User talk:Ironholds/archive 25

Far, far nicer, and some images too! Plus, all those redlinks… potentially a few DYKs in there. Good work. AGK 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! Time for lede expansion? Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out shortly, but I should be back this evening. Then again, I might have some more IRL work to do… Hmm. And Wednesday wouldn't work either. I guess it could wait until Thursday? We could get started now on what we want in the lead, if you like. Maybe work on a draft in your /prog sandbox, since you won't need that any more? AGK 10:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can draft up a lede tonight, probably; I'm going to weasle a GA and DYK out of the GCHQ case first. Ironholds (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll catch you sometime soon and we'll sort out the lead. The article's been sitting on GAC for a few days so hopefully a reviewer should be along soon-ish (and by that, I mean in under a month). AGK 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In case you miss this message, it being posted all the way up here: yoo-hoo! Royal Prerogative in the UK is taking an awfully long time to clear GAN, isn't it? That's over three weeks now. I don't mind waiting on these things usually, but I nominated a falconry article a few days ago and it cleared in under twenty-four hours :P. Huff. AGK 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Poke malleus, he's excellent at such things. Oh, and check IRC! Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would, please take care when replying to others. You initially did this, which placed your comment between Ironhold's comment and his sig, and didn't sign yourself, which made it look like he was talking to himself. I have fixed it as such. When you reply to someone, just add another (:) to indent (that part you had right) under/after the previous person's signature, and then sign with 4 tildes (~). Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some garbage you left on my talk page, falsely accusing me of attacking other editors. In fact, as you well know, all the lying and nastiest came from the other other editors, including you. DO NOT EVER PUT ANYTHING ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO COMMUNICATE WITH DISHONEST PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF, IN ANY FORUM WHATSOEVERTruthfulPerson (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I won't. You accused all of us of being racist - please explain how the nastiness came from our side? Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal coalition, fuck. Now, the Tories will be able to blame everything on the Lib Dems the next time round. The Libs better have won some awesome concessions. I owe you a drink though. - hahnchen 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did my part in the switchover so far, which seems to have gone very smoothly, that is, on Wikipedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no coalition yet - just a minority government. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't exactly know what you took offense at regarding the McCarthy-Fry article. According to this diff my edits were pretty tiny and I don't know how they violated WP:BLP. Just curious. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to this one you added unreferenced info about her family. Much potential for damage, there; better that statements be referenced or not made. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the decision date really 28 May 1963, which is given consistently as the date of the Lords' judgment? That would seem to be before the case even started. The bailli transcript suggests 22 November 1984, which seems more likely. David Underdown (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake for cutting and pasting the infobox *grumble*. Many thanks. Ironholds (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article text as well. It seemed such an obvious error I thought I ahd to be missing something! David Underdown (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ironholds. :) Gaussig House came up for clearance today, and while evaluating it for closure at WP:CP I noticed that permission is provided under CC-By-SA only, but that's not indicated in the tag you used. {{PermissionOTRS}} is really intended for files (though I used to use that one, too, before I realized that). For articles {{ConfirmationOTRS}} has an easy toggle to indicate whether the article is CC-By-SA only or GFDL. We do have to notify when GFDL is not also usable in order to maintain our end of WP:REUSE (which says GFDL is fine "unless otherwise indicated"). I'll go ahead and correct this one, but I thought I'd let you know for future use. Thanks for chipping at that backlog! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! Sorry for the fubar; I'll use the correct tag in future. Blame DanielB for giving me the wrong advice! Ironholds (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll mention it to him, too, then! Using {{PermissionOTRS}} didn't used to be that big a deal for articles (although it doesn't specify the source, which can be a problem if somebody imports text from someplace else, too :)), but since the licensing transition thing, {{ConfirmationOTRS}} is all the more important where single license is granted. This is one I think we're all still having to get used to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but it seems to me if you use the 'refimprove' template you should include at least one 'cn' in the body text. This would support the presence of the template and direct an editor to the area of your concern. I almost removed the template but because it is relatively new I contacted you instead.My76Strat (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost track of the exact article I was referring to, and as your contributions are extensive, I was unable to determine the exact article. It doesn't hurt the article that the template is in place because it can be improved. My comments were in general however because when I read the template I looked in the body to see if I could add a reference and there were no 'cn's in the body. If there had been I perhaps would have added an appropriate reference. Stay diligent and don't assume anything negative from my comment. For the most part it is me who is learning a great deal each day.My76Strat (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have 'autoreviewer' status and therefor may take offense at a new editor like myself offering advice. I suppose it is the way of the world to some extent, nevertheless thank you for indulging my interaction.My76Strat (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion on the Jerry Grgich page i created. I created it for the show parks and recreation and i thought it was known he is a fictional character. Sorry for the confusion

- water78  —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC).[reply] 

Hi, I'm tryng to put together a panel discussion for Gdansk, and I was wondering if you wanted to join in, or alternatively if you could suggest someone to put the deletionist case. I've had a look at the attendees list but I don't recognise any of them as being involved. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, since I'm not a deletionist. I'm a precisionist. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, I am still working in Hisanori Shirawasa's article, i am here to help with Japanese football in wikipedia. Cheers ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiroshi Malves (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't like be called "bro"? About the reference I have found this profile Cheers! --Malves#10 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiroshi Malves (talk • contribs)

A new user sent me a private message asking for help on a specific problem - which I do not intend to involve myself in beyond offering general tips - when I had already offered help with any issues to them in my welcome message. Perhpas the message was somewhat biased, but no other conditions of WP:CANVAS were fulfilled. Since a brief glance at the article in question tells me, if nothing else, that you are in violation of WP:Civility and are bordering on an WP:Edit War, perhaps you should refamiliarise yourself with some points of policy. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was wrong to mention arbitration - this was merely due to momentary confusion between WP:ARB and WP:RFM. I also admit that I may have been hasty in my judgement of your conduct; I was most likely influenced by your profanity on the talk page, as I found this personally offensive.

However, you have behaved badly in several areas. As mentioned above, you have been uncivil and your behaviour has verged on an edit war. You expect too much of a user who is new to the site - bear in mind I was only contacted because of my work welcoming new users. Your dispute resolution leaves much to be desired, and you have misquoted some policies (please note that canvassing applies only to messages sent to multiple users) although I admit I have done so as well.

As of this moment, I have no wish to become involved in your dispute. I urge the pair of you to find a calm consensus to resolve this issue. However, I ask you not to involve me in this process unless absolutely neccessary, and if either of you continues your argument on my talk page, I will post a Wikiquette alert on that user. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

entao vai dar o teu toba gringo filho da puta--Malves#10 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiroshi Malves (talk • contribs)

zica do idioma tu entaoo --Malves#10 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiroshi Malves (talk • contribs)

Sorry too bother you . Not sure if you see this Wikipedia_talk:Subject_style_guide#Comments but some conflicts are intended Gnevin (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - hope you'll remember me - I went to a few London meetups last year. I saw that you put up the train details about the Wiki-train between London and Danzig for the Wikimania, and I'm happy to say that I'll hop onto the Wiki-train at Cologne on the way out, and on board the train all the way back! Please keep me posted about the ticketing details. I saw a few "group price" on the itinerary, will you be booking them for all of us? --Deryck C. 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one organising that side - check with Werdna, I'd say. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a review at the above - not a lot to say - main thing is one possible POV issue to think about. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Maybe the references in Marlan (fabric) are better now? Would you please check if the tags could be removed?. Thank you! Cesarandreo (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wool as basic fiber provides thermal insulation characteristics while avoiding the molten metal sticking to the fabric, which is the main problem of other fibers (cotton, polyamide, aramid, etc..) used in the past." and the Marlan SX sections are still unreferenced. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I have added some more references, is it ok now? Cesarandreo (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I have a very minor comment re this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Montague Edward Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Justice of the Common Pleas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charitable trusts in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Creation of express trusts in English law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Buggie111 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you are a DYK regular. Please take this into account. Buggie111 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-reading the article and finding one aspect of the suit quite confusing: why sue under what seems a rather complicated argument of trust law when (at least to the lay observer) contract law would have been the straightforward approach? Circéus (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did include contract, as you can see from Dilon's judgment. The problem was that contract law does not override trust law; a contract for an invalid trust will not be followed, because the trust cannot be constituted. For Hunter to claim in contract the shares on trust, he first had to prove that the trust was valid (at least, I'm assuming that's their logic). 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that I'm confused as to the argumentation that a trust had been constituted. Looking at the facts as explained in the article, I would have taken it as a mere breach of contract: the guy was promised shares as part of payment for work. Involving trusts seems to overcomplicate the issue (that is, assuming that situations like this are not automatically assumed to involve a trust in English law, which I'm fairly sure is not the case in North American law). Circéus (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Purpose trusts in English law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Richwales (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find a cite for the hook. Please make sure there is an easily identifiable source for the claim in the hook. Richwales (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the new hook phrase ("capricious and wasteful") taken from Musset v. Bingle? If so, I would suggest editing the article by moving the reference to this case ([1876] WN 170) so that it is at the end of the sentence, immediately following the phrase quoted in the hook. Otherwise, it's still not immediately clear that the hook is supported by a source. Richwales (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; Edwards's textbook, the first book cite following the quote. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. In that case, my understanding is that the proper source needs to be cited immediately after the hook claim; otherwise, it is not evident to the casual reader which source (or even if any source) supports the claim. In this case, the mention of trusts for animals and the anti-perpetuities rule makes it impossible to identify a source for the "capricious and wasteful" phrase. Quoting WP:DYK, "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim". I realize you've been doing DYK work a lot longer than I have, but this aspect of the guidelines appears pretty cut and dried to me. Richwales (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, missed that! Doing DYK is all well and good unless people don't tell you when you've failed to follow the rules :p. Thanks kindly for making me aware of that; I'll add a cite now, and remember it for the future. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've marked the article as good to go ("assuming good faith" because the cited sources aren't online). Richwales (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be all kosher; the other one hundred and fifty summat have been :P. Thanks for your assistance, matey. Ironholds (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Now I'll wait and see what becomes of my own DYK submission (White Horse Prophecy), which I submitted shortly before yours. Richwales (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the source for the hook or even the hook itself in the article. I suspect that I'm missing it, so could you help me? Please just point out (either at my talk or at T:TDYK) where to find the hook; assuming that I've overlooked it, I expect that I'll quickly approve it. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I find subjects such as this somewhat easier to comprehend and review than I do pop culture subjects. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Ironholds,

I was on my way to nominate the article "Clan of Ostoja" as GA and then checked other articles nominated in the area and got scared! :)

I know that I need to add some ref. in some sections but before I make fool of myself by nominating I would kindly ask You if could briefly look at the article and give me some advise of what You think? I spend 24 years on reading but not at writing and my english might not be the best. However, I wish to improve and I would therefore be very grateful for any comment on the article from Your side and exchange few words with me. Im very unsure on few certain points.

Sincerely, Camdan (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I'll take a look tomorrow when I've got access to a computer with a screen bigger than a credit card :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, sometimes I feel blind even of the screen would be of football size :) Ok, I checked Your first comments and then the improvements You did in the article. My reflection is that the article is very heavy from start so to make it more readable for "normal" people I thought it would be good with bold text to separate sections and pictures so their brain don's look like boiled eggs after reading. I don't think its good to split the article cause historical background is necessary since polish history, genealogy and heraldry is such a difficult subject anyway. Actually most publications 10 years old and older is a nightmare since there are so many errors, I relay more on German and Hungarian/ Slovakian sources. So I thought a lot about the layout. Also, the pictures of certain members of the Ostoja Clan would light up the article. So thats the reason of including them. Do You have any other ideas how to make the article more readable or do You think that its ok like it is now? Last parts beginning with the section "End of the golden age" have now no pictures at all...

Im very grateful for Your help and that You take time to help me out in this for me difficult matter! Best regards, Camdan (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I will see what I can do to improve the section with Clans and also do changes as You proposed! How about the pictures? I will try to make the improvement in few weeks time, right now my job is really killing me! :) Again, thanks a lot! Camdan (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I will remove some pictures then and add some of the others that are gone to see how it work then! Seems lot of work to do...

• I did some changes, removed some pictures, removed bold text and added inline citations up to the section of "Stibor of Stiboricz and Sigismund von Luksemburg". so...up to this section of Stibor and Sigismund, how does it look like? Can I proceed like that or are more improvements necessary?

• Ok, its to much for me to do right now, I need to wait for the vacation to have time to do all the changes. Thanks for all suggestions! I will work on it to improve! :)

On June 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Recreational Charities Act 1958, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Slow down with the DYKs already; you make the rest of us look bad. Came back to IRC just there for a chat with you, but you'd went offline. I'll get you some other night :). AGK 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got to get 250-odd by the end of the Summer, dude. How bouts you spend the time writing up my UCTA draft? :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buck Humphrey, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Humphrey. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed this nomination as little progress has been made. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 June, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Purpose trusts in English law, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Secret trusts in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, I've got a problem with a high-handed admin. Can you recommend a reasonable admin to help resolve the issue? (KR) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Ollie, see User talk:Pats1 and Talk:Fred Taylor (American football) for the quick explanation. Admin apparently thinks he makes his own formatting and sourcing rules for WP:BLP because WP:NFL has its own "standard format," and keeps reverting perfectly valid edits. Annoying as hell. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, sorry to disturb with technical question. In polish article on Wiki named "Zbigniew Ścibor-Rylski" there is infobox in the article. I was thinking to use that in the english version of the article with same name. But i don't know how to do that. I know that I should use some "sub" command but I have no clue. Could You help out? Best regards, Camdan (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Creation of express trusts in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hunter v Moss, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've added two. More to come as the article expands. Thanks. BULARAN (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not. It'd give me something do... Bencherlite^Talk 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Metallurgy of Ukraine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallurgy of Ukraine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

You marked the article with a multiple issues template on the 18th of December. I would appreciate your comments in the AfD, and any comments that you might have for me as this is my first AfD nomination. Thank you. --Fartherred (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the above is a vanity page, written by Henry Jarecki with two sock-puppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I am using this talk feature correctly but this seems like the right thing to do.

I got flagged for an article on Red-R, a visual programming language for R. I worked on it for a while but realized that I might be violating Wikipedia's policy on promoting one's own work because I am a developer for the software. It's OK to take it down, though I do wish that someone with more Wikipedia experience than I have would write an article about Red-R.

Thanks

--Kylecovington (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]