This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey there, I undid your undoing of my edit to Trespass in English Law. I came across that page when casually going through it. I am studying English law from the University of London International Academy, and I made the edit in line with what I have and am studying in English Criminal Law and English Tort Law, respectively. I found the earlier version to be factually incorrect. If you think my edit is factually incorrect, feel free to tell me that. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, I never have; I did that with the best of intentions and beliefs. Kind regards Ahmer Jamil Khan ^Who? _Chat? 10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ahmer Jamil Khan: fair enough. The problem comes with the distinction between common assault and assault; Common assault is an assault, or a battery action, while assault consists exclusively of the apprehension of physical force. So we're both slightly off - if it's okay with you, I'll tweak the article and ask you to review it? Ironholds ( talk) 17:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ironholds: Sure, anything that serves the greater good. Assault in English law, in both Tort and Criminal, is defined as apprehension of immediate, unlawful forced by the defendant/claimant. Ahmer Jamil Khan ^Who? _Chat? 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem is the distinction between common assault and assault. My suggestion would be we tweak it to:

Under English criminal and tort law, an assault simply means to act in such a way that the claimant or victim believes they are about to be attacked

Thoughts? Ironholds ( talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I...don't think I've ever been involved in AfC, but thank you for letting me know. Ironholds ( talk) 18:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please see in which guideline does it mention that sources are not required to be online? I need to show it to one contributor that insists on replacing a dead link rather then removing it, and I failed to find archived copy of it. Many thanks.-- Mishae ( talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I..what? Why is there a problem with replacing a dead link? Ironholds ( talk) 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the official link is better then the one that mirrors it. For example do you know anything about Campeoes do Futebol site? I personally don't know anything about it and comparing to CBF site which was dead, I think the new one is less official, and therefore might not meet RS. Or am I wrong?-- Mishae ( talk) 19:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

When we say "sources are not required to be online" we mean "you can cite books", not "cite websites that no longer work". The reason citing books is acceptable is that someone can find a copy of said book and verify that way; how exactly would you propose one verify the content of a site that no longer exists? Ironholds ( talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you still can verify it. Everything else is there; title, author, date, accessdate, work, publisher... Am I right?-- Mishae ( talk) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

...but not the content. Because the site. Is dead. There is no policy I can point you to that says "removing archived links that work and replacing it with links that don't is a good idea!" because it's not a good idea. Verification is verifying what the content says, not just who wrote the content. Ironholds ( talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point... I removed dead link because there was nothing in either WebCite or Wayback Machine.-- Mishae ( talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But there was an alternative reference they provided, yes? If the options are "no sourcing" or "substandard sourcing"...well, ideally the statement as a whole should be removed, but absent that being a good idea, "substandard sourcing" is better than nothing, and a dead link with no wayback entry is nothing. Ironholds ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Initially no. The original link was dead, and it was also dead in the archives as well. In an instance if the link is dead and it can't be archived (both ways fails), then the url should be removed. Am I right? Like is some cases sites use robots.txt and therefore they can't be archived. Either way, I remove dead links only when I am dubious about the alternate source and if both archives fail.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But the alternate source is live, yes? So use that as a citation. If you do not think it is reliable, don't remove the link, remove the statement as a whole. Ironholds ( talk) 22:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I also was templated by a User:SLBedit for a minor editing that was somehow major, but is it a fair practice to template experienced users? Like I seen it somewhere that its not, but can't remember where. Can you find me it, please?---- Mishae ( talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a major edit, you added new content to "Paris Saint-Germain" section. SLBedit ( talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

indeed, that's a major edit. And frankly, Mishae, the repeated problems around very basic issues suggest that, "don't template the regulars" would not be appropriate here. Perfection is not expected, but basic logical reasoning should answer most of the disputes you keep running into. Ironholds ( talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I do admit my mistake, but I don't understand SLBedit's angry nature toward a very simple question; is archiving considered to be major or minor resulted in this warning on my talkpage. He warned me for a minor edit mistake but then on the bottom he says that if I will ask him a question like that (or similar) again he will report me for harassment. Really? Since when asking a question is warranted harassment warning? I think user SLBedit is the one who provokes harassments. Sorry, but my question was just a question, nothing more nothing less. If he doesn't want to answer it, that's fine, that's why I came to your talkpage instead because it really bothers me. Like, maybe I am doing something else wrong too. I would appreciate if user SLBedit will apologize for his harassment accusation, otherwise it sounds like I can't use anyone's talkpage to ask them a Wikipedia related question. I'm thanking you in advance.-- Mishae ( talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SLBedit's comment about harassment was probably not harassment, but to be honest, you didn't exactly show up full of goodwill, charm and generosity. You went in and in your opening message, informed them that their actions were "outrageous" and patronisingly (wrongly) explained to them what a minor edit was. That's how you chose to open a discussion about a mistake you made. What outcome did you expect? I don't agree with SLBedits' comment on harassment but I entirely understand where they come from. In the future, operate under the assumption that the users you're interacting with might actually be correct. It frustrates people a lot less than scolding them for correcting you. Ironholds ( talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because that's how I read it. I read the part that a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. So, what I thought was that adding a verifiable content would never be disputed so it requires no review according to me the editor who believed in that. And therefore that warning too, was a bit over the top and how do you expect me answering him on that? Thank you for the warning and ask him when the block will be?-- Mishae ( talk) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you genuinely can't see any options other than outraged histrionics or kowtowing, your problem is not whether your edits are minor or not. Ironholds ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What are the other options you would suggest? Considering that he is even newer (since late September 2014), it suppose to be me who should template him, not the other way around.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How about going in politely and asking questions instead of storming in assuming you know what's going on? Again, Mishae, with every sentence you utter you personify even more the principle that experience and expertise are very, very different things. You're here because after years as an editor you didn't know what a minor edit was; you're in no position to throw stones. Ironholds ( talk) 23:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I knew what the minor edit is, and since I archive links I always use it. But since I add content only 5 times a year, I tend to forget of such rule.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So you knew what the rule was and you decided that the appropriate response to forgetting it was to scold someone else? Thank you for proving my point. This conversation is done. Ironholds ( talk) 23:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia have so many rules that remembering all of them is hard, considering that minor/major edit one is not even listed in the five pillars section. Well, O.K. perhaps scolding wasn't the best way of communicating, but calling my question harassment was not justified either. Either way, you are right, this conversation is done. Both parties are at fault.-- Mishae ( talk) 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly; there are many rules. So maybe don't start suggesting a user is substandard for not immediately knowing all of them, eh? Ironholds ( talk) 13:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am just hostile toward warnings especially when I edit perfectly without them for like over a year and then suddenly I get one...-- Mishae ( talk) 15:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I reversed the revision you made to my edit about linking the movie to the actual movie article. even though im new to this, i believe there is value in linking references to works to the actual works article page. I am curious as to why you would remove the link

@ Cordesir: your edit was fine; I was reversing the long string of edits that bolded the crap out of dream hampton's name wherever it appeared and rendered the entire thing unreadable, which you weren't responsible for okay so the bolding for illustration is getting a bit eye-watering. You get my point ;p. Ironholds ( talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation... Im pretty new to this and im interested in actually starting some pages myself and creating my user page. Is there a way you can guide me a creating a page for a Canadian Hip hop group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordesir ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ironholds

I am writing to you because it was you who warned me on my talk page that the page Chamambra edited by me would be subject to speedy deletion, which in fact did happen.

I am asking for help on restoring the page first, and then I would like to re-write it so that it meets the requirements.

Thank you for your help in advance.

Yours Dajes13 ( talk) 08:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Dajes13: hey there! Thanks for reaching out :).

Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator, so I can't restore the page directly, but I'm pinging a couple of users I know who are, and who are hopefully willing to restore it and move it to somewhere where you can work on it ( User:HJ Mitchell, User:Bencherlite)

Once you've tightened it up a bit, do let me know and I'm happy to review it before you post it! Ironholds ( talk) 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was me who deleted it; I gave a rather detailed reply on my talk p.; it's pure advertising mixed with copyvio, and should never be restored. Whether an article is possible at all is uncertain. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@ DGG: yup; just saw that! (I'm an admin now? ;p) Ironholds ( talk) 18:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper was specifically selected by the State Library of New South Wales and the National Library of Australia for digitisation on the basis of its notability, as part of a national project among state libraries and the National Library to conserve important newspapers for posterity. There were many, many short-lived regional newspapers in Australian history; very few of them have been singled out as part of the project, but this one was. To me, being singled out by specialists in the area for its significance renders it notable.

There is a secondary issue here, in that the service it is digitised through (Trove), which is an incredibly heavily used service, relies upon Wikipedia to provide the generalised histories of each newspaper, and directly uses our content on their site. There is an active project to improve coverage of these specific historic newspapers for that reason. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@ The Drover's Wife: ah, gotcha. Got a cite for that first bit? Like I said, it looks automated to me. The secondary issue is...I think, largely irrelevant; that is, we shouldn't be including things for Trove, we should be including things for our readers (and if it helps Trove, great!) Ironholds ( talk) 13:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not automated by any means. This is the National Library's selection policy around which titles to digitise. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@ The Drover's Wife: ah, excellent; thanks! No problems at this end, though - although in the future a more descriptive edit summary would be appreciated. Ironholds ( talk) 13:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ironholds. I can see where you came from when reversing my original, rather terse, amendment to the paragraph re Spilsury's objectivity. In fact, doubts about Spilsbury's objectivity emerged in the later 1920s and there are published criticisms from near-contemporary pathologists, sources which I'll identify, plus more recent observations in print. With this in mind, I'll redraft this edit. At present, the paragraph only refers to one source, which gives a misleading impression of the weight of critical comment. Juliasimpkinson ( talk) 11:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Juliasimpkinson

@ Juliasimpkinson: that's actually not why I was reverting you; the problem is that you're not actually adding new information, just new references for the same information. More pressingly, though, it appears from your user page that you're the author of the book you're citing. WP:SELFCITE is a rule you'd do well to adhere to; if your goal here is to expand the material covering Spilsbury, great - rely on sources you have not written wherever possible. If your goal is to cite yourself, we're going to run into problems. Ironholds ( talk) 18:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read SELFCITE and of course I'm aware of the importance of an author not unreasonably selfpromoting his/her work. The problem (if there is one) is that this a limited field - there are only three full-length biographies of Spilsbury in existence, by Browne & Tullett (a hagiography of 1950), Colin Evans (broadly favourable) and my title, which is a highly critical review of Spilsbuty's career as prosecution witness in capital cases. As indicated in my last note, that paragraph needs re-editing (it's not factually accurate, with reference to recent re-appraisal, given that criticism of Spilsbury is of long standing and from various sources). Anyway, you know who I am - one problem with SELFCITE must be the temptation for unscrupulous authors to promote via a third party. How do you stop that happening?10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Juliasimpkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliasimpkinson ( talk • contribs)

@ Juliasimpkinson: fair enough. My point is that in some cases you're just adding the citation...and that's it. There's no new information. I'd welcome (greatly! There are...three. English legal historians on Wikipedia) more, well-cited information, but when you just add the citation without any other form of expansion, that's when it looks like an attempt to boost coverage rather than an attempt to improve the wiki. I appreciate this isn't what you intend - I've probably just been handling vandals for too long to avoid looking at everything suspiciously ;p.

The only other thing would be; could you try to follow the citation style of the articles you contribute to? When there is a clear one, anyway. Patrick Hastings, for example, has a pretty standardised style, with the full works in the bibliography and specific page references in footnotes. Ironholds ( talk) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about copy editing, totally forgot to reorganize it. I think its safe to remove the tag now?-- Mishae ( talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No?

1. " In 2009 he and Korn Chatikavanij have spoken" - no, they spoke, or had spoken. They haven't "have spoken" because we're not in 2009.
2. "economic stimulus which was proposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva" - the economic stimulus? An economic stimulus? Why is them having an opinion worth including?
3. "During the speech he said that unemployment rate will remain 2-2.5% till 2010" - who's "he"? Why does he get to set the unemployment rate, or do you mean that he predicted it? And "till" isn't a word (well, it is, but not with the same meaning as 'until', which I assume is what you meant). "will...till 2010"? It's 2015. "would".
4. " In 2014 he urged Anti Money Laundering Office to focus more on the real criminals rather than Thaksin Shinawatra enemies" - Anti Money Laundering Office - is that its official title? And, do you mean he urged the Anti Money Laundering Office? Who are the "real criminals", and why are we as Wikipedia saying we know who those are? And you mean "enemies of Thaksin Shinawatra". Ironholds ( talk) 19:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Now its better? As far as number 4 goes, read the source. The source says "real criminals", no specification. Should I change it to "criminals" instead?-- Mishae ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as number 4 goes, read the source yourself and consider that it might be self-sabotaging to talk down to someone who is trying to help at your request. I don't see the word "real" used there - and I also don't see how your copyedits solved for the problems (in some cases they actually inserted new ones). I'm happy to go through editing it chunk by chunk, with explanatory edit summaries, if that would help. Ironholds ( talk) 03:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

O.K. My bad, "criminal suspects". Difference?-- Mishae ( talk) 03:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just quote the clause? "bringing criminal suspects to justice instead of chasing perceived enemies of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra" Ironholds ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Because somebody from Wikipedians told me that quoting something in a stub article is not good. But if you are saying that's O.K. I will try it.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds. I know that drive-by tagging is discouraged in new page patrolling, but I was curious what an experienced new page patroller like yourself generally does when faced with new pages with significant issues. Is it enough to tag the page and post on the user's talk page with more details about the problems, or is the patroller expected to address the issues they encounter (when possible)? For example, if I'm experienced with copy-editing and encounter a page that would be fairly acceptable with some copy-editing, am I contributing more by tagging the page and informing the user of the issue then moving onto reviewing more pages, or by addressing the problem myself (and obviously reviewing fewer pages on average as a result)? I guess I'm just really curious how efficient tagging is at encouraging users to improve their own pages, versus how effective new page patrolling is at convincing other users to just tackle problems themselves and collaboratively improve the page. Thanks! Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Fisheriesmgmt: the former is more normal, because dedicated new page patrollers optimise for getting every issue identified first; there's a large backlog! But you're certainly contributing more content-wise if you fix the issues up directly. It'd be interesting to do a wee study on the efficacy of notifications about issues. Ironholds ( talk) 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this! In terms of working through the new pages backlog, is there any documentation on prioritizing issues? I.e. if there are multiple issues with a page, what are the most helpful to identify first to avoid over-tagging and actually help authors (and especially new users)? On the idea of a study, I'm genuinely curious to know to what extent new page tagging encourages article creators to improve their own work versus just shuffling problem articles into various maintenance queues for other editors to deal with. I'd assume that there is some relationship between over-tagging and creator frustration/article abandonment, right? Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 04:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Fisheriesmgmt: The most useful ones I'd probably bring up are reference-related. So, if an article doesn't have many references: surface it! This is because most of our notability policies are centred around the topic having significant coverage, and nothing puts off newcomers faster than their article being deleted before they can do anything about it. I'd agree that reference probably exists, yep :(. Ironholds ( talk) 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Fisheriesmgmt: I'm not a new page patroller but when I come across a page that might fly if it had more references, I try to do a couple of things:

• Make sure the creator's talk page has an appropriate 'Welcome' on it, with linkage. If not I'll put one there.
• Many times these pages are created by new editors, who usually don't know quite how to manage the citation templates so I'll post {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on their talk page.
• Sometimes I'll fix up one reference if they have badly-mangled ones or none, then I'll leave a note about doing so on their talk page. That way, it's not just some faceless person tagging their article/their content-addition, they can see how to add refs themselves.

It's just that to me, I've seen so many maintenance tags hang on around articles, waaaay past their metaphorical "freshness/sell-by" date. Just this week I've seen ones from 2011, 2009 and I even think one from 2006! Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Great examples, Shearonink! Ironholds ( talk) 16:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Shearonink: I really appreciate the tips! I especially like the template you shared--the reference documentation available on citations is ...overwhelming and that seems like a great way to help new users get started on improving content quickly without having to wade through endless help articles. Thanks for helping me up my new page patrolling game! Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 19:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you be kind to see if I fixed copyvio in this article? Thanks.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Mishae: there is a tool for this. Ironholds ( talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But I still would rather ask you if I removed enough of copyvio material.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it looks fine. Ironholds ( talk) 19:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling that the bot was wrong, because really, I can't changed the names of theatres and their plays. :) By the way, which parts require copy edit?-- Mishae ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not running through a word-by-word explanation of every grammatical error in the article; we've done that before and it didn't help much. However, User:Fisheriesmgmt is a keen copyeditor and would probably happily help you out. Ironholds ( talk) 20:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. But do read my explanation on top about Kobsak Sabhavasu.-- Mishae ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did; that wasn't what I was referring to. The problem is that I surfaced a set of grammatical errors and you replaced them with...different grammatical errors; it appears that the most efficient way to surface grammatical problems with one of your articles is to simply copyedit it myself. However, I'm pretty busy at the moment; Fisheriesmgmt is not, and actively enjoys copyediting, hence the pointer. Ironholds ( talk) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I was told you might be involved in making the database dumps available at [1]. When I downloaded svwiki-20150224-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 and extracted with 7-Zip as I usually do, it said "Data error in 'svwiki-20150224-pages-meta-current.xml'. File is broken.". Nirmos ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, whoever told you that was incorrect, I'm afraid. Ironholds ( talk) 01:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I was incorrect too, because the third time I downloaded the file, it worked. Have a nice day =) Nirmos ( talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Ironholds, I have one question. Some was so rude to me. he made a user name very similar to my username with different word that was so rude. I request to change my username. Now, when i search my old username, is shown user:Samaneh-davoudi is changed to user:viator313. I want to remove my old user name (samaneh-davoudi). I don't want that anyone knows the user samaneh-davoudi is redirected to viator313. Is it possible to removing samaneh-davoudi and moved edits to my new user name viator313? I don't want to know any one that samaneh-davoudi change to viator313. I'm afraid someone was rude to me and caused me to change my user name, find me again and misbehave me. please guide me. What should i do? Thanks! Viator313 ( talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any logs, if that's what you're asking; all of your edits were transferred to your new account, so unless someone is explicitly searching for that username you should be fine. If someone is explicitly searching...I'm not sure. Harry, ideas?

As an aside, one really good way of undermining renaming is to write a talkpage post explaining who you used to be ;p. Ironholds ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Viator, first I recommend you re-register the old username just to stop somebody else registering it and impersonating you. Then if you want to make the connection less obvious, put {{ db-u1}} on the user and talk pages of the old account and an admin will delete them. Unfortunately for you, there's no way to remove the connection entirely, and trying to might attract more attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't fault Coffee for the block; he was merely the messenger of an inevitable AE close. But this?? "I can count on one hand the number of administrators actually willing to block Eric". That's the biggest load of sheep-dip I've seen uttered on wiki in ages. You can lawyer your way out of it, no doubt. Just don't expect me to buy what you're shoveling. You used to be an administrator - I expected better from you. As far as my reply to Floq - it's called ' seeing the forest for the trees'. I'm not interested in a prolonged debate here, but you now know where I stand on the matter. Feel free to do with it what you will, including deleting my post here. — Ched :  ?  20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The assumption that the only way someone could disagree with you is through wiki-lawyering is...a great assumption of infallibility, I guess? So: go you for having great self-image. Ditto the conspiracy theorising. You are an administrator; it's glad to know we're both being disappointed, here. Ironholds ( talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2015)

Does this means that we need to enter few text from the quoted References to support particular line in article? ( Karantsingh ( talk) 05:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

@ Karantsingh: which article? Ironholds ( talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dharam Singh Nihang Singh ( Karantsingh ( talk) 06:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

@ Karantsingh: yep; you need to be adding inline citations. Reference no. 4 is a good example of the reuse of inline citations, if you're looking for practical examples of what I'm talking about. At the moment, the section on "Early life and education" is entirely unreferenced, as is the second paragraph of the next section, as is the section "Gurbani research and Sachkhoj Academy". Ironholds ( talk) 09:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for the review. -- Lagoset ( talk) 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Lagoset: no problem! Please do address the tags on the page; let me know if you need any help :). Ironholds ( talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict - I was just adding the citation. I will be working on this article today. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: awesome! I patrolled it so you don't run into overenthusiastic NPPers (I know and you know that this'll work out as a great article; RandomUser398 doesn't) and I'm spending my afternoon keeping an eagle-eye on the NPP queue to do my bit for today's art and feminism hackathons (running into me means users don't run into said RandomUser). Let me know if I can help in any way; I have, for the next 3 hours, RISD's entire library at my disposal. Ironholds ( talk) 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, and for the effort. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

NP! Best of luck with the article - not that you need it ;p. Ironholds ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, could you please look at starting a page for Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. TIA 66.185.221.210 ( talk) 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sort of out of the space of English law at the moment, I'm afraid :(. If you have Human-Computer Interaction concepts you want articles on, say the word, though! Ironholds ( talk) 04:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Imna Arroyo at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 07:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ironholds, yes I would like some help to reach the wiki standards for the article, your advise would be very helpful thanks. let me know what I need to do please.

Joan Bozoky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Bozoky ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Joan Bozoky: sure! Okay, let's go from most-important to least (because the least important are also the most finnicky ;p).

The most important is the lack of inline citations (I think there's a message on your talk page about how to add those?) There are a lot of external links in the article, and a lot of references, but there are big chunks without any kind of specific citation. For example, "Vinante is a political activist for the Conservative Party (UK), member of the Westminster/West End Ward Committee." - where is this from? What is the source? Additionally, there are references that are not actual references. this, for example, doesn't even mention Vinante's name - how do we know it was him who was performing? And how does that help verify that he performed at the Notting Hill Carnival? Reading the article at the moment I'm really not sure that it meets our standards for inclusion. Ironholds ( talk) 01:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately on the original paper version of the article regarding Arancina the name is on the article header of the photo were is Chris Vinante. The online version has just Chris Vinante Photo on it mentioning him just as a singer. Don't know what to do about it. For the rest i will add more sources and links specially about the Political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Bozoky ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool; thanks! I wish you the best of luck :). Ironholds ( talk) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Back when this was the worst thing wrong with RfA. Res Mar 01:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh! Ironholds ( talk) 03:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who started here in 2009, it is fascinating to read the 2008 news. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ndstead ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Varnent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 28 - Pollard Memorial Library and UMass Lowell Library Edit-a-Thon #4 (final one) - You're invited

Date Saturday, March 28, 2015 Time 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Location University of Massachusetts Lowell South Campus Library 61 Wilder St. Lowell, MA 01854 Event An editathon on Downtown Lowell related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslowell or #glamwiki. Registration http://uml.beta.libguides.com/wikipediaeditathons or use Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/fourthlowell_editathon. Yours, -- LibraryGurl ( talk) 18:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On 20 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Imna Arroyo, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the art of Imna Arroyo is based on the theme of "women's energy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imna Arroyo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

HI user:Ironholds. I've been working on this article to expand the content and make it less promotional. I think you had placed an alert on it because the content came across as overly promotional. I wondered if you would mind having a look now and seeing if you think it reads better. If there are aspects where you feel it still needs to be changed please do let me know. Thanks in advance Fbell74 ( talk) 04:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Fbell74: thanks; much improved. The only additional thought I have is that it would be good to change "Briskin's published books, including The Stirring of Soul in the Workplace and The Power of Collective Wisdom, explore the role of meaning, purpose, and collective wisdom in the pursuit of socially responsible and life affirming work settings." to make it sound more neutral, and to rephrase the organisational theory section to make clear that this is Briskin's view, and not a statement of fact. Ironholds ( talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ Ironholds: That's very helpful. I think you're right about changing the wording. I've rephrased as 'Briskin's published books, including The Stirring of Soul in the Workplace and The Power of Collective Wisdom, explore the role of meaning, purpose, and collective wisdom in the work environment.' In the Organizational theory section I've added in 'He has proposed' and 'In his view' to make it clear that these are views rather than facts. Fbell74 ( talk) 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Terry Acebo Davis at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 10:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't wanna brag about my awards but for some unknown to me reason at least a half of them just disappeared from my top row of my userpage. I checked for vandalism, but didn't find any missing yet the top row is half full. Can you see what went wrong? Thanks.-- Mishae ( talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have literally no idea. Ironholds ( talk)

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, given that I'm 5,000 miles away, probably not. Where's the button for "don't want to receive these notifications and am not on the list"? Ironholds ( talk) 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a good excuse for not attending. ;-) But if you are ever in the area again, then you'd be most welcome at one of these wikimeets! I'm sending around a special notification for these wikimeets to all past attendees (amongst other groups of potential attendees) in the hope that I can encourage more people to attend them; I'm not planning on routinely sending around these notifications to anyone that doesn't sign up for the linked notification link. Have a nice day! Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair! Thanks, Mike :). Hope you have a nice day yourself, and that the meetups go well! Should I make it back to blighty, I'll stand you a beer :). Ironholds ( talk) 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It must be hard.

Begoon  ^talk 23:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your insistence on being vile under a pseudonym in the present, rather than under your real name in the past, I don't expect you to actually know. Ironholds ( talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My real name isn't a secret. Never has been. It's Jim Dunn. A blind man could find that with no effort. What's your point? I think you've behaved atrociously. You're welcome to think the same of me. We can compare, if you like. Begoon  ^talk 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I did behave atrociously. And you know what I did, after that? I recognised that I'd behaved atrociously, and then I started trying to do better. And I spent a long period of time trying to build more welcoming communities, and spending my energies doing my best to build a community here that is more welcoming to different people from different groups and different contexts. That is most of what I do, now - both as a form of atonement and because it's simply the right thing to do.

I don't see any of that from you. Admissions that you have a chilling effect are couched in language of "I'm only willing to admit it if you're willing to admit you used to be hideous". I don't see contributions that seek to do anything to improve the tone and environment of this community, or any other community. All I see is you treating me as if I am the same person I was then, and will forever be that person. Ironholds ( talk) 00:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you apologised to Keifer? have you apologised to the "throat" lady"? These are not rhetorical questions, Oliver. I'm closer to meeting my maker than you are, and you dismiss my perspective at your own risk. Begoon  ^talk 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC) (that's Jim - I'm impressed)

Given that Kiefer spent an extended period of time insinuating that I was a sexual abuser of children, which pissed me off into making the comment in the first place, and has continued saying hideous things about me since (something I have resisted reciprocating)? And, given that the "throat lady" was Cherie Blair in the context of a cut to legal aid? No. I'm not sure what your "perspective" here is: that people don't change? Ironholds ( talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I genuinely tried. Done now. Have a nice day. Begoon  ^talk 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do me the favour of never coming anywhere near my talkpage ever again. Ironholds ( talk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds. I have question about validity of the picture: In People's Name.jpg. I think some rules of wikimedia for Uploading this picture have not been met. How can I make sure? Please help me? Best regards! ن.عامری ( talk) 06:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@ ن.عامری: what rules? I'll be honest - I'm afraid I'm totally ignorant of the standards on the Arabic-language Wikipedia (and don't know what that image is). Ironholds ( talk) 14:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your response! This image is a caricature. and the source of the picture is a facebook page of the caricaturist and publishing the picture is not free. In fact it is the offense about one Yemeni groups. This picture was uploaded by fair use under united state law. Is this law applicable to this case (caricature)? -- ن.عامری ( talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's used in articles to add necessary context to their content, it seems absolutely fine under the general fair use rules; I have no idea if Arabic Wikipedia has its own (more restrictive) policies around images, though, which is perfectly permitted. Ironholds ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Prozess gegen die Juden von Trient at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 07:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like you to know that I am unblocked, and that I am making useful contributions to Wikipedia. If you'd like to see my contributions, go right ahead. G'day mate. Nick2crosby ( talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you point me to death threats, please? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because they were sent via email. They were exceedingly graphic, from a known banned user Damian (and many others!) willingly associate with, and from someone geographically proximate to me at the time. Ironholds ( talk) 23:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If Peter associates with them, I probably do. Was it a credible threat? Why not name them? As it stands, it looks like a pretty sleazy guilt-by-association slur aimed at attacking someone who has had the temerity to criticise you. If it really was a credible death threat, (1) did you advise the police? and (2) I'd very much like to know who was responsible because I won't rest until they're banned from WO. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was credible, yes I advised the lawyers and security people I had access to, no I didn't advise the police, because "someone threatens someone on the internet" was not something the Oakland PD took particularly seriously, and: good for you. You're really encouraging me to trust you and consider you a person of integrity, here, by calling my actions "incredibly sleazy". I'd be truly interested to know if you've ever had pseudonymous people on the internet threaten you to the point where you genuinely felt at risk, because absent that, I would again say "please consider the possibility that I may have a better idea of what this feels like and what's reasonable than you do". Ironholds ( talk) 23:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I said "pretty sleazy". Please name the person who sent it. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You really didn't read....any of my message, clearly. That or you just utterly lack any sense of empathy. Ironholds ( talk) 00:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're a bad person. I know you've been very hurt. I think you've been treated very unfairly at Wikipediocracy. Jim. He's a well-intentioned, if occasionally a bit rash and foolish (weren't we?) young man. Cut him some slack. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You think I want a cookie for having shit thrown at me? I don't want you to recognise the fashion in which people interacted with and continue to interact with me, as justified as much of it was at the time. I want you to actually alter your behaviour having recognised that. "Please publicly discuss the person who has spent years of your life continuously hounding and threatening you" is not doing that. Ironholds ( talk) 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me but I'm not totally sure I've understood the above. Are you saying you won't name the person who issued the death threat? If so, would you be willing to tell me privately? Or User:StaniStani, who is a moderator ar WO. If someone there is issuing credible death threats, I'm confident he'll have them banned. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

After the attitude you've demonstrated, absolutely not. In fact, please get off my talkpage. Take Andy with you. Ironholds ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Were these death threats directed at you, or were they your own well-known comments about fire? Because I'm with "incredibly sleazy" as a description of your behaviour here, re Peter Damian. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

...wow. Chalk up someone else in the "incapable of empathy" column. Ironholds ( talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just find this hilarious. No, not the death threats itself, but the arguments within these statements. I know, I should probably leave ya'll alone, but I just had to point out the fact that you all are [probably] grown men, who is fighting over the internet. Using nerd words like "sleazy" and then trying to go after each other is quite hilarious. Now, men. Go off, and stir the witches brew, please. Like that made sense. Before I get banned again, I shall not be talking on this mini cat brawl. I bid you adieu. Good bye. Nick2crosby ( talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Nick2crosby: you come to my talkpage to explain that you're making useful contributions, having emailed me begging for an unblock because you've changed and matured, and...post something as immature, inappropriate and goading as this? What the hell is your problem?

Here's a better idea for you; get off my talkpage. Never come to my talkpage ever again. And @ Swarm: you should probably be seeing this, having been the person who evaluated whether Nick had actually grown up. Ironholds ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry that you've felt my maturity has degraded. I see nothing "immature" with the statement above. I wasn't laughing at your "death threats" but the fact that you guys are dueling your opinions out on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but not every opinion comes with immaturity. I have my emotions, you have yours. Your manly persona doesn't always mean that you're 100% serious. Let loose. Besides, isn't this a talk page, and discussing Wikipedia things. I was talking about your guys' topic on Wikipedia, not editing facts. I'd see if I was to display my emotions on an article, but here, I think you need to rethink. Like I said, I'm mature, but you got to face it, everyone has their giggly times. I've matured up, and I still am. So, if you can't face the reality, than I think you might've over looked your own. If I get blocked for displaying my opinions on a talk page, then I am morally sorry. Good luck in the future man. Nick2crosby ( talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm deeply sorry that you've felt" is not an apology, it's a claim that the problem is at my end. For reference, it's not: your commentary here is singularly unhelpful, pointless and tone-deaf. To follow that up with "oh, it's just a joke"? Do you have any idea what you sound like, right now?

You've not matured; people who have matured don't make that kind of comment and expect it to be welcome, and certainly don't come back and try to defend themselves with "I was just being funny, by involving myself in and perpetuating a conversation about a guy who has been sending you violent, sexually explicit death threats, get a sense of humour, jeez". This isn't a "manly persona", this is me sick and tired of dealing with this kind of nonsense. Now, as said: get the hell off my talk page. Ironholds ( talk) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ironholds. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not shown up yet but I'll reply when it does :). Ironholds ( talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you not get it? Pretty sure I checked "send me a copy" and I haven't gotten my copy. It may have failed to go through. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird! ironholdsgmail.com Ironholds ( talk) 18:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've just sent you another. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On 3 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Terry Acebo Davis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Terry Acebo Davis, an artist and full-time nurse, is a lecturer on the Filipino identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Terry Acebo Davis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, — Msmarmalade ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You've been given a Texas barbecue dinner. Bon appétit, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Re this. Hey, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or your work. I'm just not a believer in talking critically about someone else's work without giving them a chance to weigh in and/or to tell me that I'm missing the point (as I'm quite capable of doing). No offense intended and I apologize for the unintended jab. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

On 9 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Don Vincente, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that bibliomaniac ex-monk Don Vincente murdered a bookseller, a priest, a judge, and an alderman to get his hands on some of their books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Don Vincente. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. This gives all us bibliomaniacs a reputation as evil criminals. There is such a thing as loving books too much, you know... ;) -- Biblio worm 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I also wrote an article on a bibliomaniac who saved volumes from Nazi secret agents; now that was cool! Ironholds ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, wrt multilingual search at www.wikipedia.org, I have collected some stats, links, competitors etc at de:Benutzer:Atlasowa/multilingual_search, have a look. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 19:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Atlasowa; as said on the mailing lists, I don't think we're in the "building new things" stage yet, but I'm throwing User:DGarry (WMF) a link so he sees this :). Ironholds ( talk) 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Ollie. How do you bureaucracy-mad Brits keep track of dead people in Britain, and in England in particular? Do you have some sort of central database like the Social Security Death Index in the States? Swimmer Irene Pirie was a four-time British Empire Games medallist for Canada, swam in the 1932 and 1936 Olympics, and married British swimmer and water polo player Frederick Milton some time during the 1930s. Her full name was Irene Catherine Pirie Milton, and she apparently died in Cheltenham, Goucestershire, sometime in December 1998. Can you point me in the right direction? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you should be wandering over to the General Register Office's website; they're the ones who have the centralised records, I think :). Ironholds ( talk) 19:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you used the database? Do we have a go-to Wikipedian who knows how to use it? There's a free version online, but it seems to be limited by year of the birth, marriage or death event to those events occurring in 1975 and before. Oddly, it also seems only to provide the month and year of the event, not the exact date. I was able to find the index entry for the Pirie-Milton marriage (June 1935), but no date is provided. I could not find anything for her death (1998) or her husband's death (1991), apparently because those event years fall after some cutoff in 1974 or 1975 after which the index is not available. I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly -- seems rather user-unfriendly. Reminds me of some property tax record searches in my part of the world. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Amusingly our land registry only kicked off in uhm. 2003. Oops! Your property systems > our property systems.

I'm not sure about access, but I suspect User:Andrew Gray probably knows a fair bit about government archival records. Shim? Ironholds ( talk) 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Many vital-stats databases have cutoffs of that sort, ostensibly to protect privacy. I'm actually impressed with a 1975 cutoff, as my local version won't show any deaths more recent than 70 years ago (100 years for births, 80 for marriages). Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, it does seem strange that anyone would be concerned with the "privacy" of persons who died nearly 40 years ago. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi all. There is a public index to the register of births, marriages and deaths (nb "public" may not mean free-to-view; I believe Ancestry has a more up-to-date version) but as you've seen it is only a very limited index at best. It's actually quarterly but for some reason many people list the quarters as January (Jan-March), April (April-June), etc, which is why it looks monthly. You will not be able to get the exact details/dates/etc without actually obtaining a copy of the certificate, which costs about £10/$15 and takes a week or so.
• For deaths, you can try the probate records, which usually give full name + date of death. Links here but you will probably need to pay to see the actual details. (Again, Ancestry has a copy if you have a subscription there). Andrew Gray ( talk) 12:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• @ Andrew Gray: I'm not an Ancestry.com subscriber, but have wiki-collaborators who are. Is there a single Ancestry account, or are there UK and American versions? If it's an all-in-one account for Ancestry, I'll have one of my North American wiki-pals look them up. Do you know if the England-Wales death birth-marriage-death records on Ancestry have a similar 1974/75 cutoff? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - a) I think it's uniform (most American genealogists want UK data eventually...); b) I think the BMD indices are more recent on Ancestry and 1975 is just an arbitrary enddate for one particular database (eg/ freebmd goes up to 1983), but you'll still only get the quarterly indices - the certificates have not been digitised; c) the will records are the 'Calendar of Grants of Probate' (see fn 6 of Herman Landon for an example), but not sure how far forward they've been digitised Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So, the bottom line is even through Ancestry.com I'm not going to get an exact date for England-Wales birth-marriage-death events? If I want exact dates, I have to pay ₤10 to the General Register Office, and wait on my death certificate to be delivered by the Royal Mail? Can these records be viewed, in person, at one of the archival libraries -- or is it still just the BMD indexes by quarter? If exact dates are available for in-person research, do we have UK Wikipedians who perform this sort of work? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's about the sum of it (assuming you can't get them from other sources, eg probate, military records, parish registers, etc) - more details are here. Only the GRO (and the relevant local registry office?) will have the records available - major libraries will probably have microfiche copies of the indices but I don't believe they will have access to the records themselves. You can probably turn up at the office and get the relevant details but you may still have to pay; not sure how this works in practice. Andrew Gray ( talk) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. I will run out the threads though Ancestry.com, but it sounds like this is a road block as a practical matter. It quickly becomes a fairly expensive proposition to get the exact death dates if we're dealing with several dozen decedents. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The probate records are the best source here, but they have some limitations - the Ancestry ones only go up to 1966 (as yet; this is being progressively indexed and more will become available), and the gov.uk ones are intended for cases where you already know the year of death. Pre-1996 records on gov.uk can only be searched by surname but show the printed index pages, which give you some contextual detail; post-1996 records are born digital & can be searched by forename but only show basic information. This may be Irene... Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And here's the husband (probably) - the probate indexes for 1991 have Frederick Charles Milton, also of Brighton, died 6 January 1991. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's probably Freddie -- same reported death year and correct middle name. That may or may not be Irene -- same reported death year, but different middle name. The GRO index record for their 1935 marriage seems to confirm her middle initial C -- for Catherine per other sources. It would be a remarkable coincidence, however, to have an "Irene Milton" die in the same location as Freddie, and it not be his Irene. Are the death records correlated with birth year in any way? Obviously, that would help confirm identity. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Age is recorded on the death certificate (when known; not sure what they do if details are missing) and the indices have an 'age' entry, which may be +- 1 year (can't remember if it's actual age or derived from year-of-birth). Probate records (probably) won't have it. Andrew Gray ( talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oliver, I know that you were recently leading the charge to make changes to certain guidelines to clarify that mention of sexual orientation in the lead was permissible when it was necessary to puttthe life of the subject in context, or words to similar effect. I also know that under pre-existing guidelines discussion of race and ethnicity were also discouraged in the lead, except to the extent they were relevant to the subject notability, and that these guidelines were either the same or over-lapped. Can you provide a quick list of the guidelines that touch on these issues? My reason for asking is the Infobox sportsperson has an "ethnicity" parameter which probably ought not be there, and I wanted to review all of the relevant guidelines before I request that it be removed, so that I might quote chapter and verse if necessary. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So, MOS:BLPLEAD is I think the main one. I've sort of dropped out of that thread, honestly; as I get older my ability to tolerate people insisting there is no problem here when their behaviour made me open the thread in the first place is much reduced. It's tiresome and I can spend my energy better doing literally anything else. Ironholds ( talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds! There is a picture at Commons that was taken by a person. I want to crop the picture and use it, but i don't know that is allowed or not. If it is legal, which License can be used for uploading of the Cropped pictures? Best regards! Savior59 ( talk) 09:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the picture? Ironholds ( talk) 14:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) In most cases, this template is sufficient, provided you're uploading it to a different name. If you're replacing the photo w/ a cropped version there's a few more steps. In some rare cases like cropping a group photo so shows only one or two people, you'll want to take a look at this. Protonk ( talk) 15:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since you're taking an active interest in Gender pay gap, please be advised that I added one new comment to our discussion before adding one new section to the talk page. I also moved a small amount of text from the section we have been disputing, but I moved it to the section immediately above the disputed section, because the higher section and the text that I moved have precisely the same topic (so that's where that text actually belongs). Thanks for your patience. •  Arch♦ Reader 09:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey do you know where you add a tag to have a userscript deleted (U1 stuff, not someone else's)? To wit: User:Protonk/IRCNick.js. I think I can create User:Protonk/IRCNick but I don't know if creating that to add a tag works. Protonk ( talk) 14:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

IE, how do you tag JS pages for deletion? Ironholds ( talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Protonk ( talk) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I...don't actually know! Do U1s not work? Ironholds ( talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't work on the the js page itself. I could make a non-js page and tag that, noting the actual page I want deleted in the reasons, but I don't think Twinkle or similar tools will understand that request. Protonk ( talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What page do you want deleted? Ironholds ( talk) 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Protonk/IRCNick.js. Protonk ( talk) 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Keilana: got a sec? Ironholds ( talk) 15:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 16:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		Hey! You hit the big 2-0-0 recently--and rather too quietly, in my humble opinion. You've truly achieved the rank of DYK master, dude! Keep on keepin' on. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 23:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Fisheriesmgmt: thanks! Ironholds ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you please help me with https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/1337 ? In particular I would like to get actual page views for a more informative sort. Also please tell me which automated measure of reading level is best. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by update; the problem is simply that storing pageviews in the database would pretty much cripple everything, so we've stopped storing them there in any form (basically we'd have to make up to 125,000 writes to the database a minute, and things would fall over in...less than that).

The new pageviews definition I wrote mostly lives inside the analytics cluster at the moment; there are people working to surface it in an automated way, but it probably won't be available through Quarry - too big :(. Ironholds ( talk) 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope some day the ability to update the snapshot of article popularity is achieved. Otherwise my plans to scrutinize in proportion to influence may be at risk. In the mean time, which automated measure of reading level has the best agreement with a panel of judges'? EllenCT ( talk) 07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that kind of comparison has been performed; for what it's worth I've always used SMOG (although it doesn't work well with non-English languages). Ironholds ( talk) 20:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

On 25 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prozess gegen die Juden von Trient, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lessing J. Rosenwald instructed his literary agent to spend any amount necessary to prevent Prozess gegen die Juden von Trient from falling into Nazi hands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prozess gegen die Juden von Trient. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! - It's also featured on Portal:Germany, - if you have more DYK related to Germany please feel free to place it there yourself, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Shall do; thanks! Ironholds ( talk) 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mea culpa. ¡Boz zio! 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Bozzio: which comments did I edit? Ironholds ( talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you being naughty again, I/H? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(watching, see above) Why do you assume naughty? Rollback by mistake is easily done and often not noticed, same for saving a former version, - happened to me also (both ways). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually despite repeated pokes, User:Bozzio has been unable to point to the edit they're complaining about - I will note, however, that this automated warning came immediately after they were informed of discretionary sanctions by me, so without any rationale it's reading as a sort of petty tit for tat. Ironholds ( talk) 19:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My guess is: [2]. I can't see what it was, but the fact that it's suppressed seems to indicate that it was a good removal, and Bozzio is incorrect. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, possible. Seems like a weird thing to complain about now, let alone at all (It was grossly defamatory material targeted at the article subject). Ironholds ( talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that did not take long to do the "Chlesea Manning" on that article, did it? I need to stay away from that one -- the subject matter lends itself to all sorts of insensitive off-color jokes that will need to be revdel'ed and get me blocked. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You can now link Deadname. Later today I'll make sure it's actually mentioned as a term there. Skyerise ( talk) 18:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks :). Ironholds ( talk) 19:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)