feel free to correct the error rather than write endless unsigned diatribes on it. Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And for reference; yes, I require that you understand what the source is saying, and that information which is not referenced, regardless of its veracity, be removed. These are policies of Wikipedia as a whole. 09:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again I must demur, because I do not claim to have the sort of superior understanding that you claim, as, for example, in reading Bragg's tribute to mean that Oldham discovered that the Earth has a molten core, when Bragg makes no mention of a molten core. I defer to you: you have that understanding of Bragg's tribute; unless you deign to make changes yourself, it is difficult to see how the entry can be changed. As to ``endless diatribes", sadly that is more of your subjective language. In fact, I have been trying to discuss an interesting aspect of Wikipedia policies as a whole, but in particular as articulated by you; that is, you have a genuine problem here, and I respect that.

Kramer

Hiya, now that the Edward E. Kramer AfD has been closed, could you please remove protection on the article? Thanks, --Elonka 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; now done. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Elonka 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy of response written on User talk:Σ ‎

request for assistance

yesterday did retrieve http://www2.hull.ac.uk/acs/lib/infoskills/caselawnew.aspx the information that is the support for having made the citations within the article Fair dealing in United Kingdom law, the content does seem to indicate that cases citated are to be written in a strict form containing the correct information.

Also, wasn't directed at anyone to have capitalized(so wasn't shouting at anyone),thought correct/preferred correct for legal form,to introduce the legal cases capitalized whilst discussion is retained as lower case(just to add about [case] and [cases]. Capitilized does implicitly indicate matters concerning the capital city i.e. matters of state, so to reduce the formal element is to lessen the importance of the location,therefore to lose some of the significance in the meaning communicated,as the legal cases do infact concerns persons involved in affairs of the city of London). http://www2.hull.ac.uk/acs/lib/infoskills/caselawnew.aspx Much of the content of this Factsheet is based on sections of the Law School library and IT manual 2006-2007 (© University of Hull), written by Kylie Baxter and Phil Bielby. Page last updated by Sharon Redgrave on 30/09/2011 Drift chambers (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also is quite difficult to understand the cases relevancy to the article discussion if there is no transcript link available, since a person would have to accept the opinion of the article(authors) without recourse to information provided for the purposes of their own learning.Drift chambers (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP :IGNORE + the details of the years when the cases were heard are essential to understand,i.e.ommitting this information leaves the reader in ignorance.Drift chambers (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it could be clarified from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1142.html , that site shows citation Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142 (18 July, 2001) and underneath the line

cite as:

then

2001 (7 of these)and 2002(4 of these)

showing in -2.- an additional date indicating these number of hearings (that is 11 hearings in total to reach a verdict)Drift chambers (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at the time as your mail arrived was about to create:

-Links to case transcriptions- (title of section )

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PADDY ASHDOWN, MP PC- and -TELEGRAPH GROUP LTD((2001)) EWCA Civ 1142, (2001) 24(9) IPD 24058, ((2001)) HRLR 57, ((2001)) EMLR 44, ((2001)) 4 All ER 666, ((2001)) UKHRR 1242, ((2002)) Ch 149, ((2002)) ECC 19, ((2002)) RPC 5, ((2001)) 3 WLR 1368, ((2002)) ECDR 32

(BAILII.org) retrieved 15:16GMT 1.10.11((Drift chambers (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

thought that writing

-all in caps-

in capital letters might be considered an overkill, or rather that some might consider the choice to have been unnecessary and that your communication would also have functioned (was sufficient) without the inclusion of this element within a capitalized form, since the word capitalized does infact convey sufficient meaning for a person to understand.Drift chambers (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is improved by the transcript reference (BAILII.org) , so better to create the section, (am requiring an agreement or permission on your part or else to have the edit done by Ironholds)

Additionally, the Hull University site shows citations to be created in a order different to that shown within the article,which would require these to be changed,and would prefer the years and other citation information to be within the article body so that a reader might have the timeline of the development of the law,as the discussion otherwise is difficult to understand having to move the page to the citation years in reference part then to text body etc, just creates unnecessary (too much) complication.Drift chambers (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., will stop Drift chambers (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa May

Would be good if you could give reasons on the talk page as to why you applied the {{POV}} template so that editors can see exactly what needs to be fixed. Thanks.Keith D (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing - Inchoate offences in English law  :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Thank you for the positive reinforcement!!! Any tips, hints, or suggestions would be appreciated. Shellnut (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thieved

Here. Feel free to revise all you please before 21:30, and sincere thanks for gracing our pages with your raving harangue. Skomorokh 06:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the essay in the Signpost

Hi Ironholds. I hadn't run across you until your RfA at the beginning of the year (sorry I didn't vote), I'm not sure why I hadn't seen you before, but I remember thinking highly of you at the time. I was very thankful for your generous contributions to one of my pet projects shortly thereafter. I also recall being happy when you joined the Wikiguides project, especially when you started the New pages project to help new users as the new user issue is my greatest concern.

Anyhoo, I just read your essay in the Signpost and I think you hit the nail on the head. I can't tell you how glad I am that somebody on enwp is talking about this. It really means a lot to me and I believe it means a lot to new users to know that there are experienced users that care about them. It is very admirable of you making this a priority and putting so much effort in to this area. So I had to stop by and thank you very kindly for all your efforts and to let you know how much I appreciate your hard work. You truly are a fine example to others. Thank you very much for everything. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Chief Justice writes...

"Hello, Ironholds. I wondered whether you'd seen this speech I made recently on Coke, Bonham's Case and other matters of legal history?" Thought you might like it. Bye!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words about the Mandala folk dance ensemble article!

I'm hoping the many present/past Mandala members will help out on this - I tried searching for them but did not find much cite-able. I guess there IS something about when they got their non-profit status, perhaps I should put that in. If you have any hot tips, I would certainly appreciate them! —Martha (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas Pleas Me

You might want to check for repeated wikilinks using User:Ucucha/duplinks - you link "Court of Chancery" quite a few times, for instance... Dashes fixed for free. BencherliteTalk 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll take a look

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you up on your offer of assistance

Ironholds, thank you for your watchful eye and timely mentoring on my newly minted gastropod articles. I too am a practicing attorney, and no longer have electronic or library access to many of the journals which I formerly was able to get my hands on easily. Doe you have access to on line biology journals lime Malacology or Zoologica Scripta? I am trying to get my hands on a few newer articles and unless I either "pony up" a credit card or drive to the local UC bio sci library I may be out of luck without a friendly helping hand. Citations for articles on Wikipedia are always wanted, but my personal science library is a bit old now-a-days. Thanks in advance. Shellnut (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another lawyer editing

I mentioned some of your work at User talk:Mikesiris#Other ideas for things to do as part of an attempt to guide an editor who is apparently Michael Siris, a lawyer in the USA, on areas to edit that are less of a problem with regard to COI. You might be able to provide extra ideas or more guidance. Mike is still very new to Wikipedia and is still learning basic mark-up for references, etc. (Some of his thoughts and queries about notability and COI are in the other half of the conversation, on my talk page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awesome! I've left a brief note - it's great to see another law nut here. you I'll keep an eye on; providing information that detailed and readable to a new editor is something few people do, and it is appreciated :). Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


H ironholds

this is mike siris, us atty, here. would like to talk to you about doing some legal writing/editing bc that is an area i wouldnt have to bone up on. i know wk discourages bios of people you know, but i know of an atty worth of publication, is there a way i could put up bio and indicate i know the subject?

also, do you want to contact me directly? if so, pls write to either mikesiris@gmail.com or msiris@solomonsiris.com

thks

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesiris (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For undertaking a considerable review of UK Copyright laws for an article :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a historical text that was talking about a case held at a peculiar court in Thame in 1696. Am I correct in assuming that "peculiar court" is another term for the Court of Peculiars? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ironholds. Given copyright concerns you found in Statute of Anne, I've had a glance at the material and found issues as well in Copyright and Copyright law of the United Kingdom. It's some of the same material in both, but copied from a different book than you found (the book you found is not visible to me). See example at talk of either article. You might want to think about running a WP:CCI on this fellow, as unless we can verify that the sources he's using are public domain or compatibly licensed, we've got a problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know at least some of the sources are neither - I discovered the problems because I own the books, which are most definitely copyrighted. I'll apply for an open investigation now. Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Iaaasi

Hi, I would like to ask you a question. This information would help me greatly. Did you receive any communication, or requests from user:Iaaasi? This user is known for soliciting users in email and IRC, and he is primarily targeting administrators. This whole issue was only revealed because administrator Diannaa, who shared this information [1] indicated that Iaaasi sent her emails along with other users [2] as early as 2011 April. It is now obvious that he has tried to solicit a lot more admins and editors since then for various purposes. I need your help in determining whether you were one of the users contacted by Iaaasi. Thank you for your reply in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not directly; he constantly and consistently asks for an unblock or an explanation on IRC in the public channels. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Re IRC, he's had several private chats with me (maybe he thinks I'm an admin?) in which he's repeatedly come up with the same concerns; he's never emailed me. In chat, bearing in mind his apparent distress, he's always been entirely reasonable with me, but I have no way of knowing whether or not he's taken any steps to follow my advice. I've tried to steer him in the right direction, and (assuming good faith) see the possibility that there might, in fact, be some grounds for his major concern, which seems to be that other people are possibly impersonating "socks of Iaaasi" in order to keep him perpetually blocked. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for another / others to do that, I don't think - and it would be a very good way of keeping him perma-blocked. Don't know if there's any way of categorically confirming or denying this, but suggest that it may be productive to at least attempt to do so. Adding: he's never, ever asked me, personally, to edit on his behalf - just sought advice. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

Hi Ironholds. Many thanks for volunteering to code up my survey. Howie tells me this should ready today or tomorrow - remarkably fast work, I must say. Let me have a link to the Beta as soon as you're ready, and by then I should have the list of targets ready. Thanks again for all your help, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where is the Lime hosted - at the WMF or on your own server? I was thinking of installing a copy on my own server hardware for future use. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Neither; at Geoff's suggestion we've actually taken to using SurveyMonkey. If you plan to use your copy to run WP-related surveys I'd check with him first, since Thailand may have some of the same wacky legal problems which make it difficult for us to use Lime's servers (they're hosted in the EU. E-Privacy Directive. Nuff said.) Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well good luck - AFAIK SurveyMonkey is only available as an online service, and it's very expensive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was around 20 bucks, actually :). We'll see how it works. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lime is a dowloadfable package - not dependent on an online service. Why can't it be hosted on the WMF servers? Anyway, looking forward to seeing what you've done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary sovereignty

Just to conclude I am now more well informed and will have some time to allocate to this subject area soon. If you are happier on a more specific Dicey-related article, then we could run with that. big article might just be too much. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could run with the big'un! I just started a new job, however, so I'm not sure how my time will play out. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hello Ironholds, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalski@wikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

Going forward, let me do the striking at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever indicate differently? :S. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this edit summary is a bit of a clue as to who was doing the striking, and it wasn't Ironholds... BencherliteTalk 21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to the future

Hi Ironholds. Thanks for the note. I'm really, really looking forward to any thoughts/ideas you may have. I'm just a tad bit upbeat about this, in case you can't tell. Please keep me in mind if you need any help and thanks for keeping me updated. It's much appreciated. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Same back to you - if you have any ideas, keep me in the loop and I'll help in any way I can :). Ironholds (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ironholds. I think mw:Article creation workflow has a lot of potential. Specifically, mw:Article creation workflow#Workspace Editing may be able to save new users along the same lines as your New Pages project. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:2011 Challenge Casino Lac Leamy

The page is cited. Please be patient in the future, as I literally created the page and was working on it when you slapped the citation tag on it! Patients is a virtue! Sirrussellott (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah; my apologies! Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ironholds! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ironholds! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your Signpost interview

I came over here to see what you're up to. Apparently, you're doing a bit of everything ... are you sure you don't want to try something simpler first, like unifying quantum theory and gravitation? Please pass along to the WMF that they made a good hiring choice, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah! That made me genuinely laugh out loud :). Thanks a bundle for your good wishes - I'll hopefully make a positive improvement. And yeah, I'll let them know...probably at my pay review :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can help, give me a holler. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, dude! I'll let you know :). Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.— Peaceray (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The things I find

The things I find on wikipedia that make me go WTF: Li Bao Qi. Hope all is well. --Narson ~ Talk • 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ...special...article. Things are great here, mate :). Will be popping up to the old town with Herself in 5 weeks or so. And you? Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irc comment

What was that last comment? I saw it go by just as the window closed, but it was too fast to read. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your bits are gone, but I've granted you subsidiary rights (filemover, rollbacker et al). Why are you dropping the bits, if you don't mind me asking? It's a shame to see a hardworking admin go. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frustration, basically.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that :(. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well overdue in my opinion. I hope that Sarek won't go begging for his bits back any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love you too, MF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Conduct unbecoming", MF! [Pesky applies gentle remindatory slap]. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're evil

Or so says an IP. See the <IronHolds is being paid by the WMF?!> section at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That IP 140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs) acts like a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who's second edit is to WP:ANI? A sock? never! Trusilver 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am fairly evil. I'm just amazed it took you all this long to work out; was the smell of brimstone not a giveaway? Or the horns, and cloven feet? Surely my tendency to cackle maniacally gave the game away? Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little light entertainment, m'lud?

OCDThis user appreciates the huge benefits of having OCD

Use or delete, as appropriate. And don't forget to click the link. :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have OCD! :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They always say that ... heh! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of Trinsey v. Pennsylvania

Just wanted to let you know, I've reviewed your GA nomination of Trinsey v. Pennsylvania and placed it on hold pending a few changes, Talk:Trinsey v. Pennsylvania/GA1. Monty845 14:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom

I've now created this page. Obviously, there are still holes: it is overreliant on a single source, it fails to discuss implied repeal, and the prose needs improving. However, I do think it's a good start. Perhaps if you could find time to elaborate on the Diceyan notions of PS to the extent of a long paragraph, that would be great. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best; I just started working for the Foundation, however, so I'm afraid my availability is a bit limited :(. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaboom

Remember, remember, the 5th of November! Gunpowder, treason, and plot!

→ ROUX ₪ 19:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think of it as a rolling mustache-off lost by the dashing spaniard. First he lost the game, and then his head! And then he got his intellectual property superseded by Moore. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin to Admin incivility

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that Elen of the Roads, another admin, engaged in name-calling with me during a disagreement we were having with this message, in which she called me a "tool". Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; as a WMF contractor, I'm not doing any kind of admin actions these days. Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

You have not responded at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replied because I have very little free time these days, and, well, because your questions seem, by and large, irrelevant. Yes, the frequency of impropriety in the house is important - if you like GAs with synthesis issues, of course. Yes, knowing how often state governments ignored the population is important - if you can indicate a source which covers it. It should be determined if John Stockton has a biography - something typing his name into the search box and confirming he isn't a professional athlete would have determined. I have a large pile of sources on the seventeenth amendment. I have used these sources to write this article. For article text relating to the sociopolitical relationship between state legislatures and their population in all 37 (as it was then) states, biographies of minor 19th century American political candidates and a comparative analysis of corruption in both houses of congress during the 19th and early 20th centuries, you will have to look for a different writer, with different sources. As far as I'm concerned, these questions are irrelevant, and I can't answer them because I don't know the answer, having not decided to brush up on any of these subjects before writing a law article. If you have a different opinion, feel free to fail the GAN; as said, I don't have the time to work on much these days anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna make a content creator's day?

While swimming around in the New Pages sea of dubious drinkability this morning, I was a bit surprised to discover that User:Bmclaughlin9 has not yet been granted autopatrolled status. He's an excellent content creator with more than 50 article starts. I was wondering if you might consider doing honors in granting him autopatrolled status. I know it made my life better and I still appreciate the fact that you did it for me back in 2010. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Your recommendation is all I need. As it happens, I've similarly been swimming in the sea of dubious drinkability - writing up this survey report :). Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, looks like someone else got there first. Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There

Hey Ironholds, i been not active in wikipedia for a while and now i'm back . Went through my initial mytalk archives and found that you have helped me so much . Thanks a million. -SubashChandran007 ׀ sign! 04:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just made me go "awww!" out loud :). Thanks! I hope to see you around soon :). Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty of Ely

Do you have historically-accurate language to hand to help with Ely, Cambridgeshire#The liberty of Ely? See User talk:Senra#Ely. My feeling is that if Coke and Blackstone hedged their bets about whether it was a county palatine, then it wasn't, and they were trying only to indicate some of the implications of the remaining medieval rights to laymen. There is no article about "franchise" in that sense, but I suppose liberty (division) is a good start. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coke was, on occasion, rather self-serving :P. I'm not aware of Ely as a county palatine, but it's not my area. Sorry! I'd advise going for the current wording - in the absence of any conclusive evidence, present both sides. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tb

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Talk:Inchoate offences in English law/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&oldid=464066334"