User talk:Ironholds/archive 33

Great Shooting

	Shoot-first, read-later award
	nb: the goal of the *real* bad guys is a culture of violence. Uncontroversial Obscurity 02:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NACTOR has clearly been met. Consensus was that her roles were deemed significant. And verifiability has been met. You can check the credits in any of the things she has worked on to find her name. Dream Focus 03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No, secondary guidelines are for the purpose of ensuring we cover important things that theoretically (but not practically) get coverage. If it was simply "so we can cover things that don't have reliable sources" then the line noting that articles not based on reliable sources that nevertheless pass secondary guidelines can be merged/redirected would not exist. In any case, "secondary notability guidelines exist so we can cover notable things" is a circular argument. Ironholds (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a

Noted; it would have been good if you'd actually phrased the above discussion as an attempt to resolve the matter, y'know. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very upset to find that you have deleted the article on Jonathon Coudrille - the surrealist painter from Cornwall UK.

Please can you explain why and reinstate the page as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Joff Day Swordstar (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Coudrille did not pass our notability requirements; as such, he cannot have an article. I will not restore it, but if you're looking for the missing content, I can email you a copy. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is at [2]. Evidence has now been found though, no one mentioning at that time. He was interviewed on a television show called John Nettles' Westcountry. [3] And as we discussed previously on this talk page [4] a major art gallery does keep some of his work in their permanent collection. He was interviewed on Revolver Art Cornwall - Cornwall Online Radio [5] also. Based on that evidence, can you undelete the article? Dream Focus 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I have already discussed this matter with you. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion involved you stating that one art gallery wasn't enough, you needed two to meet

WP:ARTIST. Something totally different here. I have listed two places where he was interviewed at. Do you find those two reliable sources I just mentioned count as notable coverage? Dream Focus 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That's making the fundamental assertion that the second source is reliable. Can you prove that it is? Ironholds (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Coudrille is that his most notable achievements took place during the 1960s and 1970s, so they are poorly documented on the internet. I am guessing that this Wikibin article contains a copy of the deleted biography: [6] From reading that and several other sources, Coudrille appears to be notable on several counts. He has exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Walker Art Gallery. He has composed music performed by the National Symphony Orchestra. He has written film and television soundtracks. He has appeared on children's television, and has written songs for the BBC. None of these achievements are backed up by hard online sources, but he is indisputably an award-winning children's author. "A Beastly Collection" was published in 1974 by

Frederick_Warne_&_Co, [7], the publishers of Beatrix Potter, and "Farmer Fisher" was a best seller. It won Children's Book of The Year in 1976 and was republished in 2010 by Footsteps Press. [8]. On the strength of his children's books alone, I think there's sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of a biography. Please restore it. Rubywine (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• If all of that is true, recreate the page with this information included. Other than overturning months-old consensus there's not much I feel comfortable doing on this front. Ironholds (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have recreated the biography from scratch, and I think it stands up pretty well. Rubywine (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link "2000 to date" it will take you to a list that contains a link to the Bribery Act 2010 and links to a number of "related articles" (the other Acts of Parliament). And similarly with the other links. It facilitates navigation between articles on Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no earthly reason for the links to related articles to need to be physically incorporated into the navbox itself (in this case it isn't possible because there are too many related articles). There is no earthly reason why they cannot be incorporated by reference to a list. This navbox, and similar navboxes, have been used in articles on Acts of Parliament for years and no one has complained.James500 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest possible respect, that is completely absurd. Further, those navboxes are not doing any harm. James500 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And there is nothing fundamentally inadequate about the formatting of those lists, whether or not it might be improved. James500 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not followed by something disrespectful. It is not disrespectful to describe an argument as absurd. When I say, "with the greatest possible respect", I absolutely mean that. I am sorry if you misconstrued what I said. James500 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single navbox is not clogging up anything. None of the articles in question have so many navboxes that the number could genuinely be considered to be a problem.

All Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are closely related. The fact that there is unfortunately an absurd number of them does not prevent them from being closely related.

James500 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since what is or is not a "close" relationship is a completely subjective concept I can only say that I disagree.

If a person is systematically editing the articles in question for one reason or another, the template certainly does serve a useful purpose. For example, if a new Act effects a very long list of far reaching amendments and repeals all over the place (which seems to have become a habit with that body), the template would make it easier to effect those changes. It would reduce the amount of typing that that person has to do or the number of links that he has to click on. James500 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see anything wrong in principle with helping editors to edit.

If the editors are more efficient, the readers will have more content to read in the first place, because the editors will be able to produce more.

Readers might not be looking for legislation on a particular subject as such. It is perfectly conceivable that they might be looking for all the legislation passed in a certain period of time (such reign of a particular Sovereign, the administration of a particular government, or the duration of some event such as a war, or a number of the same) or simply for all the legislation.

James500 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wonder, if you would be able to find some sources for erotic plants or sexy plants or sensual plants for this article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. Sorry! Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Sven Manguard's "Completely Safe" Irradiated Barnstar
		Not content with distributing ordinary barnstars, I have illegally enriched several ordinary barnstars, for the purposes of rewarding others for outstanding individual achievement. Congratulations, you have just been awarded one of these rare treasures. They glow in the dark, yes, but I'm sure they are perfectly safe. For selflessly sacrificing your free time in order to sort though deleted contributions for me, and for undeleting an image, and in the process hopefully persuading a valued contributor not to leave Wikipedia over the deletion of said image, I award you this barnstar. Wha? 05:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to semi protect Amy Winehouse then with the recent news. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done; full protection, however, was not justified. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on the rather black summary Egg Centric 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm going to hell anyway; may as well have fun on the way there. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably best to make sure. No vandalism as such but you can't beat a bit of preemptive protecting, even if it goes against policy. After all, wouldn't want any untrustworthy IP spoiling the party would we? 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were certainly unconstructive edits taking place. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm sure they'll now stop. 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one [9], and I see one of yours was reverted as well. And someone put a stupid time zone change in just now. Pity you can't SP against stupidity rather than IPs. 86.23.13.59 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. I haven't made any edits other than the addition of the protection templates. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ironholds, just thought I should let you know that someone has posted at Talk:Amy Winehouse asking why the page is move-protected as nobody has tried to move the page. I've posted a reply from an admin point of view but thought I'd also make you aware of it in case there's anything you want to add as you are the blocking admin.--5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Law Barnstar
		For your superb, exhaustively researched contribution to Edward Coke. Richard Cavell (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My internal punmeister wants to point out that the highest award, for both military and legal wordplay lulz, should be the legal barnstar with bar ;p. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The union of "Jewish-Polish" adds the tone that he was "more" Polish and together with the comment that he was "Anti-Zionist" implies he was non-Jewish. There is no validity in such a remark. The source used is not reliable newspaper. Edelman was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto; he was not there because he was Polish. This is an anti-Semitic comment about a great Jewish hero. Furthermore, the material on post-communist era does it have relevance to what Edelman stood for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm. Saying that he's an anti-zionist does not imply he was non-jewish. Saying that he was Jewish-Polish, something that includes the word "Jewish", does not imply he's non-jewish. Any assertions that these phrases mean what you think they mean is entirely in your own head. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There is nothing antisemitic about this edit, and you should not ascribe such motives to another editor. Edelman was indeed an anti-Zionist Jew, as am I and many more. He was also Polish, and I am concerned at your repeated removal of this statement, which to me echoes the antisemitic argument that one cannot be both a Jew and a Pole. RolandR (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier how about a Pole of Jewish faith? To conjure honest remark on ill-informed information that is wrong, sends the message that Wikipedia is not an open source for all. You check carefully even in your Wikipedia entry what is Anti-Zionism? The changes must continue in order to remove political as well as racial bias that exists in Wikipedia; otherwise it becomes a one way road for those revisionists of history that people like you support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish-Polish" or "Jewish-blotto nationality" is a fairly settled standard. The bias does not exist outside of your own head; if it did, somebody neutral would have complained (and no, you're not neutral; anyone who accuses us of fostering historical revisionism obviously has an axe to grind). No reasonable human being would interpret "Jewish-Polish" to mean "he's not Jewish" or "anti-Zionist" to mean "he's not Jewish". Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec again)Edelman was not "of Jewish faith". He was an atheist. I don't understand the rest of your comments; and who are "people like me"? RolandR (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a neutral? Why was Edelman in the Warsaw Ghetto in the first place? You are not a historian it seems, and statements saying he was an Anti-Zionist support this. He refused to leave Poland because jews lived in this land from Roman times before the Slavs. This is supported by historical evidence especially in Galica region. What I would like for you to do is check your Wiki pedia entry what "Anit-Zionist" means and then judge whether my comments are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsky123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide reliable sources supporting the idea that that was his reasoning, and we'll talk. Otherwise you're just spouting anecdotes while criticising my historical chops, which comes off as a game of pot, kettle, black. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ironholds, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'mnot giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page.

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright really isn't my thing, I'm afraid; try User:Moonriddengirl. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog is well-built and pretty interesting... What came to your mind when you created it? Why choose Wordpress as the blog? --Dr Fook| 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious troll is troll. Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ironholds, there are two styles of citation here, the original (1) and the one I changed it to (2) which uses a

1. Smith, J. David (2005). "Colin Eaborn". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 51. The
   ISSN 0080-4606
   .
2. Smith, J. D. (2005). "
   doi:10.1098/rsbm.2005.0007
   .

The second style is an improvement on the first and adds important information that is missing by linkg directly through to the original source (the abstract of the article), rather than just the journal itself. IMHO this does actually add something Duncan.Hull (talk)

Replied on your talkpage; regards, Ironholds (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The "Holy crap, you were editing until how late?" Barnstar
	—Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. PLEASE tell me that this will be going to FAC? J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Maybe ;P. It took me two years to write (yes, srsly) so hopefully I'll be sending it along. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions advanced at its GA review page. Let me know what you think. Choess (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure working with you again. I'm going to makes some tweaks on Lord Kenyon at some point; he did, in fact, speak in Parliament on occasion after scrutinizing Fox's return, although he doesn't seem to have done it with much pleasure either before or after. Interestingly, that led me to a thread cutting across one of my other articles: Kenyon's banging about the "great accomptants" led to some reform in 1783 that kept them from holding great sums of public money for years, but some of the lesser paymasters were still allowed to play with fire. That's how Hon. George Villiers blew himself up in his own sinecure in 1810. Choess (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, neat! If you need any help, I'll be writing an FA on the Fox-North Coalition, which you might be interested in. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coke looks great, very well done. I made a couple of minor tweaks and look forward to re-reading it when I have more leisure time to appreciate it. Good luck with Pepper v Hart at FAC; I'll see if I can find the time to swing by and see what I can bring to the party. Thereafter, does

Thanks for the tweaking - much appreciated. I'll take a look at the FAC now. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe that your summary, and thus the claim of the reached consensus on List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults delete is incorrect. While through pure numbers it may appear that delete has won (D13-K4-M1) i would like to point out that the deletion is not a democratic process where the majority automatically gets its way. In addition to that while keep votes were argumentative, many of delete ones have simply stated their desire to delete. You say the following:

There seems to be fairly clear consensus that this article is inappropriate, primarily because of the vagueness of its title, which doesn't (from what the commentators here have indicated) line up with any system of categorisation used anywhere else in the world. As such, there are some serious notability concerns (and yes, lists also have to pass notability). If someone wishes to recreate the article, with clear indications on how this topic is notable and/or in line with actual systems of literary classification, they are welcome to.

1. There has been no consensus.
2. The fact that LoC doesn't categorise it's books of fiction by this title is irrelevant: 1) It is not any/all systems of categorisation in the world and 2) It is as much not a test as google test.
3. Examine the claims to lack of notability. They say things like "only a microscopic segment of society openly celebrate it", which is not relevant to whether or not the subject is notable. It says that most people do not like the subject.
4. "I delete and if somebody wishes to recreate be my guest" is not an appropriate way to deal with deletions. If it were then this becomes a weapon of war against any subject on Wikipedia: submit to AfD, have the history deleted, claim that people are free to recreate the article, if they do start with the same tactic.

Please look at your decision once again. I hope that you were acting in good faith, and have simply misread the discussion.

Yes, because nothing creates a polite conversational tone like teaching me how to suck eggs and insinuating that I'm incompetent. I have examined the claims of notability, I have read the arguments and, strangely enough, I'm aware that consensus is not a democratic process. Note, by the way, that "there has been no consensus" is not only not a strong argument but not even an argument, given that consensus follows from the statements made and not the other way around - bringing "there has been no consensus" up is a stunning example of circular logic, and I take my hat off to you for thinking of it. "The article as it is is inappropriate, and is therefore deleted - however, if anyone can fix the flaws that led to its deletion feel free to recreate" is what I said; please stop misrepresenting my argument by claiming that I'm attempting to provide some kind of "weapon". That sort of additional comment has been made for years, because that's precisely how AfD works. Delete due to problems, restore if problems can be fixed. Simple as.

So far you have misrepresented my arguments, insinuated that I'm incompetent, acted in a generally patronising manner and attempted to go through a DRV equivalent of templating the regulars. If you can put together an argument that doesn't include passive-aggressive personal attacks, "if you do X they'll ALL COME AND GET US" conspiracy theories, circular logic, improper references to policy and convention and the general tone of somebody dealing with a particularly slow five year old, I will be prepared to actually elucidate on my argument and chat to you in a constructive manner. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds,

Now blocked; in future, it may be faster to request things at

WP:AIV (because from my POV, you asked me for a block at 4.34 in the morning. I sleep pretty poorly, but not that poorly :P). Ironholds (talk

)

I note your comment on my talk page regarding this deleted article. I had not interpreted A7 to exclude this type of article, and it would appear that neither had another admin who deleted the restored article on the same day under the same criterion. Having suffered a G11 deletion as well, and a move, it appears now to have been deleted as G6 - which, this dicussion suggests,is not correct! --

Replied on your talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am always happy to learn nuances of interpretation in this type of case, and will bear it in mind in the future. --

^"talk" 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Cool; sorry if I came off as rude. This edit aside, keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you reverting the reference style as I accept that {{sfn}} isn't everyone's cup of tea but please don't delete sourced additional information about the case. Also I noticed in the GA review there was a query about inserting an image. There is a commons image of Kylsant File:Lord Kylsant.jpg if you want to inset it. I haven't because with articles like this I'm never sure where is the best place to put them in the article. NtheP (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry; the edit adding a large chunk of content and the edit adding those templates was...the same edit. It was rather hard to disengage. Since you appreciate that these aren't everybody's cup of tea, can you also appreciate that

WP:MOS warns against randomised citation template changes against the intentions of the article's central writers or original style? Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries and next time I want to do a drive by template change, I think first. NtheP (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Smashing - my apologies if I was a bit snarky; just came off 30 hours of travel to Israel :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	I don't think you have this one, but you definitely deserve it! WilliamH (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry only just checked in and saw your message from April! Not sure how to leave a message for you on WP so I hope this will do!

Get in touch, as I have lost your email. PointOfPresence (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds,

I'm currently in #wikipedia-en-help and they recommend I put my me putting the information I've done on my subpage onto the actual article. As I explained to the two users I am about halfway through it and I'm waiting on the book to arrive. What should I do? In one of the WikiProjects it only lacks "B1" to be a "Class B" article for that WikiProject. Adamdaley (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obligation to put the content in now; wait until you feel comfortable with the content. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	We haven't spoken in Haifa yet, and just in case we don't I wanted to say: what a FABULOUS presentation you did yesterday. (Hippies With Guns.) The substance was terrific, and also you have a very lovely presentation style -- funny and inclusive and engaging. Thank you so much -- I really enjoyed it :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed your second talk with Kat and James and Karen, break my heart; I don't know what happened. I thought you guys were in Rapaport right now but you're not, it's Philippe & Megan. Who are also excellent presenters, I rush to add :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having a nice time at Wikimania. :-) Just dropping off a note to point out a note I left here (at the Royal Medal article). I noticed that the Royal Society website architecture changed yet again, so there might be more than just that article that needs links fixing. I first noticed this propensity for the Royal Society to change links like this a few years ago. I never did get round to fixing all of them then, so maybe this time round a more permanent solution can be found? Anyway, whenever you get the time to take a look please do. Hope the closing day goes well at Wikimania. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; about to get on a plane, but I'll work on it when I get back. Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on the BLP policy and I was only trying to improve the article, adding a few things while others wrote the most of it. But here is why I need your help I would like to know which are the obvious BLP violations in this version [11] Could you skim through it and delete those parts? Something reliably sourced can't be a violation can it? In many cases the sources are not even the newspapers but the archival documents behind them are quoted word for word, for example it was one of the now unclassified documents that quoted Lendvai as "one of the best contacts" of the intelligence agencies at the time. So I would need a version stripped of BLP violation that I could work on because the article will not be able to progress this way. The current version is just too much barebones and can't really tell what was the basis of inclusion[12] for example a panel discussion allegedly canceled due to "nationalist" assault?? (were there German nationalists? the discussion was in Germany) is important? Anyway I just think that version is really horrible and need some help with determining what is a blp violation and what isn't. Reading back the talk page Dougweller wrote quite a bit at the start which was useful but it was way too general and nothing really specific. (I need stuff like why was this removed why was that removed by him etc) If you could get him to go back to the article that would be great as well as an alternative. Tüzes fal (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general tone is problematic - using a lot of high-powered language - along with how unreliable some of the sources appear to be. I have full access to the LexisNexis archives, and (almost all) of their sources pass our reliability guidelines; my suggestion would be to drop me an email through the "e-mail this user" function so I know your email address, then I can send you all the sources I can find. Use them to rewrite the article from the ground up, starting with a blank sheet completely, in some sort of sandbox. When you're done, I can pop by and/or ask

User:Dougweller to do the same, and we can take a look and see if the issues are resolved in that fashion. Does that work? Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you could send me the sources that would be great. Tüzes fal (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I have now completed the article about the "Clan of Ostoja" and at the moment there is not much to add. Think that this article include almost all information that can be found about the clan. The DNA project will develop and might add something in the future.

The article is quite long but it is also complete. I'm thinking about nominating this article to GA but I need some help with improvements and with some objective comments to improve it. The language and the stile might not meet standards of GA. Could you please see through the article and tell what you think? I would widely appreciate your kind help! Best regards,Camdan 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are several large sections (such as the DNA section) which lack references; is there anything you can include? Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]