User talk:Ironholds/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Suggestions?

Hello Oliver,

Thank you so much for reviewing the page I created for Khaldoun Almhanna. The tag suggested that the article may need editing, more in-depth citations, or even complete reorganization. Would you be willing to provide me with specific feedback about how I can improve the article? I'm a new editor, so I appreciate any criticism that will help me improve my wiki-writing skills. Thank you so much for considering, Jcmeberhard (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a great article for a new editor!--Mishae (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jcmeberhard: totally! Looking at the article now:

1. I'd suggest compressing a few of the paragraphs. In the opening section, for example, above the table of contents, you have a lot of one-line paragraphs; these might work better if you combined them into only one or two paragraphs.
2. We normally don't put honorifics before names in article text - so, it would just be "Almhanna was awarded" rather than "Dr. Almhanna was awarded" or whatnot.
3. Medical fields (Ontology, Hematology) normally don't tend to be capitalised in article text - we capitalise Proper Nouns.
4. Degree qualifications (M.D.) normally aren't listed after the name in the opening sentence; memberships are. So if he was a fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine then you'd list (presumably) FRSM; if he had a PhD, you wouldn't list that.

Other than that, it's a really good article; one any editor would be proud of, be they new or old :). No objection to the references - in fact, it's rare to find a new article that has such great referencing. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an objection though. We have a further reading and external links section for excessive references...--Mishae (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, "further reading" is for things not used as references that cover the subject of the article. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! Your points regarding writing convention standards (capitalization, titles, and order of information) are incredibly helpful because I knew I was probably off, but didn't know where to go in order to learn those conventions. Also, thanks for the positive feedback because I've had a couple articles nominated for deletion based on citation disputes, even after receiving a review from the biography and medical groups. I'm still learning about what is appropriate and expected in living persons articles, and often feel I'm failing. So, thanks for being so helpful and supportive. Hopefully I'll continue to improve, Jcmeberhard (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no problem :). Yeah, this place has...a lot of rules. The conventions can be found in WP:MOS, for example, which I worked out some time ago was longer than my thesis. I'd advocate reading things one step at a time ;p. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mishae, are you suggesting I use a "further reading" category instead of "selected bibliography?" I do cite most of the items in the selected bib in the article, however, they are already listed in notes as references. The selected bib section was meant for medical readers who may want to easily copy the list in order to go look up the physician's work after reading the article. Jcmeberhard (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't bother with that. Bibliography, in this context, would mean "works written by the subject". Further reading would be "works about the subject not already used as references". While there is inevitably going to be some overlap, they're not the same set. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Another thing that I would suggest is to cite references and wikify publishers, such as all those journals. For an example how a science biography article should look check this one: Boris Kholodenko.--Mishae (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be a button that looks like two sets of curly braces in the toolbar; clicking that drops down an easy citation formatter. But it's non-urgent, so don't kill yourself trying to do it :). Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

These are wonderful pointers, Mishaeand Oliver. Thank you so much. I'll implement over time, in this and other articles I'm editing. Thanks for the wonderful feedback! Jcmeberhard (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are so much welcome, feel free to ask us any more questions. We will be happy to answer them!--Mishae (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caleb Evans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relief map (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ironholds. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is I want these ten minutes back.
Message added 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Greeter

Is it OK if I become a greeter at the Wikipedia as well? I already greeted one person: User talk:Tekirkopek--Mishae (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need permission from any editor to do that :). I would, if I were you, internally evaluate if you will be able to answer all of the questions they might have, but the worst-case scenario is you can pass them to other users. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I already greeted two more. So far no one asked me anything. :)--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yesterday I greeted over a 100 souls, and only one of them asked me a question regarding transexualism on my talkpage. Do you know anyone who might help a new guy?--Mishae (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's expected that someone welcoming users will be able to answer queries themselves. Given what this user is asking for, I'd go ask the original uploaders of the maps. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Who could be found where?--Mishae (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Check the file history. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I greeted 3000 if not more users in a week!--Mishae (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol userbox

Where can I find Autopatrol userbox for my userpage? Or it only applied to admins, recent change patrols and reverters?--Mishae (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae: I think you can find it here: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/User groups. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mishae (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comedians

Do you know anyone that specializes in comedians and weather a nomination worth an article?--Mishae (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

On-wiki, I'm afraid not. Ironholds (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Trade Promotion Forecasting

Hi Ironholds,

In June you added a "may be too technical" tag to this article. I just made some changes to the text - can you please look it over and let me know if my changes have adequately addressed the "too technical" issue?

Thanks!Braedon Farr (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Braedon Farr: hey - sorry for taking so long to get back to you :). So, your tweaks have definitely improved the article, but I'd still say it's pretty complex and confusing to the uninitiated. As examples:

1. The opening sentence is "Trade Promotion Forecasting (TPF) is the process that attempts to discover multiple correlations between trade promotion characteristics and historic demand in order to provide accurate demand forecasting for future campaigns." - that's complex and fairly ambiguous. What are characteristics, in this case? Matter of fact, what is trade promotion? (I appreciate it's linked, but that means the reader has to leave the page to read the first two words, which is non-ideal". I'd probably go for something like "Trade Promotion Forecasting is a process that attempts to predict the demand for trade promotion - marketing between a manufacturer and a retailer - by examining historic data."
2. "The ability to distinguish the uplift or demand due to the impact of the trade promotion as opposed to baseline demand is fundamental to model promotion behavior. Model determination enables what-if analysis to evaluate different campaign scenarios with the goal of improving promotion effectiveness and ROI at the product-channel level by selecting the best scenario." - something like "Forecasting is an essential part of trade promotion, as it allows the promoter to evaluate different campaigns and identify the most effective one".

I'm not sure how helpful picking specific elements out is going to be for you (let me know if it is/isn't) but hopefully you get the general tack, here: it feels like the prose is unnecessarily complex. A lot of the article, actually, is very good - although I have some thoughts around the tone used, which I'm happy to discuss after/as well as the technical issue. Hope this helps :). Regards, Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Page Curation

I see from this that you are still occasionally popping in on that page so I assume you still have it on your watchlist. I don't think anyone really knows if you are still officially coordinating that project or not as well as your other tasks, and whether anyone is following up on the issues that are reported there. Otherwise there is little point in continuing the page which could be blanked leaving a simple message for people to address their issues directly to Bugzilla - not that, by all accounts, it would help much either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you been looking at Bugzilla directly? If so, you'll note that of the three extant bugs, one is fixed and waiting deployment and the other two are being fixed. I'm not officially coordinating the page, but as a new page patroller I pop my head in and report bugs as a volunteer. Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi O!, Please, let me know when you are available to finish the review. Best wishes! Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry; work has been totally crazy. I should hopefully have some time over the next few days - I'll let you know if something gets in the way :). Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. There's no rush, Oliver, I just wanted to make sure that you haven't forgot. Thanks again and I wish you luck from the bottom of my heart. Have a good day-- well, I hope you are already having a good one, I just checked the world clock in my phone and is 3:22 pm in Londod. Here is 10:22 am... Best! :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh; I rarely operate on my native timezone anyway (currently hovering around Hawaii) but, yes :). I'll add to the copyedit now. Ironholds (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Stay on Hawaii time, Oliver. We will fly there later this month to cruise to five ports on four islands. I will need you to proofread my major expansions of many Hawaii-related articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do so! Drop Brandon a note if you want some hints on places to visit - it's one of his favourite places. Ironholds (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Hewson

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for taking some of your time again to review the article. I left some notes for you at the talk page :) Most of my problems there were just because of my poor knowdlege of the language. ZooTgirl ^[zootalk] 12:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh; English is a terrible language, full stop! It reflects more on the mongrel-like nature of it than it does on you, I think. I'll take a look in a tick :). Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) ZooTgirl ^[zootalk] 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oliver (and Miss Bono), I just read over the discussion on the Ali Hewson talk page, and I've got to say that is a very thorough evaluation of the language and phrasing of the whole article. This is very good work, and I thank you both. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy to help :). Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I created a redirect

With WP:Curation toolbar and I have mentioned the feature at WP:WMF, FYI. Feel free to suggest improvements to that page, or edit it yourself. Biosthmors (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm afraid my suggested improvements would be a fairly substantial cull :/. As it happens, Page Curation was released last May. Ironholds (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

O dern. That unhelpful? May 2012, eh? I guess I never visit new pages. Are there any stats on how often the page curation tool is used? It looks cool and useful and I just saw it for the first time recently. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Try these graphs. There was a fairly serious bug recently (which appears now to have been patched), and I think that's what's causing reviewers to switch. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Random idea, because I might try to convince a retired person who likes to play solitare on their computer that new page patrol is a game... Maybe it would be nice to have them receive automated barnstars at certain levels of progress. Is that a feature? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not, although I try to keep an eye on the logs and give barnstars out when appropriate. I'd advise caution on that approach; I suspect they'd run into patrollers who would take a rather dim view of anything on Wikipedia being fun ;p. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

But it is a game, surely? With nuns and terrorists, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you would have gone to Catholic school, you would have known that nuns are terrorists. I play a drinking game with Wikipedia. How many times someone yells at Oliver in a day for some minor software change that ruined their life is how many shots I take. For some odd reason, I don't remember the entire month of July. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting complicated, because I did attend a Catholic school, just not for very long, at a very young age, I don't remember many nuns being involved, and the more terroristic aspects of my education all occurred later in what was theoretically a rather open-minded Anglican school (if it had a religious denomination at all, but it certainly wasn't Catholic). As for July (or perhaps it was August), I was reading the book Schindler's Ark at the time, and I felt there were commonalities between IH and the book's slightly flawed heavy-drinking hero. As our article puts it, "a certain gusto". IH should avoid opening any rodent farms in Argentina. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hi its me again. I'm confused about barnstars, someone gave me a Photographer's barnstar even though that I didn't took a single shot! Check my talkpage. My main question is; is it O.K. for a user to give someone an award for something that a user didn't do? Such as my case here...--Mishae (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine; I suspect the user was confused (or misclicked, or thought it was a barnstar from photographers, and they're a photographer, or...so on). There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. Obviously displaying it on your userpage or whatnot would probably not be appropriate, and you might want to send the user a note thanking them but explaining the problem - that way they can avoid it in the future. Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I did.--Mishae (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Hey sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place... I honestly haven't made too many edits and am not 100% familiar with all the protocols. But anyway, I disagree with your reasoning for deleting, again, the page on Brock Zanrosso. The WP:MUSIC, says that if he has one or placed in a major music competition, that being the Canadian show The Nest Star where he placed second in 2009, they can have a page. His music has also been on at least the billboard emerging musician charts as well as played in hundreds of abercrombie stores around the country. And the musician criteria indicates only one of those points needs to be met. I honestly can provide these sources I just hadn't gotten around to finish it just yet and was not expecting it to be deleted again before I had the chance to do so. He is clearly not the most well known musician ever, but he does, in my opinion meet the criteria I listed above and I am sure when I finish working on it I will be able to source more criteria. I am hoping you'll undo your change and allow me to try and finish the article... I figured it was a minor article that I could work on without much trouble. I would reverse it myself but I don't want to start a fight or anything like that. Hope you understand,

-Fred Fjf1085 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fjf1085 I took a look at the article you wrote. I thought a fresh perspective would help.

1. First off, The Next Star is not a music competition per se. It is reality show competition and popularity contest. WP:MUSIC also states "maybe", "...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"
2. Reality show contestants are generally not "notable" enough to get an article. For example, America's Got Talent (season 8) just finished and only two contestants currently have an article. Both articles have been around a few years. I'm sure a couple more contestants will get articles after deals are done and records are released.
3. Right now, it has to come down to his music. If you have a reliable ref where it states he was on Canada's official music chart, that would do it. From Canadian Albums Chart, it appears Billboard is "official" chart.
4. Do you have any other reliable reference about him?

Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Bgwhite is, as always, on the mark :). So, my suggestion would be to work on it as a draft - say, in User:Fjf1085/sandbox - and try to get the article to address the points above. I'm happy to give you feedback on the progress you make if you want. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcomes and their versions

One of the users on my talkpage issued a concern that I welcomed him with an outdated version of a template. I personally don't see a difference between the new and the old one (aside from more colour in the new ones). I explained to the user that its no big deal, and even added Assume good faith policy link to the already not bad welcome. Can you explain to me what does he mean by old version (mine was of 2009) and the new ones? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can't see a substantive difference. Generally-speaking I try to avoid template-based welcoming, however. Ironholds (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not that it's any of my business, but would you mind explaining why? I'm only asking because I'm curious. --Big Caboose (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of reasons. The first is specific to our templates, which I find to be almost the opposite of what we want. A new user comes in, without a particular attachment to Wikipedia - they're just curious (maybe about our mission, maybe about the ability to edit and say their piece). Whatever their motivation, they're not attached to the site yet, not to the degree of >1000 edit wikipedians. And they come in, make a couple of edits....and suddenly they're being presented with a massive, obviously semi-automated piece of text that directs them to a ton of different policies containing a lot of text and internal terminology, which themselves link off to a lot of policies containing...and so on, and so forth. Someone comes in curious and ends up overwhelmed with information through a template, the relevance of which is achieved through giving them everything they could possibly need, at once.

The second - and this is generalisable to templates generally - is that templates are a way of welcoming a user without concern or consideration. You just automatically send them a very general note. It's not the same as making an actual, human connection - reaching out and saying "hey, I loved your edit to X, keep it up! If you need any help, feel free to ask whatever questions you want". Making them feel like a real person saw their work and appreciates it.

When I reach out (admittedly, it's normally to users I see through Special:NewPagesFeed and other mechanisms, and so targets more experienced users) it's with direct praise and barnstars aimed at the specific contribution(s) I appreciated. I've noticed I get a much higher response rate, and many more conversations, than if I was just blindly firing templates at people. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. I guess that makes sense.

Thanks. --Big Caboose (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem :). Personalised messages (with as few links as possible!) are always preferable. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there need for additional reference in Outline of Karnataka

Is there any need for additional reference , because the whole article is an outline for pointing to other Wikipedia articles regarding Karnataka and some sections are referenced where it was needed (hope so), if not could you please point out the sections where references are need and I will add it. Thanks for your help in advance. KAS^(talk) 12:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well...frankly, all the sections not currently referenced. The problem with relying on the reference quality in other articles is that that quality can change dramatically over time. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Siletzia GA review?

Hi. I put Siletzia up for GA review, but there's a shortage of reviewers. Would you be interested in doing this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Happily! I'm hoping to get some reviewing and copyediting time in this evening, as it happens. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I await with eager anticipation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Trophies, barnstars and other awards

Hi, I am still confused about what should I display on my userpage regarding the awards. You see, I understand that getting an award from an admin or just a user who was here for more then 6 months its one thing, but getting a trophy or a barnstar from a new user its different. Like for example: One of the users awarded me with barnstar of Guidance, am I allowed to display it on my userpage, or its ment for something else other then welcome? Like, I did gave him instructions with a welcome so I guess I earned it, but still woulk like to know your opinion on it. Also, if a new user gives you the Teamwork barnstar am I allowed to display it on my userpage? Like, I definitely have one for a reason (the first one), but I am still unsure about the rest. Many thanks for hopefully clearing my mind.--Mishae (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Mishae I guess you are allowed to display those barnstars because they are the result of your good job :D, there is nothing wrong about displaying your awards. I hope this helps. And sorry for pocking my nose. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What Miss Bono said :). A barnstar is a barnstar is a barnstar; evaluating the various merits is for the userpage reader. Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's confusing. I mean the explanation of Ironholds is confusing. Now to Miss Bono message: The reason why I asked is because there was an award which was a mistake, which I mentioned to Ironholds in the previous discussion. Now, I wanted to see if I have any more of those mistake awards.--Mishae (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know whether the duplication of the phrase is a barnstar was intended or not, but Ironholds said the same as I did. It is Ok to have those awards displayed. As for your question, try to investigate a little bit, search for your contributions at the time where they gave you the barnstar and you will know if it is a mistake (you didn't do anything) or not (you helped somebody). An easier way to check this is asking kindly the user who gave you the barnstar, why they gave it (for what reason). Best! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ironholds is using an idiomatic phrase that is intended to indicate that one barnstar does not inherently have more "value" than another. Anyone can give a barnstar, for any reason. The value of any particular barnstar is what the reciever, or any other user, places upon it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry; I do love my idioms. Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

British humour, I guess? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allostock may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be seen including one to Sir Geoffrey Shakerley who fought for the King in the Civil War. At the [[Battle of Rowton Moor[[]]near Chester, Sir Geoffrey rowed across the Dee in an old tub with his

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Animators

Hi, I think I bother you enough today, but can you explain to me the criteria of notability for animators? You see, I wrote this article and it says that he was a lead animator only in one film and no awards or anything, is he still considered notable?--Mishae (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine he'd fall under criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE - so, yes :). Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Its my first article on an animator to be honest.--Mishae (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem :). Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Oliver,

Sorry to bother you, I know you must be busy at the moment. So, let me know when you are ready to review the last chunk in Ali Hewson's article. Kind regards. Sorry the bothers. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's okay! I actually spent some time on it yesterday evening, adding the "notes" section; I'll finish the review this evening :). Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are super great, and yes, I noticed the notes, thank you very much... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Np. Hope to find some time tonight, once I'm out of work. Many, many meetings. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I wish I had a work with meetings. It seems like I only desing things at work- :P. Good luck with your meetings! :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

John Christopher Oakley

I'm writing my first article on a neurologist and would like to know, how much they are notable to Wikipedia? There is approximately 10 neurologists per clinic and they all have PhDs and MDs. However, there is a category on American neurologists that I am aware about, so I guess every neurologist is notable. Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no; there are very few situations in which someone is automatically notable due to career choice. A neurologist would presumably fall under WP:ACADEMIC, as well as the general notability guideline and WP:ANYBIO. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So the case here is different because it says that the person need to have several awards in the same field, this illustrator got Best in Show in three states. As far as neurologist is going, someone told me that as long as they have a PhD they will be notable.--Mishae (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoever that person is, they're...substantially wrong :/. I'd love if you could find out who so I can correct this misconception. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that misconception was in 2011. The user was this guy: Rymatz in the article Paul Igag. Here is our discussion: [[1]] In it, as soon as I say that he have a PhD the other guy removes the speedy deletion tag.--Mishae (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Well, speedy deletion is a different standard from notability; something not being CSDable does not mean it's notable, just that it's not really, really clearly non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Society of Quantitative Analysts page

I responded as requested via email, received no response, and now the talk page for the speedy deletion is also gone. ??!! Is there some way of resolving this? --Peghd (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Flow.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you so much!

		The U2 Barnstar
		I hereby award you the U2 Barnstar for your efforts in helping Wikiproject U2. Congratulations! For helping us to improve this important article. Thank you so so so much! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope FAC goes really well; best of luck, and let me know if you have anything else you'd like me to give a looksee :). Ironholds (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much. I will let you know if we get an FA-Class article. As soon as I finish with Ali I will work in Bono to make it a GA-Class :D. Thanks for the offer :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We are having this issue, I need your input. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, which one? Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

First one. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: the picture question? Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the part of where should be her marriage to Bono. I would like to know your opinion. Thanks Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Lord Denning

Hi, Thanks for your thanks. I regret that I contributed the story about Denning's alleged bias in the UPW case entirely from memory. I suspect that the source is Denning's "The Discipline of Law" , but I have not had the time to check whether it was that or a later book. Feel free in the interim to add a "citation needed". Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: shall do. Any ETA on when you'll have access to the work? Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What does your tag mean? Explanation requested

You have placed the following tag on an article I created Depopulation of the Great Plains

Having created or made major contributions to hundreds of articles, this is the first time I have seen that tag -- and I don't know what it means and how the problem can be corrected. Can you explain? Smallchief (talk 13:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Smallchief: sure! (Sorry to take a few hours to get back to you, by the way - work is heavy).

So, in particular I'm looking at the two images in the lede; MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests it is desirable to avoid leaving text sandwiched between images (which, on my machine, at least, is what's happening there). Another concern is the section size - I would recommend resectioning so that "population history" and "stemming the tide" are the same section, given the shortness of the latter. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the suggested changes -- and removed the tag. Smallchief (talk 11:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Take care :). Ironholds (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem

Can you come here? Someone really wants to block me over nominations of my articles for deletion and accusing me of copyvios which I might, might not have done. Can you intervene into this mess and help out, please?!--Mishae (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae: bah; I'm sorry I didn't get this message until now :(. I'm glad to see everything worked out - let me know if there's anything I can do to help, and I'll try to respond more promptly in the future :(. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Dubious legal history

I stumbled across Pimp tenure while having a pleasant evening reading about feudal tenure (don't ask) and... have my doubts. It looks like three incidental mentions, at least one of which may be a transcription error, conflated into a formally defined type of feudal duty with a deliberately anachronistic names. Any ideas? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So, I was able to hunt out a couple of references to it (tenure is not my area, I'm afraid), neither in formal works of legal history. One comes from a humour book (Ardor in the Court!: Sex and the Law) and one in a law dictionary. I'm unable to find any references in actual, academic works, although I lack access to many of them these days. I'm inclined to agree with you; what I think we could be looking at is a couple of suppositions and mistranslations, coupled with later authors finding it easier to steal wholesale than exhaustively research every entry in their [dictionary/corpus of terms/summary guide/whathaveyou]. Perhaps User:Bencherlite would be able to help out, in this respect? I suspect he has access to a wider pool of historical works than I do (indeed, if I recall correctly, he's a Templar himself - his people and I have an ancient amity ;p) Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Curate bug

It's doing that whiteout of the next page button thing every time now. :( --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear; okay, reporting. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo awards and pseudo awards as sources

I stumbled upon Content Analyst Company and see that the article mentions the KMWorld Magazine's awards a lot. Both as a honor and as a references. As i understands it, so is the "KM World Magazine's '100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management 20xx" something that is issued to every company that pays for a booth at one of the Information Today Inc ( the owners of KMWorld Magazine's ) trade show.

I think this is a little fishy, and the "award" is basically a self published source. Does Wikipedia have any polesyst regarding this? Runarb (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. So, to my knowledge, we don't have any policy setting out what exactly makes an award worth factoring into notability. With companies, WP:ORG suggests awards aren't really a factor at all - so in this case we can essentially treat the award as a reference, and therefore insist it meets the standards we require for notability-based-on-referencing.

I'd agree it fails the independence test set out here, not necessarily due to being "self-published" (strictly-speaking, it's not self-published) but because of the line that requires the originator of the source to "have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." (italics mine). If the considering constitutes "making sure the credit card payment went through", that probably doesn't count :). Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish we had guidelines about even mentioning awards in articles as there are a load of bogus ones out there. But I saw this because I was wondering if you have any interest in paid editors. If you do, you might want to look at the bottom of my talk page as you gave the editor mentioned there a star. Take a look at the history of his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear :(. How did I miss the spam in that thing? I must be getting old (or, more likely, tired). I've tried to remove the worst of it. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

...Just today, a user have thanked me for writing a biography on her (a user is apparently notable), and gave me a Tireless Contributor barnstar, though I like it, I am still confused; Am I allowed to display it, considering that the current barnstar is probably given to people who write zillions of stubs (i.e. One that was awarded to me by Nortrhamerica1000 back in 2011 for creating many articles related to biology)... If I am wrong, let me know (I personally don't know which barnstar is awarded to users who create a special article (not to mention that all articles are special nevertheless)) :).--Mishae (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure; if you've been awarded it, you can display it. Whether you want to or not is entirely up to you. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you...

The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you celebrate Halloween but... Happy Halloween!

	Hello Ironholds, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else an Irish Leprechaun! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! I do indeed, although I didn't get to make a proper costume this year. Hope yours is going well too! Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to wish happy Halloween, though I am here for something else...--Mishae (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we don't celebrate Halloween, I wish, tough. I would be dressed up as a female version of The Fly... or maybe as Ali Hewson... :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

who is Ali Hewson?--Mishae (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mishae, she is Bono's wife. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. Wondering: Does it makes you a daughter of his?--Mishae (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mishae No problem at all and no, I am not Bono's daughter, and I wouldn't want to either, since I am in love with the man. :D What did you think that? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I taught so is just by your username, plus, Wikipedia have quite a few famous Wikipedians (not to mention I just welcomed one, turned out to be a notable Mexican sculptor).--Mishae (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I am not related to Bono. If I would, I couldn't edit U2 related articles, since that'd be WP:COI. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What are U2 articles?--Mishae (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles about the band U2. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I had replied Mishae on his talk page, since I thought yours was not the best place to talk about this. By the way, I haven't heard anything else on Ali H. for FA, does that mean that it was rejected? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless the FAC was closed, no - you might want to poke the people who opposed/left comments and inform them the page has been updated, though. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, I asked Wasted Time R but got no reply. I will be focused on Bono's article I want to take it into GA-Class. Maybe, if you have time, you'd like to help a little bit :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Happily; let me know what I can do :). Ironholds (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words and barnstar on Monaghan Mill. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Foxe: no problem! Keep up the great work :). Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey dude, been ages, hope you're well. Danger^Mouse (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very much so; spent the weekend writing code and watching Futurama. Hope things are good at your end, too! Ironholds (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry for this Iron but I had to say it... DO you watch Futurama?? OMG! That's my favourite! Also I like The Simpsons and South Park. But Futurama is No. 1 in my list of favourite cartoon tv shows. And... sorry for poking my nose. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, one of my favourites - along with shows like Archer, Adventure Time and Venture Bros. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've told you this before but... you rock. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh; thank you! Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) Jenova gave me a Zoidberg once and I am giving you one today (V)(;,;)(V) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah - never seen that smiley before, but I like it. Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I call it a Zoidmiley :P Do you like South Park? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

or a smileberg? Yeah, I watch it when I can, although not as fanatically as the other shows. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Like that one better! Oh, yes, it is not as good as Futurama but sure it makes me laugh out loud. I still don't know if I like the episode about Bono... but I burst into laughter. (O_o) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not too bad, really tied up nowadays with few things, should be okay. Spent the weekend filling up forms in Farsi/Persian, using a translator, wasn't easy. Brilliant talking. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Darn on the "translator" element; I was about to try and weedle some translations out of you :). Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me know what it is, I'll try to translate it. 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Danger^Mouse (talk)

Olafia

Hi, You added a "multiple citation issues"-template to Olafia. I have now made in-line citations in the two sections that were not explicitly referenced, although it actually feels rather overdone to have to reference a single sentence if the source is the same as already referenced in the lead. I'd say referencing in many Wiki-articles is already much more detailed than in your average scientific article. I have now changed the "multiple citation issues"-template to "unclear citation style". However, I remain unclear about what you find unclear in the citation style. It seems to me this style is commonly used. So I seek your guidance in this: please explain how you would like the citation. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

Hey Dwergenpaartje :).

So, in regards to citation numbers; yeah, we require referencing to be pretty uniform in the body of an article. Actually it works the other way around from how you seem to be treating it - is it acceptable for parts of the lede to remain uncited (unless they're direct quotes) because the expectation is that the lede of an article is the synthesis of the body, and the body will be referenced.

In regards to the unclear citation style, you've cleared that up - I was referring to the references in this version that alternate full formatting (see citations 2 or 3) with simple web page titles (citations 1 and 4). I strongly recommend using the web citations format for websites like this, which can be accessed by hitting the {{ }} button in your edit toolbar and clicking "cite web".

Thanks for clearing this up so quickly! Please do let me know if you have any questions (related to this topic or not), or if there's anything I can help with. And: thanks for your contributions thus far :). Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Trophies

Is there is a way to display the trophies or other awards identical to user @Koavf: way? It overlaps my username and I don't know what to do about it? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but if there is, I'm unaware of it. I think it's an attribute of the trophies/award templates in question, not of how you're putting them in the userpage. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

You are receiving this notice because you have commented or contributed to the article previously. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reviewing Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl! I appreciate the effort and the time you spent doing it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem; sorry it took so long! Let me know next time you have an article you need reviewing - I'll try to be speedier :). Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Do you really want to give out "Autopatrolled" rights to someone with a high percentage of articles that don't hold water under close scrutiny? User:BiH was recently found to be an paid editor so maybe you could revoke that? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you really want to beg the question? ;p.

More seriously: I'm not an admin any more, so I couldn't revoke it if I wanted to - feel free to ask any admin to do so. In the meantime, please try and phrase such requests in a less "when did you stop beating your wife" kinda way. Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Am I missing something or is this a request to sanction BiH merely because he's been paid? I could see action if he violated a policy or something, but the last time I checked there wasn't a policy about being paid. Unless, of course, he turned someone into a newt. However, having said that, I can bring some wood over. We can burn him at the stake, just like a witch. We can even use the "duck" test. GregJackP Boomer! 08:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That's a waste of good oak - you know how difficult it is to get hold of decent wood these days? There are certainly some problems with BiH's articles that could easily justify yanking the bit - I'll leave that decision up to an admin - but Greg's right: being paid is not a reason to remove a userright. The argument could be made that editors being paid demand more scrutiny than editors not being paid, and thus scrutiny-evading bits shouldn't be issued, but it's none of our places to make decisions there. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Marcus Qwertyus, are you being saucy or something else? Please find a sentence where I say "I am paid"!? That is an assumption of an unregistered user, who was payed to make an article that I probably tagged for reference improvement or I removed a portion of his/her article that was against the rules as a random page patroller. I saw how you do when I read the explanation for deletion saying (how I saw it): "This article has significant coverage in the US and Canadian media, but let's delete it anyway". No one want to improve, to contribute, so I am sick of you all and do not want any further discussion with you. --BiH (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks....

For the barnstar and the nice comments. I fear I've only scratched the surface of the life of Anna de Bremont - she had a kind of aura of celebrity, but remains tantalisingly out of reach.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll be able to expand upon it, then :). I had the same problem with Edward Coke - ended up spending two years on the article. Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Abraham modal haplotype

i wonder if you could lead me to where should I request undeletion of the article . i spent a lot of time adding sources. the klyosov study was referenced in rozhadinii speaking of same topic, which makes klyosov study not primary research. both studies are used as master refrences for isogg. which make both studies reliable. many studies cited the two studies as when googling the study title and find cited by number of articles immediately . plus many other studies I did not see fit to mention since they were critical and in new chronology, making me wonder why should i add antithesis to the article I mentioned all that in the discussion but obviously was ignored and was gien lectures about my using notable word even though i used it to refer to notability wiki policy guideline. both articles are published in Proceedings of the russian academy of dna genealogy, which has issn and oclc but I forgot to put them thinking doi number suffice. also many articles studies referenced both articles klyosov 2009, and rozhadinii as immediately shown with googling where the study show cited by number articles. I also had a list of articles that referenced and cited the klyosov studies and also mentioned the abraham mh in their studies. i was not aware of 7 days only for discussion. So I am an old man, and i got lost in reading were in the world to request undelete procedure. may be you can help thanx. Viibird (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey; Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is what you're looking for. Hope that helps :). Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

NPP

Please see: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Lack of patrollers?. I would welcome your personal opinion as an experienced patroller and as one who is aware of these issues, rather than that of a Foundation representative. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Quercus baloot

Wondering what's wrong with this article? Its conversions, all right, but it can't read it, for an unknown to me reason.--Mishae (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "l" was being used instead of "1" - now fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At first I thought it was the vertical line that caused the issue, assuming that "I" is identical to the "|", and they are almost next to each other on the keyboard.--Mishae (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gustaf Troedsson

Hi, you tagged Gustaf Troedsson as unreferenced. The page is a translation of the Swedish wiki article. The Swedish article has references, but these are not online and I have not read these sources. What would you have me do? Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology

Hi, And another question. I link very often to the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (I have a copy back home, and although many parts are outdated, it is the only comprehensive in-depth source on fossils). Looking at that page it struck me that it was tagged "lacking in-line citations". So I started making in-line citations. Every consecutive line to an other page of the same website. I stopped at 38 with 22 more to go. It just seemed ridiculous all of a sudden. How could I deal with this? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the "Evolution of the project" section is the big one that needs citations. Is there no page that lists all the volumes? If there is, you could just use that for the 'volumes' section. Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets begin?..

As of now I have 3 articles that might be good for DYK, but the prose is something to be checked upon: Bruce Dobkin, Henry W. Hofstetter, Hui Liu. I believe that the only thing they need now, is an image. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've copyedited Bruce Dobkin (I hope to get to the others this evening). I removed the presentations section, since it mostly seemed to be a report on one particular speech, and made some prose changes. One thing to learn; in English, we use "a" as a prefix for positions where there could be multiple holders. So, "a soldier", because there are many soldiers, or "a committee", because there are many committees. However, if there is only one possible holder, you do not use it. There is only ever one chairman or chairperson of an organisation, or one board of directors, so it's "a member of the board of directors" or "the chairman" rather than "a member of a board of directors" or "a chairman". Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, so when do quotes being used? Like I know, that some articles have it, like famous actor lines. "I will be back" from Arnold Schwarzenegger and the like. So, I just finished with those two: Francesco Mainardi and Samir Kouro, have a look.--Mishae (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally articles include quotes if the quotes themselves are important, independently, or illustrate something vital about the subject of the article. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sang Won Kang, Kyonoshin Maruyama and Kum Kum Khanna

Those articles were proposed for deletion just because I used Google Scholar as a main reference and I can't find other sources. Can you look through them and intervene on Freshacconci talkpage? Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking just using google scholar isn't going to be acceptable :/. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, what if I don't know any other sources for those three? Like, I don't know their Chinese, Japanese, or Hindi names so that I can Google them? And why so, why wont it be acceptable? Like, someone told me it might be considered as an original research, but I am still in denial of it. Like, to me, original research is when you use Facebook or some other social networking site, but Google is nothing like that! It have been proven by numerous users to be an acceptable reference. That's what I found... However, if I am wrong, please, feel free to point it out, I wont argue, and will accept my wrong doing (bowing down)...--Mishae (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So, in order:

1. If you can't find any other references, the subject may simply not be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Reference coverage is still the primary criteria for inclusion.
2. The search engine tests notes the usefulness of google scholar to find sources. That doesn't make google scholar a source itself. The page you link also includes the line "Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything".
3. Original research is just when you 'read in' to sources - that is, do some analysis and don't just report what the reliable sources say. What the sources are really don't matter in regards to if it's OR. Ironholds (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Grigoriy Oparin

In your opinion, are such people notable? I just don't want to waste time on something that is not yet considered. Like, how young does a player have to be in order to be notable? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with rank and everything to do with position. If Oparin is genuinely a Grandmaster he's almost certainly notable. Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. By the way, are you aware that user Kudpung has removed an auto-reviewer privilege from me? Another question, since when was Azerbaijan a European country as this template here specifies?! {{Azerbaijan-chess-bio-stub}} same thing with Georgia.--Mishae (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not; I have to say that, given the prose quality of some of your new articles (Oparin is an example) I do understand his decision :(. You shouldn't take this to mean you're not welcome to create new articles, mind - very few people get it completely right - but you might want to team up with a copyeditor to go over them before you post them, or soon after :). Ironholds (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Oparin is just my intro to chess players. I don't understand though how do my articles intervene with me being an auto-reviewer? First, I didn't abuse it, that's a plus, second I used only on talkpages and that's it. Just because my articles need a copy editor, doesn't mean that I should be stripped from that privilege. Or am I missing something here? Like, there was a talk on BLP related stuff before I became an auto-reviewer. But I thought it was about copyright violations not notability factors. Plus, the last article, I gave to user @Randykitty: right after he tagged it for deletion and right before Kudpung removed the privilege. Either way, what should I do to earn it (don't know other English word for it) back?--Mishae (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, no; autopatrolled/autoreviewer means "this person's articles are good enough not to require input from other users" - it includes copyright, but also things like neutrality, quality of prose and notability. I'm not sure what you mean about only using it on talkpages - do you mean you only patrol talk pages? Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That what I did mostly. For example, one user will warn or welcome another and then I come in and mark it as patrolled. I maybe patrolled one article and even added a reliable source to it, pity though, some people were very happy about my deeds. It makes me feel not trusted. Prose was never discussed, but notability and neutrality along with copyright were explained well (and I followed them). So, I don't know what went wrong. One article I wrote had a reliable source (Tampa Times), but was still dimmed not notable, the rest, yes, I need to agree here were no where near notability, but photographers are difficult sometimes to write about (I even quit on them now for some time).

Currently I began using h-index over 19 Google Scholar for my academics as a primary source, (believing that way people wont remove them), but one user issued a concern about it and now I am confused... Academics are not easy either, considering that 80% of all modern academics aren't mentioned in the press. Maybe I am just not old enough to read articles on cancer and mesothelioma and other bone and brain related illnesses which struck people long after... I sure know that I am in prime time for writing about it though, while my brain cells are alive. Who knows, my brain might turn 80 earlier then my body... That's why I donate so much time, assuming that when I will be completely out a lot of readers will still read it with pride. :)--Mishae (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A laudable motivation :). I understand there are a few concerns about Google's h-index...but all the 'accepted' ones are behind paywalls, so there's no way to win :/. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, talk to user @Randykitty:, he is the one that thought me how to use the h-index. Correct me if I am wrong, but an h-index from 16, 19 and above is a good sign of notability. By the way, feel free to check my recent contributions, I have updated some of my articles regarding notability and so on. I still have such guys like Avinoam Kolodny, Israel Cidon, Assaf Schuster, David Mohrig which need some work on. Come to think of it, maybe Kudpung will give the patrolling thing back after you or me will show him my recent articles? I will promise that from now on, I will use Google Scholar for notability when it comes to academics. Wondering though, if I will promise him that (and he will see it), will he give it back? Or if I screwed up once, trhe community wont trust me ever again? :(--Mishae (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They will certainly trust you again, but as said, there are some prose concerns :). How's this - when you write articles, keep me in the loop and I will happily copyedit them and check for notability? I get more excuses to write content, you get less-problematic articles and the chance to pick up some hints. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deal. Now, can you convince Kudpung to give me back my auto-patrol rights?--Mishae (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the concerns he has are valid and do not go away with copyediting. Autopatrolled means "the articles this user creates can be trusted to be of high quality". If you create an article with prose or notability issues, and I do not assist in it, it may be problematic. If I do assist in it, it is still problematic. What I am advocating is that I help you understand notability and improve your English writing skills so that, in time, your articles will be of high quality whether or not I help with them. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that no matter how much I will write the articles as long as they are notable I might get the privilege back? Or you are saying that no matter what, I still wont get it? Keep in mind, it was your idea to grant me auto-patrolled rights. I can of course re appeal, but what's the chance that anyone will grant it?--Mishae (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither; I'm saying that if they're notable and you take the opportunity of me copyediting them to improve your English prose, you stand a chance of getting them back. You're welcome to appeal Kudpung's decision, but I strongly suspect people will endorse it: I think he made the right one. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social network

Hello Oliver,

Your Facebook photo reminded me of this.

Have a safe and enjoyable trip. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When you will come back...

...Will you be able to check this article for me? Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer. Plus, the user there have removed subsections from a plot that I believed was put there by me so that the readers can read what's going on in which part of the game.--Mishae (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of prose work, but seems pretty solid. I largely agree with the user who removed the plot section; while we do have plot sections, we try not to make them so large. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Because? It emphasizes OR?--Mishae (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's far too long. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary is a pretty good guide: the key word is 'summary' rather than 'play-by-play'. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't our readers would like to know what the game is about? Like, the part of encyclopedia is to be descriptive. Lets clean up copy editing and then we will see where it will lead us?--Mishae (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I read the whole thing, but I still have a question; Please read second part of Length section and the whole Characters, locations, etc. section to understand my point. I brought a good argument to the other user that a plot line is O.K. to be honest and I believe that the subsections were appropriately placed there. Like, if that game would have been a FPS or RPG, then I have agreed with you that play-by-play here is redundant. But its neither. Its an adventure game, and as we all know adventure games have big plot lines, because playing an adventure game is same thing as reading a book in most cases.--Mishae (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, such games that I write about they don't get even a review on GameSpot otherwise I might have used it as a reference...--Mishae (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That analogy (the book comment) would work better if the plot summary that was removed was not much greater than that of most books. A 16,000-character plot summary is far too unwieldy and large. Chrono Trigger and Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards, a video game and book respectively, are both very prominent and both featured articles: their plot summaries are 5,700 and 7,000 characters, for comparison.

Yes, readers like to know about the plot of games, but there's a line to be drawn - you've got half a paragraph dedicated to a character climbing through a window. We provide summaries, not walkthroughs.

I'm not sure the relevance of having a GameSpot reference. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"We provide summaries, not walkthroughs" - If I would have a slightest thought to write a walkthrough, I most definitely wont do it here, and for a walkthrough I would have mentioned every object she picks up which I didn't. Some editors maybe just too descriptive. O.K. I will be honest with you, I bought this particular game in 2012 and went to Wikipedia to find out that such article doesn't exist while the rest of the adventure game-related articles do. So, I installed the game and I both write and played every day, meaning that I played every level a day (including writing about it). And that's the reason why the plot got large. As far as the featured articles go, that's what was my aim with the particular article.--Mishae (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have addressed my comments; I believe the other editor was correct, and that you need to dramatically slim down the plot section. That's about it. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year
	Merry Christmas, Ironholds. Thank you for making this year on Wikipedia more fun, educational, and productive. May this coming year bring you love and peace. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Same to you! Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The Future!

You tagged this page "fancruft", which another editor changed to "fan point of view". It *did* kind of have a fan point of view, in part due to the fact that most of the sources I used for info were blogged review/interview type sources written by people who were fans...and also because I myself am somewhat of a fan. I've tried to clean things up a bit, removing info that seemed too obscure or insufficiently supported, fixing broken links, adding support for more generic biography stuff. I've also put some relevant info on the talk page. Could you take another look at the page and clarify if your concern has been met? I'm *guessing* that I might have addressed a couple sections of particular concern but I can't be sure. I don't know that I've established *notability* quite yet but I do think I have made it more NPOV and fixed a substantial part of the problem with tone that prompted you to add that tag.

(I'm a nerd-folk performer and enthusiast - I've been making/updating pages on several such performers. HTF is kind of right on the border when it comes to "notability" - I'm not arguing that here. But if you think the page still feels specifically too "fannish", could you elaborate on the talk page? Thanks!)

Links: Hello,_The_Future! Talk:Hello,_The_Future! --Blogjack (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey @Blogjack: happy to help! So, it's looking pretty good right now; for POV, two things I'd change (just off the top of my head) is: condense things to avoid cognitive dissonance - at the moment it seems to switch between discussing the musical project and the individual in successive paragraphs - and use "Dieker" rather than "Nicole" to make things slightly more abstracted away. On the notability front, you seem to be doing pretty well: any chance there's something in google news, for example, that might cover her? Alternately, have you tried reaching out to Dieker directly? In my experience a lot of musicians seem to hoard press clippings at their end :). Ironholds (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Lest everyone misses a comment on an obscure, semi-technical article: I reiterate here my thanks to Oliver for assisting in a lengthy GA review at Siletzia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for writing such a great article; my apologies that the review took so long. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! We took such time as sufficed for deliberate consideration. And no one died. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Page curation clash

I notice we are clashing over the same articles. So I have started from 21/06/13. Hope that helps. Op47 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; most appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Op47: looks like I'm wandering off for a while; feel free to just start at the end again :). Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)