Hey man, it finally got through Royal Mail's infernal delivery system and turned up, so thanks. I'll see you on IRC and we can chat more - I should be in London in time for the June 14 meetup if you'll be there. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We could have a long wikilawyerish debate about whether WP:IAR in fact applies to AfDs or not, and I'm not particularly attached to the 1911 point, though I tend to think there's a certain inherent notability about being part of a legislature with true power.
Regardless of all of that, I still tend to think (as I'm sure you know) that's it's instruction creep to write in this exception. I'd remind you of the following bits of WP:BIO.
In short, I will re-state my position that the policies and guidelines already in place provide a mechanism for dealing with this without having to start tacking footnotes onto our guidelines. As they say keep it simple stupid. Cool3 ( talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to make a proposal myself. Max Mux ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you said "Principle" a couple times at WP:ANI? I was referring to Principal (school). Wknight94 talk 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Ironholds has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
I've seen that you have been instructing our mutual friend User:Max Mux not to use thepeerage.com as a source. I don't agree with you here. You're correct that it is self-published. However, it is extremely well-referenced using respectable sources such as Burke's and Cokayne. The material is also very uncontroversial, as it mainly consists of information on offices held, marriages et cetera. If we're not allowed to use self-publicized sources than we would also have to exclude leighrayment.com, which would result in us having to remove information from thousands of articles on peers, baronets, MPs, lists of MP, and so on. And the same goes for thepeerage.com, which has been used as a source in thousands of articles. Regards, Tryde ( talk) 07:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
But you can't do the one because of the other! Max Mux ( talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is not logical! Max Mux ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need all of them?-- Jakezing (Your King) ( talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we do. Don't try to trick me behind my back! Max Mux ( talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm the almighty, I'm god, no I'm Chuck Norris. I know everything. PS: Just kidding. Max Mux ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You have done so again? Max Mux ( talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it when you delete what I write! Please stop! Max Mux ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already asked you some times, Jazeking, whats your problem with me? Max Mux ( talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Iron. Regarding Swabian salute AfD, what about the solution of just moving the article to the name suggested by S&M? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds, I was thinking of taking a crack at the caselaw template, and before I start, I'm wondering if you've already corresponded with MZMcBride, since he's the maker of the Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case? thx Agradman ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This image is on Commons, you'll need to nominate it for deletion there if you have an issue with it. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I might be miscounting, but excluding the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author this comes out as 7 deletes and 4 keeps - that doesn't read as "no consensus" to me. Ironholds ( talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
John Verney 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!
Jolly
Ω
Janner
18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I mentioned Stand in the Schoolhouse Door as a candidate for TAR in an off-wiki conversation, but I just noticed George Wallace appeared on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 11 from 2004-2008 when there was no article about the schoolhouse door. He was only recently removed and didn't appear in 2009. A very convincing case for today's featured article next year if we get either featured. Recognizance ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, Paying attention to what you're copying is a good idea. Recognizance ( talk) 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Contract law is definitely an area in need of work, though tort law is severely lacking too. I'm probably going to continue with frustration and then misrepresentation for contract. This brings me onto a question: would it be a good idea to have a WikiProject for English common law? Guidelines and style formatting (as well as areas in need of work) are sorely lacking. RichsLaw ( talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Royal Mail Case 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!
hamiltonstone (
talk)
02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. How do we tackle the last batch of articles created by this user? Should they be nominated for deletion or should I just be bold and redirect them to the article on the peerage they held? The articles I have identified are:
He has also managed to move this article to an inappropriate article title - it can now only be moved back to it's proper title by an administrator.
MaxMux is currently blocked. Do you think it is possible to have a topic ban imposed on him, forbidding him from creating articles on peers. This is unfortunately taking up a lot my time here, so that would be useful. Tryde ( talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't redirect them. It wuld be against your often cited policy. Max Mux ( talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Max Mux ( talk) 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How much time can you give me? Max Mux ( talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I work at more than one article per day under User Max Mux/... without completely creating it? Max Mux ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I will make some suggestions. Max Mux ( talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Max Mux ( talk) 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Can you have a look at my links if they are okay? Max Mux ( talk) 08:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) a:And when you're at it can you check up the article as well? Max Mux ( talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This one: User:Max Mux/George Sinclair, 4th Earl of Caithness Max Mux ( talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. --( GameShowKid)--( talk)--( evidence)--( 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, you found out from Jakezing about Cody6, I just pointed to what he said on my talk page. Why he told me about it, I don't know. Maybe he just assumed I knew somehow, but I didn't. And how he got on my radar originally, I don't recall. But that voluntary admission just about hangs him. Four indef blocks overall? I can't recall running into any other user with that many. Although I don't keep track of those kinds of stats. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Ironholds. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy ( talk · contribs) and Firestorm ( talk · contribs). 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A polite reminder to choose a country, city, state or other place to represent. Your last choice was not one of these and has been removed (sorry, we altered the rules since then). Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I had a read and it seems very comprehensive! I made a few minor changes; one thing which I'm not sure on though, should case citations be referenced or inline? If they're inline, should they only be given once? I'm open to either idea, just not sure if there's a consensus. Good work regardless. Best, RichsLaw ( talk) 11:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, before Nuero said that he and you were working on the Royal Society medals. I wanted to write about one, but they were all FLed already; so I took the next-closest thing, the Rumford Prize, and refurbished it. [1] I'm hoping that after a polish it'll be FLC'able. Can you tell me if you see any issues in the article? Sorry if this is sort of random... Res Mar 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. User:MaxMux inserted a number of red links to the Harmsworth Baronets article yesterday (about an hour after I edited the article). It would be good if you can make him aware of WP:RED, which states that "...when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first ... [and more importantly] Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles ..." I reverted a number of similar edits he made to peerage articles yesterday. Regards, Tryde ( talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats not how we should do it. There was no reason to do so. Max Mux ( talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of it is right. But not all. Max Mux ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles should ever be good sourced regardless of what it is about. But your other point is completely wrong. Max Mux ( talk) 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of trying to get Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson to GA; it's got more scope than Phillips v Brooks, being a pivotal decision in the area of mistake to identity. Plenty of journal articles on the subject and a lot of differing opinions from the judges on the issues at stake, as well as clarifications of 200 years of case law. Perhaps we could work on that? RichsLaw ( talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering if anything was ever done with Stilltim and his hundreds of forks? Thanks!-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is on my list whith articles that need attention and I will work on the next day. So please make no such edits. Max Mux ( talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What mistake? It looks much better if parted. And as I said I'm working on all articles from me that are incomplete. Max Mux ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dank ( push to talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting rightphone's attempt to delete stuff on Jon Courtney's page. I want to ask you about his other edit - the Septic Clit quote. This reviewer, who is a lone wolf on a DoS account has a history of pointless vitriolic agressive reviews, and thus in my opinion no real credibility as a wikipedia source. I didn't realise that the quote had consensus already - but surely this should be reversed? I'm not opposed to a negative quote (even though the vast majority of Courtney's/PRR's reviews are positive), but this one seems very misleading and harmful to the article - I think it's an unwelcome leftover from the days when justpassinby and his sockpupets (probably including Rightphone) were atempting to make the article as negative as possible. Any thoughts? Thanks. Thedarkfourth ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to explain to him that this isn't an ideal way of dealing with people... ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I could finish putting up the basic info you notified me - but not the article - that you are tagging it for speedy deletion. Please note the additional information on the Jack Wyrtzen discussion page as well as the article itself. This is an important link article to others on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Fk27jh ( talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please check the history of an article before you use a bot and boilerplate text to tag an article for speedy deletion. It took me less than 10 seconds to find the edit in the history where a user identifying themselves as Barron's PR added the 'promotional' text. You're an encyclopedia editor, not a machine, please take care with our encyclopedia's content.— Perceval 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your name on the list of participants at WP:MAMMAL, and your interest in working on rodent articles. I have proposed a new wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents. Feel free to comment there or add your name if you're interested. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the warning you placed on this user a while back. He might need to be temp banned for a week since he still seems to be creating non-notable items that seem to have a COI. Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy ( talk · contribs) and Firestorm ( talk · contribs) -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up. I've blanked three paragraphs on the Sarsfield Grenadier Guards with the copyvio template as they are copied verbatum from http://www.militarymuseum.org/SarsfieldGrenadiers.html. I'd appreciate you looking into this matter. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I've finished Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and Frustration in English law recently (well, very nearly) and was wondering if when you have the time you could give them a quick look. Something I was wondering was.. how do you have so many contract books?? You cite an awful lot of them :P. Thanks, RichsLaw ( talk) 09:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey I have a photo that I want to upload to the Jon Courtney page - it's not mine but the person who took it has given me explicit permission that it can be used in wikipedia. How do I go about uploading it? Sorry to bother you, but I had to ask someone! Thanks! Thedarkfourth ( talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Please remember to use a ':' (without the quotes) when referring to File on WP on someone else's talk page. For example [{File:Aliensubbie.png]] should be written as File:Aliensubbie.png in order to 'link to the File' and not 'link the File' in its entirety. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking of redirecting these articles but would appreciate your opinion first.
I also redirected Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock today, thinking this would be uncontroversial, but this met opposition from some users. What do you think? Tryde ( talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds, would you please have a look at these articles as well and give your opinion on whether they should be redirected or not. I hope you're not getting tired of me...
Regards, Tryde ( talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy - I've obviously not finished the GA review today like I said I would; apologies for that. Real life's intervened somewhat, and the other GA review I'm doing is proving more time consuming than anticipated. I should have it done by the end of the weekend. And thanks for your kind words about my return - it's nice to be back, which I suppose is the only reason I am. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1964. Recognizance ( talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of trying to do ANYTHING if you're going to revert EVERYTHING? Is it just that you don't know the detail of what you're looking at? I accept some border line stuff that could be revert back, but much is clean up and I have to do it all over again. May I ask that you think a bit about each specific item, as I do, and make a judgment please. I will upgrade my description of what I doing for your preference, but this is really trivia, clean up and consistency only. I feel like my mother is watching me making my bed!!! Am I that notorious? stilltim ( talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
On a friendly note...Can you direct me on a path to help me figure out how to better present or organize the Joe Biden article. It needs help and someone watching and I'm willing, but need no fights...I just want to get it as good as all the experts think it should be. Can you help me figure the org and high level stuff? Should I sluff off pieces to a secondary article that someone else writes? How can a footnote come off every sentence and things still be right? Do I need to translate into my words then reference in general? Markles ignores me. stilltim ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Professional and political - consistency and accuracy. Since virtualy all these paragraphs have both, including this one, the title should be broader. He, and most of these guys, were more than politician. My oversight in the past.
Congress connections- Access to the Congress articles is linked elsewhere in the article tables and seemed enough per other major criticism I received from other editors. I really don't care too must, but want to be consistent. My rule of thumb is to have one link for everything useful, beginning with the Infobox (most visible), then the tables (next most visible), and finally the article (least visible). I'm very open to other approaches that are consistent.
Some quote marks- I found some of these do nothing so I removed them. No idea what's going on but the result is the same.
Party shading- The design is to show the reader the color of the majority party, not the party of the subject. That way they can see easily if there in the majority. Maybe a bad idea, but again that's how I'm trying to show consistent.
Places of more information- Same information but once again trying to show it the same format as all the other Delaware articles (over 200 eventually), Seems like they should be the same, but don't really care how.
Connect to indexes, etc. Read my profile and you'll see I learned the hard way about the much too many index references, etc. Several designers and consulting folks like you preached the value of simplicity here. I heard and now think fewer is best and they should only be routes to other info, not just pretty display. I do need to make sure the connections are somewhere in the article, and hopeful have.
I really want good results and work with well with all of you. I hope you'll recognize that and appreciate the value I may bring and help me through the lack of understandings I certainly have. stilltim ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting against bigotry and censorship here. -- GHcool ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. There's an important discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1 that may affect your Royal Society medal FLs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be glad to help you.
The truth is, despite my latest article, I haven't the slightest background in English Law. I don't think that neccesarily helps me from helping. I could:
BTW, about my article:
- TachyonJack ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Inviting you to take a look at my reaction to your warning/advice on my Talk. - DePiep ( talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There's alot of folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, who are very concerned with SNIyer12's snubbing. GoodDay ( talk) 16:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Thanks for the 'archiving evidence'. Now it's certain, that he's snubbing the community. GoodDay ( talk) 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I wasn't seeing your comments as criticism of my report. I saw them as helping my report. PS: I'll take you advice. GoodDay ( talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from the MOS (dates and numbering -full dates formatting), the italic version is perfectly acceptable and documented. In the face of that, please advise me of the documentation of the "consensus" you cite. I will apply any appropriate ruling. However, just because you and some of your friends say otherwise, nothing really changes things, including what seems to be your threats. You should note that the wording you use carries that tone, one that is contradictory to your own instructions and one I hope I misunderstand. I would prefer to work together, as we apparently must and as I have managed to do with others. You might find more agreement after discussion and expermentation than you imagined. stilltim ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"... that although tasked with drafting the bills of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has only 61 draftsmen? Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)"
The page says that there are 61 lawyers and 25 support (assuming means 86 workers). The word "draftsmen" doesn't come up. Perhaps rework it to say that there bills of Parliament are written with the help of 61 lawyers or something to that effect? Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 09:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
<delurk>
Gosh, it is really almost two years? Anyway...
How odd. I am sure I wrote a short stub about this several years ago. A little bird in my ear tells me that the original article went something like:
As far as I am aware, that is not a copyvio, but I guess this would have been edited several times since I created it. Perhaps a later editor added the copyvio material, but the old version seems to have been deleted so I can't check what the original text says or view the old edit history. Did you check before tagging the article for speedy deletion?
Perhaps some kind passing admin might like to check the deleted history and restore the non-copyvio material. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you have an opinion on Lithuania–Romania relations? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I got confused as to where the War of 1812 was. I put it in the wrong spot, then removed it. I also found another war that doesn't go there, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Johnny bread has been removed. It was removed by Plastikspork with the following edit summary '(Per talk page comment)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Plastikspork before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
I might do the GA review on this, but for now, can I say the Ockham (1922) ref in the footnotes isn't in the biblio? Cheers :-) BTW, having read the whole article now, it seems a little strange (though perhaps understandable) that an article about a Select Committee never actually directly cites the Report, nor Hansard of the time. Are you able to rectify that at all? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Akehurst has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - based on http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Akehurst+surname+-inauthor%3AAkehurst&btnG=Search+Books the names appears to have sufficient notability - cleaned-up & expanded article)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
This is almost at the "start" class. Please add more information and links. Bearian ( talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The extra sentence you wrote is accurate and well put. I think Richard might have even said something like that himself in the Guardian interview. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the titles used in the article. "Lord Claud Schuster" is completely wrong, he was not the younger son of a duke or marquess. The correct style should be "The Lord Schuster". As far as I know the formal title of peers has always been used in lists and infoboxes on Wikipedia. "The Viscount Haldane" should be used in the infobox, although it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to him as Lord Haldane in the running text. Schuster's peerage title is also wrong, it should be Baron Schuster, of Cerne in the County of Dorset, not Baron Schuster of Cerne, in the County of Dorset, as shown here. His birth date in the infobox should also be changed so that it doesn't appear "American style". Tryde ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in supporting nonfactual articles based only on opinions, thus violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view(
NPOV). Please refrain from supporting people putting opinions on articles.
Trentc (
talk)
23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to make corrections the article to be NPOV when there are 1 billion Indians that keep reverting the article. Suggestions?
Trentc (
talk)
23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds,
Thanks for the positive words at WP:LAW. Don't worry, all contributions will conform to the MOS.
Anyhow, I created the task force, shortcut via WP:Hornbook. (I hope you don't mind this incursion on your ontological real estate; WP:UKHornbook is still available).
I'm about to copy-paste the text of this invitation to members of Category:Wikipedian law students, WP:LAW, and WP:SCOTUS. Before I do, will you take a look at the invitation, the task force, etc., and give me your feedback? Thanks.
Agradman talk/ contribs 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
PS Since I'm here, I'd like to get your opinions on the "task forces" discussion I started at WP:SCOTUS
I think sub-projects of WP:LAW should be take the form of "task forces," as I am doing now. One advantage is that all "logistics" will be handled out of WP:LAW; the children will only be responsible for their narrow "mission". Also, it will improve coordination. Even though WP:SCOTUS claims to be a child project of WP:LAW, it contains ONLY ONE REFERENCE to WP:LAW in the entire wikiproject -- i.e. we're in the law category! So I don't see how we can pretend to pay deference to WP:LAW when we're taking that attitude. Also, I think the "task force" model will help remind American Wikipedia editors to consider other legal traditions, an issue I know you've been fighting for. For example, WP:LAW would have a "Style manual task force" whose job is to develop legal style guidelines for all the children of WP:LAW; the British section would explain to Americans that in the UK "Regina v Jones" is supposed to lack a period(!)
Thoughts? Agradman talk/ contribs 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Habeas Corpus Act 1862 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!
Little
Mountain
5
21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say I found the way you handled the ANI complaint about User:Warm as ice to be very impressive. While I'm not as optimistic as you about the potential for such editors to become productive members of the community in other spheres, I think your faith is inspiring. I also wanted to say on a personal note that I deeply appreciated your sentiment regarding Palestinian land rights (it made me smile from ear to ear) and that if we ever do get any land back, I hope we share it with you and others like you. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut talk 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So Why 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | In terms of guidelines we've got WP:MOSLAW, but that really needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Want to start discussing that on the moslaw talkpage in a tick? We can throw suggestions at the wall and see what sticks | ” |
Sure. What would you like to propose? My preference is to propose starting a "styleguide task force" under WP:Law, because I think we're bordering on fragmentation. For example, over at SCOTUS there's an article outline which is being applied only to SCOTUS cases, which is silly because all common-law cases unfold according to the same logic; and there's a seething, unresolved discussion over how to cite cases to case reporters, veiled as a disagreement over which citation template to use.
Maybe the talk page for this "styleguide task force" could redirect to the talk page for WP:MOSLAW, or something. Not that we have authority to dictate terms to the whole of Wikipedia; but we certainly are the most reliable people to be consulting.
(By the way, I spent last night spamming 250 user talk pages with wp:hornbook/invite. What a pain ...)
cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. It's been a while, but I did take papers in ELH for my Finals at Oxford in 1982 and one of my college professors is well known, if hot widely published, legal historian. I still have my old books at home, so I will dig them out and see what they cover. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In the course of advertising WP:Hornbook, I've stumbled across a large number of people interested in British law. Usually, I figure out it because their userpage says "this user is a lawyer" and "this user lives in England".
Maybe you want to create a userbox/task force/wikiproject so you guys can keep in touch.
Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding those things. I'll pop off an email to you right now. Just the kick in the butt I needed to get back to developing it further. My energies are a little scattered allovertheplace right now. Thanks again. Tiamut talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding our recent conversation -- I was not eager to rush into proposing a "styleguide" task force; however, User:Wikidea recently proposed some changes at WP:SCOTUS which User:MZMcBride reverted, and i thought this was as good an opportunity as any to revive the proposal.
Therefore, I revived the proposal at this thread on WP:SCOTUS, and that would be as good a location as any to support it (if you support it.)
Historically, User:MZMcBride has made fantastic contributions to legal articles. Therefore, I am trying to proceed with respect for his views, and I think a key strategy is that if we persuade him, this proposal will succeed.
Thanks ... Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, it finally got through Royal Mail's infernal delivery system and turned up, so thanks. I'll see you on IRC and we can chat more - I should be in London in time for the June 14 meetup if you'll be there. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We could have a long wikilawyerish debate about whether WP:IAR in fact applies to AfDs or not, and I'm not particularly attached to the 1911 point, though I tend to think there's a certain inherent notability about being part of a legislature with true power.
Regardless of all of that, I still tend to think (as I'm sure you know) that's it's instruction creep to write in this exception. I'd remind you of the following bits of WP:BIO.
In short, I will re-state my position that the policies and guidelines already in place provide a mechanism for dealing with this without having to start tacking footnotes onto our guidelines. As they say keep it simple stupid. Cool3 ( talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to make a proposal myself. Max Mux ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you said "Principle" a couple times at WP:ANI? I was referring to Principal (school). Wknight94 talk 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Ironholds has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
I've seen that you have been instructing our mutual friend User:Max Mux not to use thepeerage.com as a source. I don't agree with you here. You're correct that it is self-published. However, it is extremely well-referenced using respectable sources such as Burke's and Cokayne. The material is also very uncontroversial, as it mainly consists of information on offices held, marriages et cetera. If we're not allowed to use self-publicized sources than we would also have to exclude leighrayment.com, which would result in us having to remove information from thousands of articles on peers, baronets, MPs, lists of MP, and so on. And the same goes for thepeerage.com, which has been used as a source in thousands of articles. Regards, Tryde ( talk) 07:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
But you can't do the one because of the other! Max Mux ( talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is not logical! Max Mux ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need all of them?-- Jakezing (Your King) ( talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we do. Don't try to trick me behind my back! Max Mux ( talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm the almighty, I'm god, no I'm Chuck Norris. I know everything. PS: Just kidding. Max Mux ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You have done so again? Max Mux ( talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it when you delete what I write! Please stop! Max Mux ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already asked you some times, Jazeking, whats your problem with me? Max Mux ( talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Iron. Regarding Swabian salute AfD, what about the solution of just moving the article to the name suggested by S&M? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds, I was thinking of taking a crack at the caselaw template, and before I start, I'm wondering if you've already corresponded with MZMcBride, since he's the maker of the Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case? thx Agradman ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This image is on Commons, you'll need to nominate it for deletion there if you have an issue with it. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I might be miscounting, but excluding the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author this comes out as 7 deletes and 4 keeps - that doesn't read as "no consensus" to me. Ironholds ( talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
John Verney 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!
Jolly
Ω
Janner
18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I mentioned Stand in the Schoolhouse Door as a candidate for TAR in an off-wiki conversation, but I just noticed George Wallace appeared on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 11 from 2004-2008 when there was no article about the schoolhouse door. He was only recently removed and didn't appear in 2009. A very convincing case for today's featured article next year if we get either featured. Recognizance ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, Paying attention to what you're copying is a good idea. Recognizance ( talk) 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Contract law is definitely an area in need of work, though tort law is severely lacking too. I'm probably going to continue with frustration and then misrepresentation for contract. This brings me onto a question: would it be a good idea to have a WikiProject for English common law? Guidelines and style formatting (as well as areas in need of work) are sorely lacking. RichsLaw ( talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Royal Mail Case 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!
hamiltonstone (
talk)
02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. How do we tackle the last batch of articles created by this user? Should they be nominated for deletion or should I just be bold and redirect them to the article on the peerage they held? The articles I have identified are:
He has also managed to move this article to an inappropriate article title - it can now only be moved back to it's proper title by an administrator.
MaxMux is currently blocked. Do you think it is possible to have a topic ban imposed on him, forbidding him from creating articles on peers. This is unfortunately taking up a lot my time here, so that would be useful. Tryde ( talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't redirect them. It wuld be against your often cited policy. Max Mux ( talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Max Mux ( talk) 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How much time can you give me? Max Mux ( talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I work at more than one article per day under User Max Mux/... without completely creating it? Max Mux ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I will make some suggestions. Max Mux ( talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Max Mux ( talk) 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Can you have a look at my links if they are okay? Max Mux ( talk) 08:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) a:And when you're at it can you check up the article as well? Max Mux ( talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This one: User:Max Mux/George Sinclair, 4th Earl of Caithness Max Mux ( talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. --( GameShowKid)--( talk)--( evidence)--( 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, you found out from Jakezing about Cody6, I just pointed to what he said on my talk page. Why he told me about it, I don't know. Maybe he just assumed I knew somehow, but I didn't. And how he got on my radar originally, I don't recall. But that voluntary admission just about hangs him. Four indef blocks overall? I can't recall running into any other user with that many. Although I don't keep track of those kinds of stats. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Ironholds. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy ( talk · contribs) and Firestorm ( talk · contribs). 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A polite reminder to choose a country, city, state or other place to represent. Your last choice was not one of these and has been removed (sorry, we altered the rules since then). Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I had a read and it seems very comprehensive! I made a few minor changes; one thing which I'm not sure on though, should case citations be referenced or inline? If they're inline, should they only be given once? I'm open to either idea, just not sure if there's a consensus. Good work regardless. Best, RichsLaw ( talk) 11:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, before Nuero said that he and you were working on the Royal Society medals. I wanted to write about one, but they were all FLed already; so I took the next-closest thing, the Rumford Prize, and refurbished it. [1] I'm hoping that after a polish it'll be FLC'able. Can you tell me if you see any issues in the article? Sorry if this is sort of random... Res Mar 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. User:MaxMux inserted a number of red links to the Harmsworth Baronets article yesterday (about an hour after I edited the article). It would be good if you can make him aware of WP:RED, which states that "...when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first ... [and more importantly] Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles ..." I reverted a number of similar edits he made to peerage articles yesterday. Regards, Tryde ( talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats not how we should do it. There was no reason to do so. Max Mux ( talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of it is right. But not all. Max Mux ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles should ever be good sourced regardless of what it is about. But your other point is completely wrong. Max Mux ( talk) 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of trying to get Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson to GA; it's got more scope than Phillips v Brooks, being a pivotal decision in the area of mistake to identity. Plenty of journal articles on the subject and a lot of differing opinions from the judges on the issues at stake, as well as clarifications of 200 years of case law. Perhaps we could work on that? RichsLaw ( talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering if anything was ever done with Stilltim and his hundreds of forks? Thanks!-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is on my list whith articles that need attention and I will work on the next day. So please make no such edits. Max Mux ( talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What mistake? It looks much better if parted. And as I said I'm working on all articles from me that are incomplete. Max Mux ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dank ( push to talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting rightphone's attempt to delete stuff on Jon Courtney's page. I want to ask you about his other edit - the Septic Clit quote. This reviewer, who is a lone wolf on a DoS account has a history of pointless vitriolic agressive reviews, and thus in my opinion no real credibility as a wikipedia source. I didn't realise that the quote had consensus already - but surely this should be reversed? I'm not opposed to a negative quote (even though the vast majority of Courtney's/PRR's reviews are positive), but this one seems very misleading and harmful to the article - I think it's an unwelcome leftover from the days when justpassinby and his sockpupets (probably including Rightphone) were atempting to make the article as negative as possible. Any thoughts? Thanks. Thedarkfourth ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to explain to him that this isn't an ideal way of dealing with people... ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I could finish putting up the basic info you notified me - but not the article - that you are tagging it for speedy deletion. Please note the additional information on the Jack Wyrtzen discussion page as well as the article itself. This is an important link article to others on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Fk27jh ( talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please check the history of an article before you use a bot and boilerplate text to tag an article for speedy deletion. It took me less than 10 seconds to find the edit in the history where a user identifying themselves as Barron's PR added the 'promotional' text. You're an encyclopedia editor, not a machine, please take care with our encyclopedia's content.— Perceval 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your name on the list of participants at WP:MAMMAL, and your interest in working on rodent articles. I have proposed a new wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents. Feel free to comment there or add your name if you're interested. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the warning you placed on this user a while back. He might need to be temp banned for a week since he still seems to be creating non-notable items that seem to have a COI. Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy ( talk · contribs) and Firestorm ( talk · contribs) -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up. I've blanked three paragraphs on the Sarsfield Grenadier Guards with the copyvio template as they are copied verbatum from http://www.militarymuseum.org/SarsfieldGrenadiers.html. I'd appreciate you looking into this matter. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I've finished Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and Frustration in English law recently (well, very nearly) and was wondering if when you have the time you could give them a quick look. Something I was wondering was.. how do you have so many contract books?? You cite an awful lot of them :P. Thanks, RichsLaw ( talk) 09:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey I have a photo that I want to upload to the Jon Courtney page - it's not mine but the person who took it has given me explicit permission that it can be used in wikipedia. How do I go about uploading it? Sorry to bother you, but I had to ask someone! Thanks! Thedarkfourth ( talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Please remember to use a ':' (without the quotes) when referring to File on WP on someone else's talk page. For example [{File:Aliensubbie.png]] should be written as File:Aliensubbie.png in order to 'link to the File' and not 'link the File' in its entirety. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking of redirecting these articles but would appreciate your opinion first.
I also redirected Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock today, thinking this would be uncontroversial, but this met opposition from some users. What do you think? Tryde ( talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds, would you please have a look at these articles as well and give your opinion on whether they should be redirected or not. I hope you're not getting tired of me...
Regards, Tryde ( talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Howdy - I've obviously not finished the GA review today like I said I would; apologies for that. Real life's intervened somewhat, and the other GA review I'm doing is proving more time consuming than anticipated. I should have it done by the end of the weekend. And thanks for your kind words about my return - it's nice to be back, which I suppose is the only reason I am. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1964. Recognizance ( talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of trying to do ANYTHING if you're going to revert EVERYTHING? Is it just that you don't know the detail of what you're looking at? I accept some border line stuff that could be revert back, but much is clean up and I have to do it all over again. May I ask that you think a bit about each specific item, as I do, and make a judgment please. I will upgrade my description of what I doing for your preference, but this is really trivia, clean up and consistency only. I feel like my mother is watching me making my bed!!! Am I that notorious? stilltim ( talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
On a friendly note...Can you direct me on a path to help me figure out how to better present or organize the Joe Biden article. It needs help and someone watching and I'm willing, but need no fights...I just want to get it as good as all the experts think it should be. Can you help me figure the org and high level stuff? Should I sluff off pieces to a secondary article that someone else writes? How can a footnote come off every sentence and things still be right? Do I need to translate into my words then reference in general? Markles ignores me. stilltim ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Professional and political - consistency and accuracy. Since virtualy all these paragraphs have both, including this one, the title should be broader. He, and most of these guys, were more than politician. My oversight in the past.
Congress connections- Access to the Congress articles is linked elsewhere in the article tables and seemed enough per other major criticism I received from other editors. I really don't care too must, but want to be consistent. My rule of thumb is to have one link for everything useful, beginning with the Infobox (most visible), then the tables (next most visible), and finally the article (least visible). I'm very open to other approaches that are consistent.
Some quote marks- I found some of these do nothing so I removed them. No idea what's going on but the result is the same.
Party shading- The design is to show the reader the color of the majority party, not the party of the subject. That way they can see easily if there in the majority. Maybe a bad idea, but again that's how I'm trying to show consistent.
Places of more information- Same information but once again trying to show it the same format as all the other Delaware articles (over 200 eventually), Seems like they should be the same, but don't really care how.
Connect to indexes, etc. Read my profile and you'll see I learned the hard way about the much too many index references, etc. Several designers and consulting folks like you preached the value of simplicity here. I heard and now think fewer is best and they should only be routes to other info, not just pretty display. I do need to make sure the connections are somewhere in the article, and hopeful have.
I really want good results and work with well with all of you. I hope you'll recognize that and appreciate the value I may bring and help me through the lack of understandings I certainly have. stilltim ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting against bigotry and censorship here. -- GHcool ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. There's an important discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1 that may affect your Royal Society medal FLs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be glad to help you.
The truth is, despite my latest article, I haven't the slightest background in English Law. I don't think that neccesarily helps me from helping. I could:
BTW, about my article:
- TachyonJack ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Inviting you to take a look at my reaction to your warning/advice on my Talk. - DePiep ( talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There's alot of folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, who are very concerned with SNIyer12's snubbing. GoodDay ( talk) 16:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Thanks for the 'archiving evidence'. Now it's certain, that he's snubbing the community. GoodDay ( talk) 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I wasn't seeing your comments as criticism of my report. I saw them as helping my report. PS: I'll take you advice. GoodDay ( talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from the MOS (dates and numbering -full dates formatting), the italic version is perfectly acceptable and documented. In the face of that, please advise me of the documentation of the "consensus" you cite. I will apply any appropriate ruling. However, just because you and some of your friends say otherwise, nothing really changes things, including what seems to be your threats. You should note that the wording you use carries that tone, one that is contradictory to your own instructions and one I hope I misunderstand. I would prefer to work together, as we apparently must and as I have managed to do with others. You might find more agreement after discussion and expermentation than you imagined. stilltim ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"... that although tasked with drafting the bills of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has only 61 draftsmen? Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)"
The page says that there are 61 lawyers and 25 support (assuming means 86 workers). The word "draftsmen" doesn't come up. Perhaps rework it to say that there bills of Parliament are written with the help of 61 lawyers or something to that effect? Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 09:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
<delurk>
Gosh, it is really almost two years? Anyway...
How odd. I am sure I wrote a short stub about this several years ago. A little bird in my ear tells me that the original article went something like:
As far as I am aware, that is not a copyvio, but I guess this would have been edited several times since I created it. Perhaps a later editor added the copyvio material, but the old version seems to have been deleted so I can't check what the original text says or view the old edit history. Did you check before tagging the article for speedy deletion?
Perhaps some kind passing admin might like to check the deleted history and restore the non-copyvio material. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you have an opinion on Lithuania–Romania relations? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I got confused as to where the War of 1812 was. I put it in the wrong spot, then removed it. I also found another war that doesn't go there, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Johnny bread has been removed. It was removed by Plastikspork with the following edit summary '(Per talk page comment)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Plastikspork before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
I might do the GA review on this, but for now, can I say the Ockham (1922) ref in the footnotes isn't in the biblio? Cheers :-) BTW, having read the whole article now, it seems a little strange (though perhaps understandable) that an article about a Select Committee never actually directly cites the Report, nor Hansard of the time. Are you able to rectify that at all? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ironholds, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Akehurst has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - based on http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Akehurst+surname+-inauthor%3AAkehurst&btnG=Search+Books the names appears to have sufficient notability - cleaned-up & expanded article)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
This is almost at the "start" class. Please add more information and links. Bearian ( talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The extra sentence you wrote is accurate and well put. I think Richard might have even said something like that himself in the Guardian interview. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the titles used in the article. "Lord Claud Schuster" is completely wrong, he was not the younger son of a duke or marquess. The correct style should be "The Lord Schuster". As far as I know the formal title of peers has always been used in lists and infoboxes on Wikipedia. "The Viscount Haldane" should be used in the infobox, although it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to him as Lord Haldane in the running text. Schuster's peerage title is also wrong, it should be Baron Schuster, of Cerne in the County of Dorset, not Baron Schuster of Cerne, in the County of Dorset, as shown here. His birth date in the infobox should also be changed so that it doesn't appear "American style". Tryde ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in supporting nonfactual articles based only on opinions, thus violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view(
NPOV). Please refrain from supporting people putting opinions on articles.
Trentc (
talk)
23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to make corrections the article to be NPOV when there are 1 billion Indians that keep reverting the article. Suggestions?
Trentc (
talk)
23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ironholds,
Thanks for the positive words at WP:LAW. Don't worry, all contributions will conform to the MOS.
Anyhow, I created the task force, shortcut via WP:Hornbook. (I hope you don't mind this incursion on your ontological real estate; WP:UKHornbook is still available).
I'm about to copy-paste the text of this invitation to members of Category:Wikipedian law students, WP:LAW, and WP:SCOTUS. Before I do, will you take a look at the invitation, the task force, etc., and give me your feedback? Thanks.
Agradman talk/ contribs 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
PS Since I'm here, I'd like to get your opinions on the "task forces" discussion I started at WP:SCOTUS
I think sub-projects of WP:LAW should be take the form of "task forces," as I am doing now. One advantage is that all "logistics" will be handled out of WP:LAW; the children will only be responsible for their narrow "mission". Also, it will improve coordination. Even though WP:SCOTUS claims to be a child project of WP:LAW, it contains ONLY ONE REFERENCE to WP:LAW in the entire wikiproject -- i.e. we're in the law category! So I don't see how we can pretend to pay deference to WP:LAW when we're taking that attitude. Also, I think the "task force" model will help remind American Wikipedia editors to consider other legal traditions, an issue I know you've been fighting for. For example, WP:LAW would have a "Style manual task force" whose job is to develop legal style guidelines for all the children of WP:LAW; the British section would explain to Americans that in the UK "Regina v Jones" is supposed to lack a period(!)
Thoughts? Agradman talk/ contribs 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Habeas Corpus Act 1862 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!
Little
Mountain
5
21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say I found the way you handled the ANI complaint about User:Warm as ice to be very impressive. While I'm not as optimistic as you about the potential for such editors to become productive members of the community in other spheres, I think your faith is inspiring. I also wanted to say on a personal note that I deeply appreciated your sentiment regarding Palestinian land rights (it made me smile from ear to ear) and that if we ever do get any land back, I hope we share it with you and others like you. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut talk 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So Why 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | In terms of guidelines we've got WP:MOSLAW, but that really needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Want to start discussing that on the moslaw talkpage in a tick? We can throw suggestions at the wall and see what sticks | ” |
Sure. What would you like to propose? My preference is to propose starting a "styleguide task force" under WP:Law, because I think we're bordering on fragmentation. For example, over at SCOTUS there's an article outline which is being applied only to SCOTUS cases, which is silly because all common-law cases unfold according to the same logic; and there's a seething, unresolved discussion over how to cite cases to case reporters, veiled as a disagreement over which citation template to use.
Maybe the talk page for this "styleguide task force" could redirect to the talk page for WP:MOSLAW, or something. Not that we have authority to dictate terms to the whole of Wikipedia; but we certainly are the most reliable people to be consulting.
(By the way, I spent last night spamming 250 user talk pages with wp:hornbook/invite. What a pain ...)
cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. It's been a while, but I did take papers in ELH for my Finals at Oxford in 1982 and one of my college professors is well known, if hot widely published, legal historian. I still have my old books at home, so I will dig them out and see what they cover. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In the course of advertising WP:Hornbook, I've stumbled across a large number of people interested in British law. Usually, I figure out it because their userpage says "this user is a lawyer" and "this user lives in England".
Maybe you want to create a userbox/task force/wikiproject so you guys can keep in touch.
Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding those things. I'll pop off an email to you right now. Just the kick in the butt I needed to get back to developing it further. My energies are a little scattered allovertheplace right now. Thanks again. Tiamut talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding our recent conversation -- I was not eager to rush into proposing a "styleguide" task force; however, User:Wikidea recently proposed some changes at WP:SCOTUS which User:MZMcBride reverted, and i thought this was as good an opportunity as any to revive the proposal.
Therefore, I revived the proposal at this thread on WP:SCOTUS, and that would be as good a location as any to support it (if you support it.)
Historically, User:MZMcBride has made fantastic contributions to legal articles. Therefore, I am trying to proceed with respect for his views, and I think a key strategy is that if we persuade him, this proposal will succeed.
Thanks ... Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)