Unrecognisably fantastic! Very nice work. Will gladly help out when I can, although real-life a bit hectic at present. Yours, BencherliteTalk 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has its moments... No chance of me attending meetups, alas, since User:WifeofBencherlite and User:BabyBencherlite demand attention at weekends, and "Wikipedia meetups" would not be a phrase to assist domestic harmony! BencherliteTalk 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the correct answer is "Merge with Middle Temple Library" and save lots on the running costs... BencherliteTalk 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know; it's on the agenda for various committees in the next few weeks! BencherliteTalk 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic, but this talk might interest you. BencherliteTalk 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rush on my account, I won't be back in the Temple until Wednesday. BencherliteTalk 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on AB/CD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blatant copyright! I have translated this from Italian wikipedia ([1]). Elfast (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the Italian article is a translation of the site. But this is not possible that what I translated exactly the same thing as what is on the site, look again. Elfast (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ironholds! I saw you nominated Megarex for deletion. In fact, it had no references. I added some references I found about this band and its importance to Brazilian music and, then, I explained the reasons to keep the article in Wikipedia, according to band. Take a look, please. Thank you!Victor Silveira (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No big loss if Hüseyin Demiral goes away and comes back as a decent write-up, but PROD is probably the way to go. I considered an outright non-admin decline but given your considerable experience and the fact that it's no big loss I didn't change it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my first language is swedish and Ive written some 100+ articles there, mostly on economics and green topics. But I have tried to contribute a little to english wp also. In this case I think it is pretty obvious that the article should not be deleted. It is obvious that the case is unic and the original documents are even there, so everyone can check it all quite easily. What on earth could justify a deletion then, just wondering.--Mats33 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I suggested an alt hook for your dyk Trustee Investments Act 1961, as the first one was 215 characters and therefore over the accepted limit. Please check for accuracy! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ironholds. I noticed that on the WikiCup signup sheet, you chose . However, has already been taken, so please choose another flag. If you have any questions, tell them on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you added yourself twice, and the one who already took it is you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inner Temple, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trustee Investments Act 1961, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Trustee Act 2000 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CalmerWaters 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trustee Act 2000, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthewtalk at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for this excellent article ;). In future, could you use inline citations? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to eventually. See, for example, my article Dioceses of the Church of the East to 1318. I just haven't got round to adding inline citations yet to the Seert article. I've created about twenty new articles on the Church of the East in the past couple of months, and my priority has been to get the stuff on Wikipedia first and bolster it with citations later. As you have probably guessed, I put in a single inline citation in the Seert article just to stop it from being plastered with tags.
I'm an academic editor by trade, and fully agree that Wikipedia articles should be properly sourced. Give me a bit of time and I'll sort the Seert article out.
OK, I've gone and bought the "Community of Communities" book from the Treasury Office. Are there particular bits and pieces you're after in the other works, or shall I just see what I can find? BencherliteTalk 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Defective Premises Act 1972, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for helping to edit The University of Sussex page, i think it needs quite a lot of work but i'm not quite sure how to get it up to a decent standard.
I reverted your adding of Colin Eaborn though, because i dont see why he should be added as an example when there are no other examples? Why is he especially notable? Maybe there needs to be a list of notable faculty?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. --Allie Cabab (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Lee Dixon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Eaborn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Martin Lees, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, the photo is mine. Are you able to please explain to me in simple language how to indicate this? I studied and studied the instructions but clearly don't have it right... Many thanks!!!
hi, i create this article as summary of subdivisions of the province cited in wikipedia, i am interested in made citations, extend the article an made more interested. i just do no not where start . can you give me a suggestion or examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz de Quebec (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd created this article Flippa in good faith after watching outdated information at Sitepoint and updated it. I wonder if Sitepoint passes the criteria of WP:GNG and should also be tagged for deletion. The Sitepoint blog was the only official statement (more like an official press release) so I included it with other verifiable references, and most of them are WP:RS. Thank you very much for your time. --Scieberking (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ulka - a page you tagged - because: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one sentence of the article is actually a direct copy, and I would think that's acceptable - if not, that sentence could be recast. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds, I am just asking why Coaxpress is deleted as G11. It is not an advertising or promotion of one company or product. It is a standard like USB or fireWire and propably the successor of Cameralink (Several Cameralink standardisation companies are now active in the CoaXPress standardisation).
xmaillard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Please see WP:Soft redirect. That's uncontroversially an okay article, but still, to follow Wiki rules, I won't remove it. GSMR (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took a fairly long break from much computer stuff this term.. (Too much partying) .. so I decided I should probably get back to learning law and writing about it. The duty of care article is very nearly done, and pretty comprehensive I think. The vicarious liability needs some improvements probably, but it's good I think. What're you learning this year? RichsLaw (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UCTA is a good shout. Do you mind if I help out a little? After that we could tidy vicarious liability/add a few little things and get it reviewed, as well as duty of care (the whole of negligence is a mess). RichsLaw (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to collaborating with you on the GA/FA drive for the UCTA article. But I won't be able to even consider getting around to working on it until the beginning of the new year. Would that accord with your plans for the article, or will my tardiness prove problematic? Best, AGK 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jatra Shuru - a page you tagged - because: Article is about an album by Bhoomi. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC[edit]
It is... complicated. It was originally the "Avoidance of Liability (England and Wales) Bill" (second reading, 28-1-77), name changed sometime in April/May. First Lords reading (?) 10-5-77; second Lords 23-5-77; I'm having some trouble pinning down the rest of it. This (6-5-77) is a debate on amendments, but Commons first/second reading proper is a bit hard to find. Shimgray | talk | 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an expression that is hard to explain but is like saying that common sense should be applied.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the edit you made to my talk page. I was trying to be polite in the comment above try to explaining you the phrase. The saying is in line with policy, as I admitted it is hard to explain the saying's true meaning. Either way, you didn't have to snap at me like that >:(--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, just because the heat turns up in places like Afd, doesn't mean that you need to lose your cool with other editors. How about take a short break, go for a walk or something, to calm down. You tell AD to keep within policies and guidelines, well WP:AGFis a policy and WP:CIVILis a guideline. Please reinforce those.--Lionmadness (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We know each other off-wiki, and watch each other's edits, but keep that quiet! :)--Lionmadness (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I am not his meatpuppet, in fact, I think I joined a whole month before he did.--Lionmadness (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We were about the same time. 11 months ago.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to be your mentor? With a bit of assistance you could grow into a very resourceful editor, with an excellent knowledge of policies. What do you say?--NiceHotShower (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would take them up on their offer, Irony. You never know when you'll need to have an excellent knowledge of policies. Killiondude (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or polcies, as it was spelt in his first edit. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely it was for me to find out about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep. You know, I really find it quite suspicious and rather offensively discriminative at best that you have the blatant nerve to accuse me/Lionmadness of socking by starting an SPI case even though it doesn't appear that you have actually been willing to listen to us). We clearly explained that we are not meatpuppeting or engaging in any other similar behavior. We are not socking, so I'm not going to bother myself over the SPI case, and I doubt Lionmadness will bother either. However, it is unpleasent that you even failed to notify either of us of this SPI case. You should really notify any account under the radar of an SPI case. To not notify us, and have an SPI case running in secrecy behind our backs is quite insulting and utterly disrespectful. I completely disapprove of your actions.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good candidate for GA. FA is a very different beast from my (exceptionally limited) experience (yours is miles better!). I would add that in addition to any changes that GA (and Peer review says) I would probably add that a few more direct quotes (maybe even a pull quote) through his various careers would be good as an example of what others thought of him (many said he was a good criminal lawyer, but bad judge; find a few of those quotes). I also think that his personal life could do with an expansion (double? triple?) if possible. Just my AUD$0.02
I wouldn't worry too much about the biography if it's going to be filled with "fluff", however in impact it says that he spent 83% of his time in defence not prosecution and yet the defence part of the article is a paragraph shorter. Is it simply that his time as prosecution was more notable?
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Ajbpearce's talk page. Message added 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
We clearly don't agree on everything but our recent eposides with each other haven't been healthy for us or other members of the community. I'll admit that while my intentions were reasonable, I could've given you a bit more WP:AGF. Your filed case was out of genuine concern. I'm also sure that if we could, both of us would've handled our situations differently but we cannot change what has already happened. I suggest that we wipe the slate clean and move on from this. AtlanticDeep (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers![reply]
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hello Ironholds. I am not sure why my page Wide Area Multilateration was deleted. I was informed that "This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article." The article simply describes a technology, much like other pages that describe technologies (see "Multilateration", "TCAS", "ADS-B"). It does not promote a company, product, group, service, or person. If it was deleted due to lack of references, please let me know as there are a number of additional ones that can be added. If there is anything else I can do to have this undeleted, please let me know. Thank you in advance. --Ludmilovna (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your prompt reply and your kind offer for assistance. I have contacted Fastily to see if I can find a resolution. Best regards. --Ludmilovna (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Geoff Apps, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Father of the English Mountain Bike is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS see you in Jan? ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir: Per your assurances, I prepared comments for the Articles for Deletion, and was astounded that the article was deleted. On the first day! AND recreation protected! WP:DEL states that the deletion process allows "at least" 7 days for comments. This was my first article, perhaps ambitious, but I feel that the article had merit, and I would have liked to have had my opportunity to make this case and also to improve it. Please advise why this has occurred and what my best options are for resolution. Thank you.Crickmanzz (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is text this is not copyrighted; US government documents may be top secret, but are almost never copyrighted. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Obviously, I declined your speedy nomination. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, yes, federal government. Sorry, I didn't check. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award you with this New Page Patroller's Barnstar for absolutely insane work on WP:NPP getting the backlog down to, literally, zero new unpatrolled pages, and making me completely bored. You are insane. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that barnstar. Outstanding work, indeed! –MuZemike 03:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to Ironholds for almost singlehandedly relieving a NewPages backlog of utterly epic proportions; thank you for your hard work. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC), Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For putting User:DragonflySixtyseven out of a job for a month. ;) I don't know how one could stand to do something of this magnitude... you did a damn good job. The Thing Merry Christmas 04:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was pretty good before the review, that's why you've got away so easily ;-) I would add my thanks to the above - I was actually screening CSD these days and noted your work, but didn't know its extent. Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved my point. The subject's claim to notablity was right there in the lede. It was still there when you chided me for not including it. "He drew "It's a Gay Life", a regular single-panel cartoon feature in The Advocate, for 15 years." Complete with online citation (referencing an article with further citations of its own). If you missed that, you clearly did not read the article thoroughly before you nominated it for deletion.
In the 5+ years I've been contributing to Wikipedia, I've dealt with vandals, morons, spammers, OCD psychotics, and people who just didn't make any sense. But what keeps making me question why I bother are the people who value the quantity of their actions over the quality of them, who treat Wikipedia like a game to be won, rather than a resource to be nurtured. There's a whole class of people on Wikipedia with super privileges but not the thoughtfulness to exercise them wisely. You may have the respect and admiration of your peers on WP:AN.... but they've long since lost mine. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JasonAQuest, instead of carping at Ironholds, why don't you add more sources to show the subject meets WP:BIO? A claim to notability is enough to stop speedy deletes; notability must be proven via (ideally multiple) reliable sources for articles to survive prods or AFDs. Or, hey, you could just remove the prod tag. --NeilNtalk to me 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs,
i just put at disposal of the world the biography ao a great italian car designer.
The whole text is handwritten by Mr. Sartorelli his own.
The only reason i have to do that is remeber this great man, more he was the Honorary President of Karmann Ghia Club Italia.
As President of this club my purrpose ik people can know Mr. Sartorelli's work, but not only for Volkswagen and Karmann Ghia but also for Chrysler, Fiat, Ford, Osi, and other car manufacturer.
We published it on our web site as you can see at www.karmannghia.it
More Mr.Sartorelli's family agree with that.
I have non conflict in doing that 'cause i don't talk only aboout Karmann Ghia.
So you can freely decide what to do about this curriculum.
I think I've already done my full duty.
At your best choice.
Thanks.
Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniopellegrino (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I needn't have bought my wife that new book on Garrow for Christmas, I could have just waited for your version and printed it out! Very nice work. When the holiday chaos subsides, and I'm back at "work", I'll take a proper look and comment at the FAC. Yours in admiration, BencherliteTalk 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Upsilon xi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds. You deleted an entry I wrote for Sierra Repertory Theatre. The entry was patterned after other entries for Berkeley Repertory Theatre and Seattle Repertory Theatre. This was my first article and when references were requested I provided them. I'm still unclear why it was deleted anyway. Can you shed some light on this and userify the article so that I can fix it to what you want and be successful? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsimonis (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Jane McKechnie Walton. I do not think that Jane McKechnie Walton fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because The article needs much improvement and added refs, but there seem more than sufficient CLAIMS of significance to avoid an A7 speedy. I request that you consider not re-tagging Jane McKechnie Walton for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page.DES(talk) 21:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact NuclearWarfare to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Six documents emailed. I think that's probably all. • Ling.Nut 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The landsman article, previously mentioned in the FAC, really seems to be a must-have: THE RISE OF THE CONTENTIOUS SPIRIT: ADVERSARY PROCEDURE IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND. March, 1990 75 Cornell L. Rev. 497. I can't get Cornell Law Review online. Perhaps you could go to your local library and scan it to a Word document? • Ling.Nut 05:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
replied via email. • Ling.Nut 05:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Tprince.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a few questions on your RFA. Please respond as soon as you can. Thank you. Average White Dork (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Ironholds, thanks for the quick yet thoughtful response to my questions. I hope the week goes well for you (rather than tits-up following hitherto-unforeseen drama!). Mahalo, Skomorokh 17:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, sir, for your quick responses to my queries. I have posted a few follow-up questions if you dont mind taking a look at them. Thank you and have a happy new year. Average White Dork (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I got one more, sir... Your promptness is like a breath of fresh air though! Thanks again! Average White Dork (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thank you very much for your rapid and honest answers. Average White Dork (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection idiocy - not a problem, mistakes happen[edit]
I've done far worse. Thank god it's largely hidden in my mostly IP edit history. No problem. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at IBen's talk page. Message added 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I asked a question about the speed of your page patrolling and speedies and prods at your RfA. It just seems so fast you can't possibly be considering your actions.
Additional optional questions from IP69.226.103.13
31. Looking at your page patrol log you mark some 10-20 or more articles as patrolled in under a minute, then here's one where in the same minute with 10 other articles, you mark an article for deletion and notify its user.[2]
You patrolled 9 articles,[3] read this one, tagged it for speedy deletion[4] and notified its creator[121570603] all in less than 1 minute? Do you think that you are actually considering articles for deletion when you do this? Do new articles deserve any consideration before nominating for deletion? As an administrator deleting articles nominated for speedy deletion do articles require actual looking at by the deleting administrator? Do you think there can be problems if administrators don't actually look at articles they are deleting? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps our boy Ironholds is a really fast reader, no? Average White Dork (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir -- I have a few more questions, thank you very much :) Average White Dork (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romanesci (also cited by Giuseppe Lazzarini in other wikipedia articles) is NOT a hoax....[edit]
...Hello - first let me apologize for any trouble my inexperience in wikipedia my have caused. I experienced quite a bit of difficulty adding references to other articles that mention Romanesci (pronounced "Romaneshti"). Aromanian is within the same family as Romanesci since it most likely also originated from Latin-speaking settlers of the Eastern Roman Empire (Greece in the case of the Romanae). Romanesci, however, is distinct and provides a very interesting window into the cultural/linguistic history of the common Latin-speaking people that inhabited the Eastern half of the Empire. To not acknowledge Romanesci would be a significant loss in the quest to link what remnants of the common Roman's speech still exist and are alive today. My credentials include 25 years of formal study of Roman history and the Latin language, a B.A. in the Classics (Greek and Roman History and Literature) from North Central College in Naperville, an unpublished thesis on
the similarities of Romanesci and Latin (in most ways it is just as close if not closer than any Romance language to Latin), and of course - a lifetime of speaking the authentic Romanesci spoken by the Greco-Romans still living in Greece and many other areas of the former Roman Empire. Please feel free to contact me if there is any interest in testing, proving, and documenting the living language of Romanesci (which literally means "knows Roman"). It would be a terrible shame to not share my findings on this language's link to the Roman past which shaped much of Western culture. As the Romanae still say - S'hai Sanitate (May You Have Health)
Romanesci (also cited by Giuseppe Lazzarini in other wikipedia articles) is NOT a hoax.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchino (talk • contribs) 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After your recent NPP spree with Kissle, I'd appreciate any feedback you may have. You mentioned on your RfA that redirecting and maintenance tagging is awkward with Kissle. Can you elaborate a bit? Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this info that I write on these pages are true, and since Italy is one of the few countries which has barely any x in italy pages, I need to create many soon, and it'll be a hard job. What i'll do is i'll write them, and then after i've finished find a reference. ok, reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ironholds. I noticed that you know a few of my x in italy pages. Since there are so many from the 1300s to 2009 (of course, you can't do every year), I would appreciate if you could help me do some dates in the 1400s, 1500s or whatever, according to your knowledge. Please reply and if you do help me, thank you--Theologiae (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I realise your efforts and it doesn't matter. I'll ask someone else. Anyway, I do know what I'm intending to write and I know my sources, but it's just so long and tedious a job to do all these dates that I was wondering if anyone would volunteer for help. Anyway, regards and reply--Theologiae (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...to see you withdraw your RfA, and I apologise for any part you feel I've played in the unhappiness. One tiny little thing that may cheer you up- it turns out that NiceHotShower was the same person as AtlanticDeep, and them (and over 25 others) have been blocked by J.delanoy. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, snaps, Ironholds. We're two for two on our recent sock hunts! Who needs adminship? Lara 21:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like to have it for a few minutes, just so that I could give it up in protest against the absurd way it's handed out. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to post something here. RfA is an ugly place and I have tremendous respect for people willing to put themselves up to the scrutiny that comes with it. Best of luck and keep up the good work. Please try to appreciate the constructive criticism and ignore the personal stuff that comes along with RfAs. RP459 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about your RfA, mate, hope you don't let them get to you and continue your excellent work! If I can offer a piece of advice I'd wait about a year before the next RfA, I think some editors just saw the frequency of your RfAs, rolled their eyes and parroted the oppose votes they read. —what a crazy random happenstance (formerly Hexagon1) 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work! Far too many opposed you on really narrow (I dare not say improper) grounds, rather than looking at the whole body of your work. I would note, moreover, that a slightly higher turnout of ayes commensurate with an earlier RfA would have put you over the top -- don't think you have to wait a year. BTW, I did not note an excessive frequency for your RfAs. And Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I had my doubts about you. I saw some issues with your work, but dismissing you outright just didn't feel right. So I've been looking over your contributions, weighing the options in my head, and carefully evaluating your work, and finally came to a conclusion. You may be a little rough around the edges, and yes, looking at individual, isolated incidents, your suitability seems questionable. But looking at your work as a whole, your potential value to the admin ranks is undeniable. So, I go to change my !vote from neutral to full support, and what do I find? You withdrew. Honestly I don't blame you mate, it takes real thick skin to run for admin. RfA's are always brutal, and yours seemed particularly bad. But hey, you survived five before this, so i guess you know that. Anyways, If you're willing to make another go round, I look forward to supporting you in RfA/Ironholds 5. Angrysockhop(and a happy new year) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it didn't work out. Look at it this way: At least you won't be joining the ranks of people who think this is appropriate behavior for an admin. Not bending over backwards to please people earns you a hell of a lot more respect with me than trying to please people so they'll vote for you. No bit is worth that shit. Keep up the good work! Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... just wow. I think that's finally tipped me towards supporting the proposed desysop process. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the wow. This is a page of self-loathing. A page long rant on how administrators are worthless dumbshits, yet he not only did not resign his adminship, but he displays it proudly still on the same page. In fact, he removed the userboxes relating to his content work, leaving ones about his adminship. He says the most worthwhile contributors are those who seek and achieve the least recognition, yet he left all his awards on display below it. And he gained his mop by being political, "just like everyone else does". No. Some, sure. Everyone? No. A lot of admins gained it on their merits, despite the fact that they didn't "play the game", drop to their knees and be political. He says the more icons of power one has, the more worthless they are, yet he supported JC's RFB. All I see is a lot of inconsistency. And when we're talking about truly worthless admins, it's not the ones that discuss the BLP problem endlessly; it's the admins who do nothing but bitch, taking no action, and retiring their tools without resigning them. It is those that look at their own adminship as a trophy while making judgments on what others actually get up and do with theirs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the admin corps. It's a good representation of the community, though; which is a good representation of the world. Something I've just recently realized. That rant, though, and the comments to Ironholds on the talk page, are a bit too much. Trusilver says Ironholds perpetuates the bureaucracy, whatever that means. Perhaps Trusilver should consider what he's perpetuating. Lara 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, I noticed much the same. Trusilver is a hypocrite in the worst way possible. He graciously acknowledges that manipulating the community as he did is wrong, but that's just about as far as his moral fibre takes him. When words come to actions he just sits there, abusing power that he himself admits he does not deserve. He accuses the community of an inferiority complex, yet ridiculing a system even he was able to manipulate is the ultimate sign of insecurity. There isn't much to add, you sum it up quite well. Dibs on co-noming him for admin recall if it passes. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the kind words for me (and mean ones for Trusilver) his entire point is that boring, pointless discussion and bureaucracy is something to be battled on-wiki. Perhaps we could avoid infuriating him more by spending time editing the wiki rather than discussing his views (since changing someone's mind is the most singularly difficult thing to do, in some respects, and this is likely to be pointless. Besides, he has a few good points). Many thanks, all. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is no point in vilifying a single editor, we're hardly going to change his mind by condemning him. Good luck with your future RfAs, Ironholds, and continue the good work! —what a crazy random happenstance 04:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants[edit]
I see the template you have added to delete Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants, but I am unfamiliar with this particular process for deleting an article. As an experienced editor who has nominated articles for deletion, and also worked on articles which were nominated for deletion but were kept by my improvements and the improvements of other editors, I am interested in the particular process for this article, contrasted with others I have seen. Can you tell me:
Why did the creator of the article not receive any notice?
Why is discussion limited to the talk page of the article, and not elsewhere?
Can I just delete the template, and thus keep the article going for the immediate future?
While I often improve or create articles about Pennsylvania, my interest in this particular article is as much about process as it is substance of the article. I have made some slight improvements to the article, and I am keeping it offline for my own use. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delate it. i's a very important diplomatic case between France and Hungary.
it has been improved by the french Wikipedians, and this is the translation.
Maybe it can be cut, and improved by english wikipedians.
Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The article in question was simply a message from you about the status of the article on the French wikipedia. Such things are inappropriate as articles and best kept on talkpages; that is why it was deleted, not because I questioned the importance of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your precision
--Raymondnivet (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ironholds! There is an article, the Italian modern and contemporary art, on which I need to quote a book in order to prove that what I'm saying is reliable. How do you do that? Cheers and reply as soon as possible--Theologiae (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to quote a book that I have and use it as a reference. For example, there's a piece of info I want to use, but it's written in that book, so how can I show that I'm quoting that particular book on the encyclopaedia? Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is called "Furniture" by Judith Miller and the page is number 486. Ok...--Theologiae (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a new part of Italian modern interior design...--Theologiae (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just wait a while... I'll tell you when I'm done--Theologiae (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I reworded it, since I presume the book is copyright. Anyway, thanks for the help!--Theologiae (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Outer Temple, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
. However, 
Hello! Your submission of Trustee Act 2000 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
