User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 7

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Fenix TX

Hey, thanks for the quick response to that deletion. I figured it would work, but for some reason I still cannot move Fenix*TX over to Fenix TX. Do you think you could take care of that for me? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I moved the page to the target you indicated. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Man you work fast! Cheers for that Nouse4aname (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Manos in the public domain

Can you lend your input to my thread here? Your knowledge of the theatrical poster copyright, or lack thereof, may have use in other regards. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. I'm sure I'll run into you at TfD or elsewhere. Happy‑melon 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, February 2008

Seaserpent⁸⁵ 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

phobia deletions

Because I have tauro fæco phobia and long history of dealing with -phob- issues, which gives me a certain amount of boldness. Please read -phob-#Phobia lists, before any further questions. YOu may also have some fun reading Talk:-phob-, at least a couple of the topmost sections. `'Míkka>t 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was quite... interesting... haha... I would have probably submitted them to AfD myself, but it seems like a reasonable application of WP:SNOW. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hi

As a regular user who eits rather infrequently,I shoudl very much like your guidance.I am not sure what the policy for living notables is-I thought inclusion in International Who's Who which is present in my Univeristy(JNU,Delhi) library and according to the Times is the most authoratative indicator of living notables was suffiecient but appparently not.

Regards

(Delhite (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

It seemed fairly clear from the consensus in the discussion that the original subject was not notable (discounting discussions of fraud, which are covered by our policy on biographies of living persons). I've never seen any policy stating that inclusion in a "Who's Who" book automatically confers notability (nor have I seen that book). I do know that a number of those volumes are nothing more than vanity publications. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance.But are sure International Who's Who does fall into that category?Swift googling lead to over 150,000 hits and this is in its 71st edition.In fact I was identfying the entrants from India there who do not have article to create over 100 stubs.Regards(Delhite (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Procedural close of TV-related nominations

I feel the deletion nominations should be suspended, and automatically restored/re-added if the arbcom eventually does not decide otherwise. Closing doesn't seem right. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspend, close, it's really semantic IMO. It wasn't as if there was a great degree of participation in the discussion that would be lost with a new nomination, and the facts should be reconsidered in light of the arbitration outcome anyway. You'll notice in my closing statement that I stated no prejudice against re-listing. Anyone is free to do so after the outcome of the case. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the relisting be done as a procedural matter unless blocked by the Arbcom decision. (I really don't care, myself, but, if you're going to close it, it's your responsibility to reopen it if the Arbcom allows.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison Ship Martyrs Monument

You removed the speedy deletion tag from this page for copyright violations. The page is an uncited, almost word-for-word, cut-&-paste job from this copyrighted page. What's the basis for your disagreement?Cloonmore (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the copyright violating material. Sorry about that, I ran the text search incorrectly. Although if there is any salvageable content (as in the lead section of this case), speedy deletion does not apply. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thx. Your fix looks good. Cloonmore (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Flora Solomon

On 9 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flora Solomon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FunSpotPark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FunSpotPark.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OldManWillow1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OldManWillow1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Troll Warning removals

I'm guessing that the mass troll warning removals reflect a recent policy change? If so, is there a substitute for them that would serve the same purpose (some sort of template that would give editors pause before making antagonistic remarks)? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no policy change, I was merely carrying out the outcome of this templates for deletion discussion. The template to choose would vary on a case-by-case basis, but I'm sure you could find a suitable template on one of the pages that I removed this one from. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External link removal at Cedar Point

There are two Anon. IP users whom keep removing the external link to Pointbuzz.com from the Cedar Point article. I'm not sure where to report the issue as it seems to fall into the gray area between 3RR and vandalism. I almost posted a report to 3RR yesterday but then decided against it. I know you are an admin so I am asking for your help. Thank you! --Coaster1983 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a week. If there were an effort by the ip editors to discuss the issue or if there was only a single ip, I might have treated it differently. Hopefully this will cool things down. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction

I wasn't aware of the injunction regarding the arbcom case about fictional characters until now.

I had some character articles that I wanted to have created (originally they were redirects to List of Death Note characters) - I am an administrator, but do I need to get permission from the Arbcom to create the new articles? The article names had been redirected before but I found a new source documenting character creation. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I found out about the injunction after User:TTN reverted the new articles I created and told me that, as per the injunction, I should not create the articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom injunction does not prevent the creation of new articles. If it was being done over a redirect with history I would imagine that the new article would have to be substantially different than the redirected article (akin in spirit to CSD G4). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, TTN told me that he thinks that new information would not prevent it from counting against the injunction, so I added a section to the arbitration page to settle this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Question_about_creation_of_new_character_articles_upon_discovery_of_new_real_world_information WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

As it's being discussed at WT:RFA, just thought I'd ask... Interested? - jc37 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think that I'd make a good candidate for WP:RfB. I really doubt that I have participated enough on WT:RfA for my RfB to have a chance to pass, however. I have contemplated running for bureaucrat on occasion. I tend to stay out of a lot of interpersonal drama, so I don't doubt my own neutrality. I could spend the time on WT:RfA to get the experience some people probably think that I need, but I don't find WT:RfA to be particularly captivating, and my neutrality (or boredom) means that I often don't have much interest in policy discussions. Article/template/miscellany/review/adminship/et al. discussions are much more my cup of tea because they have a direct and immediate impact on the encyclopedia (and they give me a chance to learn some random little facts that I wouldn't otherwise get to see). Evidence on the current RfBs seems to indicate that a decent percentage of voters want policy discussion and not just RfA !voting though. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm impressed. You must have a RL career as a politician of some kind (or are a natural at it), since in all of that, i'm just not sure whether you were/are interested in running or not : )

As for the rest, it should just be like RfA: show how you would help out with the "extra tools". There's RfA, of course, but there's also changing usernames, and possibly checkuser. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for more info on what they do, if you don't already know. - jc37 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your earlier question. No, I'm not a politician. I can just be indecisive thoughtful sometimes. :-) Bureaucrats also don't automatically have checkuser to the best of my knowledge. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rofl. nod. Though I note (once again) you haven't answered the question : P

As for CU, right, which is why I said "possibly" : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV closure

Nicely done. You may have managed to steer a course between the two opposing viewpoints. Could I ask you whether that closure covered Wikipedia talk:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c? That was the talk page of the page you courtesy blanked, and it is currently a redirect to the WP:AN/B talk page (Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand). Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think applying the closure to its associated talk page is reasonable. I have courtesy blanked and unprotected that as well. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For the record, I had already extracted what I thought was the useful information from that and put it on the destination page. I was going to do the same with the main page (was waiting for the DRV to close), but now I will probably heed your advice to leave things be, for the page as a whole anyway. What I will do, if needed, is quote particularly useful things from that page if I ever need to. But that will merely involve quoting a diff from the page history, and then quoting what was said. For example, stuff like this, and this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You edited my page

Hi, I saw that at the start of the year you edited my page and changed something about being friends with Graham87, nothing seems to have changed but i just want to ask why did you pick my page in particular? I know you have made a ton of edits and unless your friends with Graham i dont see why you would come to my page. Its not as if i have done anything special, not as if i have vandalised, why my page in particular, i am interested how it came about that you looked at my page. Its not as if im angry, i appreciate it but im sort of just 'another' normal user on wikipedia. Nothing special about me. I do what i can and thats about it.Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited your page based on the outcome of this Templates for deletion discussion. One of the norms for userboxes on Wikipedia is that they are moved from the "Template:" namespace to the "User:" namespace if they do not directly relate to editing the encyclopedia or are controversial. This is known as the userbox migration or the German userbox solution because it was a compromise reached after a considerable amount of controversy regarding userboxes and the solution was drawn from the German Wikipedia. Because some editors felt it was a controversial userbox, I moved the template from Template:User friends with to User:Voyagerfan5761/UBX/friends with while leaving the content within the userbox the same. My edit to your page was simply updating {{User friends with}} to {{User:Voyagerfan5761/UBX/friends with}} so that the template would continue to work on your page. I did this on a large number of other editors' pages as well, using an semi-automated editing tool called AutoWikiBrowser. The userbox was ultimately kept due to a lack of consensus in this Miscellany for deletion discussion. I hope this answers your questions. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox/category DRV closure

I just wanted to mention that that was an excellent closure. I had considered closing that one myself, but changed my mind as I was writing the rationale. (And ended up closing a different DRV discussion.) I'm glad I changed my mind. You covered everything I was going to, and then some.

Anyway, I just thought with all the negativity that I'm sure you (as an XfD discussion closer) receive, you could do with some positivity : ) - jc37 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment on the userbox close. I get surprisingly few complaints about my XfD and DRV closures. A few vocal ones stand out in my memory to be sure, and ironically enough one happened by after your comment, but as a rule people seem to get much more riled up over speedy deletions (and one often takes more flack as an XfD participant, at least in the context of the discussion). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just something about DRV, I dunno. But in my experience, every talk page of XfD closers seems to be filled with vehemence about disagreement of a closure. Nice to know that you've managed to (mostly) somehow avoid that. ("somehow" - you'll have to loan me your special medallion sometime : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a medallion of troll-protection +4. I looted it from a Daniel Brandt AfD along with a masterwork ban-hammer +1, a mop of template sweeping, and 103 gold pieces. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! : )

Who knows, maybe someday I'll find such a valueable award or trinket of my own : )

(Incidentally, you made the top of my talk page : ) - jc37 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Knowledge are we?

its ok, I have captured the censorship on a new page that you cannot control. http://www.songwave.com/articles/abongo-obama.htm and since wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, looks like that #1 spot in Google for the search term "Abongo Obama" is just waiting to be mine. Give it a few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

Adminship

Thanks for suggesting that I apply for adminship. I really appreciate it. I would like to help out at CAT:CSD and AfD, and maybe AIV as well. However, I have only been doing recent changes and new articles patrol for about a month, so I do not think that I have enough experience with regards to speedy deletion and vandalism at the moment. I also have a long to-do list of articles I have wanted to work on for quite some time. If I became an admin I would probably delay working on those articles again, and if my RfA failed I would probably sulk, throw my laptop out the window and not work on the articles anyway :-) I think I might be ready to apply sometime in May, if that would be OK? Thanks again! Bláthnaid 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-review Arabic Network for Human Rights Information

I've added several references and statements that are supported by the newspaper articles. I think it's a fairly decent stub at least. Feedback welcome! Renee (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you did a nice job with the re-write and expansion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedural?

I asked about your justification that the {{afd}} was a "procedural nomination from DRV". Geo Swan (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied in the AfD. Hopefully that answers your question. I have a personal policy of remaining neutral on the DRVs I close as (re)listed on AfD. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hezbollah DRV close

Thanks for that, you pretty much nailed down the issue. Not easy to wade into such a mess, but your close was very well-explained, and, in my view, entirely correct. <eleland/talkedits> 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the compliments. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question

My guess is that it was added to our in house report because articles within our scope use it, therefore if it gets deleted we would have to come up with a solution to the problem of what to do. As I said, thats a guess, but it seems logical. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous demotivator

You commented in your closure of the DRV that for 10a, the copyright holder and the source must be known. Not bringing the source of the image into it, wouldn't 4chan's anonymous nature make it impossible to identify the copyright holder? Will ^(talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have clarified that. The copyright holder is definitionally and purposefully Anonymous (it's not merely that we just don't know it), so if that is specified, it should meet NFCC 10a. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't know the copyright holder, we can't know the copyright holder. The image was most likely uploaded to 4chan, yes? Well, the 4chan FAQ acknowledges that, for all intents and purposes, the two terms are interchangeable. I don't think copyright is transferred to websites if it's uploaded anonymously - otherwise we wouldn't need the copyright policies. Will ^(talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not having notified you of the case at WP:ANI#Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg. I have left a comment to that effect at the said thread. Ayla (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I would rather have been notified by the people who deleted the image in the first place. I was expressing my frustration over that more than anything else. No bad feelings towards you at all, but I appreciate the thought. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance :-) I too was annoyed at the nominator's WP:GAME abuse, so I understand your point. Cheers! Ayla (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Truth (Cherish album)

A tag has been placed on The Truth (Cherish album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kesh (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica DRV

Another nice close! I was wondering, since there was little response at the DRV (I arrived too late) what the verdict is on material about Encyclopedia Dramatica being placed inside other articles (obviously only where relevant and sourced). There is a grey area where topics not notable enough for their own articles do still get mentioned in other articles. How best to proceed here? I'm thinking in particular if it ever rises to the level of a complete section in another article, then the possibility arises of a redirect being recreated to point to that section. What then? Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I think that one problem is finding an appropriate target. Criticism of Wikipedia doesn't really fly because its argued notability doesn't stem from this. We just know it because it hits home to us. I don't see why it would be a section of 4chan either. I don't think anything in my closure precludes a redirect, but I suspect even this could stir up drama. Is it worth it when the target doesn't really make sense? Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also stopping by to say that that seemed like a very reasonable close. Thanks for your detailed reasonable explanation. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always nice when someone who !voted the other way compliments a close. :-) Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV closure

IronG, in closing Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg's DRV as "no consensus to overturn" is this no consensus to overturn the speedy deletion, thus this needs to be deleted, or no consensus to overturn the reversal of the speedy deletion? FWIW, as the speedy deleter I do not contest the speedy deletion reversal. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may chip in (still have this page on watch), my recollection is that "no consensus to overturn" meant no consensus to overturn the original IFD, which closed as keep. The speedy deletion was performed after IronGargoyle's closure, and reversed through a subsequent ANI discussion. Ayla (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Ayla explains it well. I didn't feel that there was consensus in the DRV to overturn the IfD closure as Keep. I felt that the policy arguments were flawed, and as such I did not give them same weight that I might have (although I did not discount them either). IronGargoyle (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Deletion Review

Hi. Perhaps I missed something. What does removal of section headings in this edit have to do with "archiving"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is standard practice to remove the headers in deletion review once all the discussions from that day are complete. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi IronGargoyle! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Longmont Potion Castle

As per your request I've made a new draft of this article on my user page. Can you take a look at it and let me know what I need to do to have it undeleted? Sayitaintjoe (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks substantially different and improved. Some more work could certainly be done on the article, but I am unprotecting the page from creation. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Single use templates being used on userpages?

Can you give me your opinion on the following templates and let me know if I'm correct in thinking they don't belong in the template namespace?

• Template:Talkpage BW21
• Template:BW21 Talk
• Template:Userpage BW21
• Template:User time BW21
• Template:User date BW21
• Template:User co-creator
• Template:DJS message

Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these can definitely be moved out of the template namespace. I will do so now. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I was pretty sure, but wanted to double check. P.S. Template:Work Xbox needs to be speedily deleted as we now use an argument (needs work=yes) in Template:xboxp. xenocidic (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Have a great day! xenocidic (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

err

He doesn't seem to understand the proper use of the Template namespace. Perhaps you could explain it better?

• Template:BW21 motto

Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Image question

I recently came in contact with a newcomer who asked me a question about images on her talk page. Evidently she held the copyright to an origonal work of art that was deleted, while a photograph of herself has remained. she is wondering why, and honastly I have no experience with images. I am hoping you will be willing to work with her, she seems interested in woking on wikipedia images (she joined one group that does that). her user page is the Hitochi Princess (talk). I hope you can help her, she has already had a major crash cource in wiki policy and polotics (she wrote an autobiographical page...which had the expected results, but during the review she did everything she could to bring the page up to par...I like perseverance). You are the second person who I brought it to (namely because we have never actually made contact) and Will wasn't able to help.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you want me to do. Could you clarify? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV - radio series

Fair close. I think you could tell that it was merely a procedural nom on my part. I'm also impressed that you saw through the confusing miasm that these things can be sometimes : ) - jc37 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was nothing compared with the German board games DRV I just closed. Seriously, you UCfDers give me headaches. ;-) IronGargoyle (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You get headaches? Just think about the innumerable ones we deal with which don't even come to DRV. lol.

I do regret though that it seems to keep me occupied enough that I'm away from WP:CfD, which was/is more my interest. (Next time you see User:Mike Selinker tell him I envy him : )

And btw, though the BGG one was closed, the "discussion" is still ongoing. (User talk:J Greb#3PO) If it would fall under the closure, could you clarify in regards to the talk page discussion (and if not, I still would welcome another set of eyes.)

I'd offer you a couple aspirin, but I'm doubtful they would help... - jc37 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

urgent help

Hi, I am a pretty new Wiki user and I am editing the page Leigh Delamere services and I wondered if you knew how to make images smaller. Please help, I would really appreciate it as my adopter has ignored me when I ask him for help. Thanks a lot. Please reply on MY talk page. Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the image. To make an image a particular size, specify the number of pixels with "###px" after the name of the image. So, for example, you would write the following if you wanted a 200 pixel image: [[Image:Leigh Delamere - August 2006 001.jpg|200px]]. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you SO much Mr. Gargoyle. Great person. Wiki admins should be more like you. Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept you are very busy so I won't worry if you say no, but would you be able to adopt me. You are quick and solved the problem without moaning like my current adopter would. Get back to me. Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not normally that quick to reply. I'm pretty busy, but you just happened to catch me while I was online. I'm sure your adopter is in a similar situation. Feel free to drop by again though if you have any more questions. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot ERROR

Your bot has just switched "Image:From the Front Row ... Live! (April Wine album cover).png" from {{Non-free DVD cover}} to {{Non-free video cover}} in error. This particular image depicts an "Audio-DVD product", which contains absolutely no motion-picture video whatsoever. WikHead (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't a problem with the bot. The image should have been labeled with {{Non-free album cover}}. I've fixed the image tag. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for correcting the problem. I figured it was more an oversight of Audio-DVDs by those involved with the TfD in question. I'm willing to bet there are now several other Audio-DVDs tagged incorrectly as a result. Perhaps "Audio-DVD" should be added to the CD licensing description to help avoid any further confusion. WikHead (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV: Penis Game

Just wondering if you could elaborate on your close of this discussion? I was hoping we'd get a thorough decision here, regardless of what the decision was. -- Kesh (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit swamped with work lately (leading to briefer closing summaries perhaps). The consensus in the DRV seemed to indicate that the source was sufficiently reliable for the subject matter. As for the AfD closure itself, procedurally there was nothing wrong. The !votes were heading towards delete, but then new information was provided. No consensus perhaps would have been a better label for the AfD close, but so it goes. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kreator is still after you

Looks like this guy wont stop. Dont give up trying to get rid of this fool. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

cake

Georgereev118118 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the cake! IronGargoyle (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wildfire at Silver Dollar City

The picture of Wildfire you have set displays none of the famous track lay-out. We need a picture of the train circling a loop or somthing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalterboy (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go there and take one! :-) IronGargoyle (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Temporary userpage

Hello IronGargoyle. I have a task for GargoyleBot: the template linked in the header is widely used, but has been discussed on templates for deletion, and consensus has been reached to have it deleted. Due to the wide usage of the template, manual orphaning in preparation for deletion is not an option at the moment; I suspect we'll be here for some weeks before the template is completely orphaned, if bot assistance is not sought.

The relevant discussion which resulted in the delete consensus is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 10 (see: this section). The template is, per procedure, listed at the tfd holding cell. Will it be possible to have gBot set on this? Anthøny 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be fewer than 100 transclusions. I'd be happy to go through and orphan it, but that's not a lot of transclusions for a speedy AWB run. It might take weeks if you removed one per day or something. Is there something I'm missing? IronGargoyle (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tu-134cigarettes.jpg

I cannot begin to express how unfortunate I find this conclusion to be. The definition of what is "free content" is shrinking daily, and I am beginning to wonder how Wikipedia will be able to offer a free encyclopedia if it continually brands "non free" on such an incomprehensible amount of media.

I do not possess the original image, nor do I know its source information, so I cannot in good faith re-upload it as a fair-use image. That said, I do not intend to, as I believe in the mission of the project in providing free content. I am simply beginning to fear that, with the current copyright hysteria gripping the project, there will eventually be no free content to offer. MalikCarr (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and share many of your feelings about the dangers of copyright paranoia. The artwork is not incidental, however, so it can't be free. Just write up a fair use rationale. Give me a link to it, and I would be more than happy to undelete the image. I'll add in whatever source information exists from the deleted tag. Does that help? IronGargoyle (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

{{wikiapar}}, {{wikiapar2}} TfDs

Hi,

You recently closed the TfDs for these templates with a "no consensus" conclusion. However, the only dissenting opinions raised were for the templates to be completely rewritten for another purpose, which isn't really a practical reason to keep the things around. As there are no articles using either template and in their current form they're strictly subsets of {{wikia}} (and thus could technically be speedied under CSD#3 for templates), could this decision be changed? If not, do you mind me tagging them for speedy deletion per the above criterion? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for speedy deletion if you'd like (from a redundancy angle). I wasn't sure if there was any code in the existing template that individuals might want to use for the re-write. Your nomination reason was certainly valid, but the other (unequivocal) reason for deletion made it seem like it was more an issue of not externally linking to Wikia (which Gracenotes pointed out there wasn't consensus for). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've speedied them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Temporary userpage

Could you please restore Template talk:Temporary userpage, as it had some discussion on it that I'd like to keep. -- Ned Scott 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not at problem. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operación Masacre , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Olaf Davis | Talk 09:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 11

Hello! You closed the Time and Fate Deities one as endorsing the deletion; however, after looking again at the accounts who participated in the discussion, omething I just noticed is that two IPs who argued to delete in the AfD have now been blocked as socks (see their user pages [1] and [2] and you can also check their block logs to see the blocks). Could perhaps the discussion be relisted with the IPs' comments struck or something? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm a bit torn. It doesn't look like those two !votes had a huge impact on the discussion, and certainly not in the DRV, yet it was close call in the AfD itself. I don't think I will relist it myself, but I have no objection if you wish to list it on DRV again, given the new evidence. Personally, the best outcome would be someone taking a userfied version, improving it, and then moving it back to the mainspace. This does seem like it is an article that Wikipedia should have. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to userfy it to my userspace as a compromise solution, I would appreciate it as that way should I take it back to DRV, I'll be better able to see if the article can in fact be improved further. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to your userspace. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SampleWikiProject

What was in this template before you deleted it? What was it's successor? Simply south (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what it looked like. Kind of pointless bit of instruction creep (and odd to have in template form). It had no successor as far as I am aware. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that every WikiProject choose a single article which represents what the Project members hope each article will eventually look like, so that interested onlookers can see where a Project is heading. If this project is ready to choose such an article, please do so and link to it after the Project name at Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there are no articles ready for this yet, you may wish to focus as a group on an article which is close and/or will be relatively easy to research.

6/20 DYK

On 20 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flying Super Saturator, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...?

That I am the current supervisor of the Flying Super Saturator? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's awesome! IronGargoyle (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rowdy Rams

I just wanted to say I appreciated your support to restore my article. I'm glad some took up for the article even if it has to be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightstanger (talk • contribs)

Sure. It seemed clear from the discussion that a merger was fine. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, IronGargoyle, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Congrats on getting the mop. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason Naidovski

In your closure of the DRV for Jason Naidovski at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26, you didn't comment on the only two remaining issues. One that the AFD had been inappropriately bulked with 3 other AFDs violating the guidelines for bundling in WP:AFD and secondly that the closing Admin didn't provide any explanation to how the decision was reached as recommended in WP:GD#Closure. Can you please do so? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In cases where the reason for the closure is obvious and noncontroversial (i.e., failing WP:ATHLETE, clear consensus), WP:GD#Closure does not mandate that the closing administrator explain the closure in the AfD (or DRV) itself. Merely explaining the closure per request is sufficient. Failure for an administrator to provide any rationale (which I would argue was not the case in the AfD) is not a sufficient cause to overturn an AfD on DRV. In controversial cases I typically explain my closures in much more detail than many administrators. I felt that the DRV discussion of Jason Naidovski was in no way a controversial case. The consensus to endorse deletion on point 2 was quite clear. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In the original AFD discussion there was not clear evidence or consensus that the athlete failed WP:ATHLETE, that only came to light during the DRV. As for the multiple listings, this seems very bad form, and as far as I can see this AFD never met the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). This technique seems to have become increasingly popular in the Football community lately (another recent example actually lists several people - some of which had already survived earlier AFDs. Note the standard is could stand on its own merits rather than does stand on its own merits. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nfitz, but the community rejected both of those arguments at DRV (and WP:ATHLETE didn't just "come to light" during the DRV. It was discussed in the AfD as well). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I argued in the AFD that he was notable, as he had been named to the Australian Football team in the current Olympics, and had played in the recent qualifiers. The only argument against this was that Olympics don't qualify as amateur ... which I don't buy (nor did others at the DRV); the reason he isn't notable is because the source (a now-deleted Wikipedia page) that said he was on the current team was wrong - which didn't come to light until the DRV. Though I guess this is moot, though if we had an individual AFD for each the debate may have been more focused earlier without having to come to the DRV.

As to the community rejecting the argument against bundling at DRV - I don't see how that is the case. The only people to comment on that point were myself, Jaredwiltshire, who supported my position, Stormie who simply commented (and I'm still not sure which way to read that comment), пﮟოьεԻ 57 who support the bundling (not surprising as it was his AFD), and User:ugen64 who made a Procedural objection against bundling. Surely that is the community supporting my argument, not rejecting it? Nfitz (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain - not sure if you saw this. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, and sorry I didn't respond. It just seems like you are raising the same arguments again, so there's not a whole lot more I can tell you here. The bundling argument failed to get any traction at the DRV. It might have been a stronger case if Jason Naidovski hadn't been the primary article in the AfD. Regardless though, there was a pretty clear consensus this article should be deleted... not once, but twice. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bearforce 1

Hi! Thanks for restoring the Bearforce 1 page... I don't actually understand why people insist that just because the person who creates a band site doesn't have a million sources, it should be deleted, rather than wait for someone else who's already disenchanted with wikipedia somewhat because of speedy deletion to edit the article... This process really IS painful :( That being said (and I ask only because you seem like a nice person on here who knows what's going on - and you have a lot of thank yous here :), do you know what was different about another band site I created recently, Swivel, kept speedy-deleted under Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24? Though if it's too much trouble, that's fine, was just hoping you could help me get more familiar with what's actually going on here - it's not clear from all the reading I've found how people make their decisions.... Luminifer (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't close that particular DRV so you'll have to ask Swivel. I remember glancing at that DRV myself. It was a tough call and I don't quibble at all with Swivel's closing of it. I contemplated closing it, but I was having a difficult time given the paucity of the the discussion. If anything pushed Bearforce 1 over the line to relist, I think it was the potential availability of foreign language sources. It might help you if you write drafts in userspace and then inquire to another editor if he or she thinks the subject is really notable or not. That way you would be saved the frustration of the speedy deletions and deletion reviews. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin Needed to Implement Consensus on Deletion Review

Hello IronGargoyle. I see that you are the closing administrator for 2 of the 3 deletion review discussions that were opened on June 28. There is one more discussion on an article "Gabriel Murphy" which has now been opened for discussion for 6 days now. A concensus has been reached to move to mainspace the userfied article "Gabriel Murphy" located currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy.

You can read the deletion review discussion for this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_28

If you do not mind, when time allows, could you please implement the concensus to mainspace this article and close the discussion? Thanks much! LakeBoater (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed. The article could still use a bit of improvement, but I agree that there was consensus to move it to mainspace. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)