User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 8

Archives

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

Jason Naidovski (continued from archive)

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)

• I don't think your seeing my point. I agreed with the deletion, so I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be deleted. I'm concerned that you commented that the community rejecting the argument against bundling at DRV. The evidence I listed earlier suggests that the community supported the argument against bundling. As far as this DRV goes, this isn't relevant - but I'm concerned that there are several ongoing AFDs where similiar, if not worse, bundling is going on, and as soon as I object, then someone may start quoting this DRV as proof that it's okay. For example in a current AFD 4 of the 6 bulked articles had survived previous AFD discussions, yet they have been bulked. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you still had an issue with the deletion itself. My mistake. I agree that a couple of people had objection to bundling, but as a whole, there wasn't an issue with it. Deletion review is not generally focused on the behavior of particular users, and only considers it insomuch as it may or may not have unfairly changed the outcome. There is no evidence that it did that here (please also remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy). I know there was an argument about how Number 57 nominated the multiple articles. User conduct should generally be brought someplace like a requests for comment instead of DRV. If you think there is a systematic problem with bundling in general (and it's not a particular user), raise it on an appropriate talk page or noticeboard. I also really wouldn't worry about anyone taking my DRV as precedent of any sort. DRV and AfD closers are generally good about closing individual cases on their own merits. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If the bundling continues, I'll take it there. Nfitz (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, after the worse case of bundling I've seen yet (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody) I took it to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#AFDs to delete multiple related pages. Nfitz (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy

Gabriel Murphy is probably the least accessed article in the whole wikipedia:

http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Gabriel_Murphy

It was created by lakeboater which seems to be one of several socks of Gabriel Murphy. The article is associated with Aplus.net which has just been deleted for the 3rd time: [1]

It has no links to it, nor is it likely to ever have, and neither did Aplus.net. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire cat in pop culture.

Thanks for taking care of the housekeeping on that one! Protonk (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Old PUI

Would you mind explaining how the small and incidental logos in the screen-shot make the image discussed here unfree? I'm not seeing how it is any different than a small, copyrighted Nike logo in the larger context of Tiger Woods's shirt, for example. It is all about what you are trying to illustrate. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be tagged with an appropriate fair use tag, I think. And since the image was orphaned, it couldn't be used in fair use anyway. But it might be worth opening a discussion about this at WP:MCQ. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template orphan request

Hi there. Could you orphan Template:Redirectstohere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 4#Template:Redirectstohere? Thanks and best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned and deleted. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the status on this

When is this society going to learn to ask the originator of a template and notify about a tfd! Argh! this should be contested. Have you already removed it from articles. If not, hold on. // FrankB 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's already been removed and deleted. Sorry to hear you were not notified. You should probably speak with the closing admin about this. I simply removed the template with my bot and deleted it per his closure (which seemed perfectly reasonable). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Murder DRV

Hello IronGargoyle. When you closed the DRV you didn't state anything about what guidelines/policies/whatever the original article had problems with. While this is a DRV not an AfD, the DRV argument was that there weren't any policy/guidelines this was in violation of, nor were there any AfD arguments (other than perhaps NOT#NEWS) that this thing violated. "As Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." That seems like a good reason to overturn.

Could you please let me know what the policy/guideline reason is for deletion so I can try to fix it? Otherwise I really don't know where to restart. In any case, I'd like this article userfied if you don't mind. Odds are good I won't get to it for a while (or ever, if no one can tell me what the problem was wrt policy or guidelines...)

Thanks,Hobit (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The arguments raised in the AfD for deletion were mostly cases of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N. I think the thing to do if you would like to re-write the article in your userspace would be to find and incorporate sources of a less local nature (if they exist). The interpretation of what is a "significant" independent source and what meets notability requirements in any given case falls on community consensus (i.e., the AfD). The result of the DRV was that the closer did not improperly determine that consensus. You might want to also talk to the closing admin of the AfD, as you could probably get more precise answers there. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was checking to see the results of the DRV's that I wrote comments. I see that you kept that murder article deleted. Your reasoning seems to have a flaw. You mentioned that there was no consensus to overturn so it remains deleted. What you didn't mention was that there was no consensus to endorse so the article should be restored.

I commented on the DRV because I am interested in correct application of policy, not if this particular article is well written or poorly written. Your actions seem to be against the policy of keeping articles when there is no consensus in the AFD. Chergles (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how DRV works. The burden of proof for overturning an XfD closure generally lies with those seeking to overturn the closure (stare decisis, if you will). There was certainly no consensus to overturn, and no evidence that the closing admin acted in violation of any policy or guideline. That is what was most important. I may not have stated it in the DRV, but I think there probably was a consensus to endorse the closure. That's just silly semantics though. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in to your conversation with someone else, there is no written policy which says "that's not how DRV works, how is works is what IronGargoyle says". Please reconsider. Presumptive (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the general norm I've seen at DRV in the year or so that I've been closing discussions there. Not codified, but certainly a norm. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States elections in Massachusetts, Category:User talk archives

Good calls on the drv closes there. FWIW. Hey, I guess when I bitch about them called wrong I have to praise when I think they're called right. Hiding T 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Reese

You declined my speedy on Mr. Reese. I think you may have been tricked. The infobox on the side did not seem to relate to this guy at all. I think he pasted it in from another article to make the article appear more legitimate than it was. The article already got speedily deleted once today. Please reconsider. He has just removed the infobox and all the tags, including yours. I don't think we have a good faith editor here, just another spammer. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be an assertion of importance. Not a good one, but valid enough to not be subject to CSD A7. That being said, it's been deleted again and I don't really see a reason to pursue the matter. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing deletion

Good day! I've noticed that this says that you've deleted the Fractured Transmitter Recording Company article. I don't understand why did you delete an article about a record label.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was blatant advertising (see WP:CSD#G11). It would have had to be completely re-written to be encyclopedic. If you'd like to re-write it with independent secondary sources, that would be perfectly acceptable. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, but I can't use the deleted article as a base anymore.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look on Roadrunner Records. They are a huge record label and the article has no single third party source. Only official websites. Ain't that a blatant advertising? Warner Music Group, the biggest record label on the earth has 1 single third party source and many external links to their official websites and shops. I do not understand that deletion. I do not understand why do you delete Fractured Transmitter and not Roadrunner. Just because FS is smaller?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the tone of the article. I took another look and recreated a stub in the place of the old article. Roadrunner Records isn't really comparable in tone though. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho/lefthand

Regarding your DRV close on that, I'm not sure the community would agree with you regarding putting penises on userpages. I know of at least one userpage that proudly features a vagina. It certainly isn't good karma (for a lack of better words) to call the userbox's creation as an act of vandalism. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take bad karma if I must. I'm certainly used to it. :) But let me try to elaborate on the vandalism definition from WP:VANDALISM.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

If you go by the strictest reading of that, then any vandal at any time can argue intent: "I just wanted to make Wikipedia funnier by adding a few penis pictures." In their understanding then, they didn't want to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, they just wanted to make it funnier. Yet there is such a strong community consensus that the mainspace of Wikipedia should not become uncyclopedia/encyclopedia dramatica, that this behavior is rightly considered vandalism.

I read "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" as being things that would bring the project into disrepute. Any sort of mainspace Vandalism (if allowed to stand) brings the project into disrepute in some small way, in that it compromises our reliability as a free encyclopedia. Pedophile userboxes also bring the project into disrepute (although in a very different way). What brings the project into disrepute obviously must determined by the community on a case-by-case basis. Sexually explicit images of a sex act devoid of encyclopedic context in userspace? By all indications, the community seems to agree that that would bring the project into disrepute (i.e. Vandalism). Judging by the arguments in the DRV, the only significant argument against deletion was that process was not correctly followed (and many of those arguing to overturn admitted that the box was certainly inappropriate), nor was there any consensus to overturn. The wrong label was given, yes, but CSD G3 still applies in my opinion. If you don't think so, feel free to start another DRV on my CSD G3 justification.

Just so I'm not being sexist here, I'd fully support the removal of sexually explicit pictures of female genitalia from userspace as well. Given the context in the userbox, I do feel the aforementioned userbox fails the Potter Stewart test (not that I am arguing for a legal definition of obscenity, just that it is inappropriate and brings the project into disrepute in its current location). In the context of the article on masturbation, it could be appropriate (although I'm a little bit dubious on the explicitness of some of the model releases on commons images of these types). Hope this helps elucidate my closure. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That concern could have been allayed by simply removing the image. –xeno (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you really want a copy of the box you could simply recreate it without the image and avoid WP:CSD G4. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd never create or display such a box, but I don't see what the big deal is (iff the picture were removed). –xeno (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you hit on one of the tricky issues with userboxes (and other userspace paraphernalia), and particularly with userboxes that are used by a very small number of users. Unlike mainspace, where poorly-written articles can often be salvaged through careful editing, the project has no vested interest in retaining--in an acceptable userspace form--something that is contrary to the intent of its creator. I'm pretty sure User:Allstarecho has retired, so it's not like he could have been asked politely if he'd be willing to change it either. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed Lost of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears Image

Sorry if my tone was a bit rough while trying to state my reason for not deleting the image, just do what you got to do. I did notice the user who uploaded did upload a few copyrighted images also. I am just a bit annoyed that it is so hard to find a decent picture of Britney. Hopefully one day someone will find one which can be used.--Theoneintraining (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deadmalls.com AFD

Can you go ahead and remove this one from afd, it's obvious as you stated that it is a Keep. Although I nominated it, I see know that all the rules are followed and it should be kept. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Project debannering

Hi. Black Falcon suggested that I get in touch. The Music Project recently decided to give up assessments and banners to become an umbrella project. The Template:WikiProject Music was deleted today (see here). I am wondering whether you might have time to remove the banner code from 4,000 odd articles? There's no hurry, but we thought it would be good to clean up the pages involved. Best regards. --Kleinzach 03:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. You can disregard the message above as RockfangBot is now doing it following the Tfd. Best regards. --Kleinzach 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BreyersJamaicaPlain.jpg

Product image - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons licensing guidelines allow for products of everyday use with a simple design. I would argue that this is a product of everyday use with a simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, copyrighted image, the uploader does not have the right to release it. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I took the photo and the meta-information should match that of many other photos I've uploaded. I've seen photos of other product packages on Wikipedia...is that not allowed now either? Please explain. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I can't be held responsible for not notifying you — that's the job of the person who tags the image.

  I'm not sure that the image qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia as it incorporates copyrighted designs. However, if Commons accepts it, then you should upload it there. Alternatively, I can restore the image and list it on WP:IFD, where it'll get more notice. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm a bit disturbed that you deleted this image after participating in the discussion, and then didn't even bother to provide a rationnale other than "listed for 14 days". Being listed anywhere for 14 days when there is no consensus is never a rationnale to delete anything. That's very disappointing (similarly, your deletion of this image at PUI was also disappointingly lacking a coherent rationnale, although at least you hadn't participated in the discussion). Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, you're right that I shouldn't have deleted the image because I was involved in the discussion, and I've restored that for another admin to decide. As you might also be aware, the default action at PUI is to delete in the absence of a consensus to keep, and there was no such consensus at the second listing you mentioned. You're welcome to list the latter deletion at WP:DRV if you wish. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Medvedev,Bagapsh,Kokoity.jpg

Hi there, in relation to the discussion for Image:Medvedev,Bagapsh,Kokoity.jpg. Look, I agree with you, in the sense that the Kremlin has released the photos, I would even go so far as to say they would be Template:PD-RU-exempt, as they document the workings of the government, and are in no way "creative". All text documents are able to be copied freely, including over on Wikisource, so the only thing stopping them from being on WP/Commons is a bunch of wikilawyers. Now, the reason for me coming here is, as you are an admin, you obviously have the power to delete/reinstate/blah blah - photos from Kremlin.ru are of absolute importance to the project, especially WP:RUSSIA, and a lot of the articles I am working on. If I upload images from Kremlin.ru, I will do so onto WP only for time being, but can I count on you coming into bat for their retention in the event of them coming up for deletion? And if so, do we use Template:PD-RU-exempt? If you could let me know asap, that would be great. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite interested in having these images be kept on Wikipedia. I would suggest using the tag you mention. I got a couple of the deleted ones off of Commons, but this one seems good enough for now. Please keep me informed of any discussion on this topic. I'm pretty busy right now, but I want to lend my 2 cents if these come up for discussion again. I will probably be submitting a DRV on Wikipedia for some of these images that have been deleted, depending on the outcome of the current WP:PUI discussion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Junkers JU-90 Image 4.jpg

I think you were correct to delete the remainder of these airplane photographs, as they were likely taken by German photographers. But, I noticed that one of the participants in the discussion cited this image as having been taken by an RAF pilot (thus being expired crown copyright). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no work for hire provision in UK copyright law — unless there is an explicit release or contractual agreement by the creator of a work, then that creator retains copyright. As such, the usual 70 years pma rule applies and the image is still subject to copyright. I've copied this message to the PUI discussion; should have done so before deleting. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Interesting. So what would push it into Crown Copyright, if not working for the Crown? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned contractual agreement. It's probably a stock term in some varieties of civil service contracts, but I don't think we can assume or infer it. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A question on a DRV you closed

The DRV can be found here. Sorry to dredge up a 6 week old issue, but I must ask about it. You stated that "if NFCC #2 were not an issue" this would have been a clear overturn. It's my contention--and that of nearly every person who recommended overturning--that the problem was that the initial deleting admin simply substituted their interpretation of #2 for the clear consensus at the IfD. The fact that you agree with the closing admin's interpretation should have had no bearing on your close of the DRV, but it clearly did. How is this acceptable? The intent of the initial deleting admin was clearly to force those arguing to keep to bear the burden of proof, and he used his tools to cause this to happen. It was clearly out of process with regards to how IfDs are supposed to be closed. I respectfully ask you to revisit the decision. DRV is meant to review the decision of the closing administrator, based upon precedents set at IfD. I do not feel that is what happened at that DRV. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

NFCC #2 is pretty unambiguous, unlike #8. Use of non-free press photos on Wikipedia (to illustrate the subject of those photos, as opposed to the photos themselves) directly harms the commercial opportunities of those copyright holders. There is simply not a lot of flexibility in this criterion. The burden of proof does fall on those seeking to undelete the image to ensure that all NFCC criteria are met. If I had seen a consensus of reasonable arguments for how NFCC #2 was met, I would have definitely considered them, but there weren't any. The discussion focused largely on the the closure of the IfD and the interpretation of NFCC #8. I do sympathize, however, because there has always been a certain cadre of users who frequently ignore discussion consensus when it is relevant (including NFCC #8, but certainly including many non-image-related issues as well). I can't overturn the decision as it stands though. Sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template orphan request for GargoyleBot

Listed here. Template:RadioByFrequency needs to be removed from 200 or so pages. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will get on this later tonight. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you! :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A whole mess of 'em for your bot

Hi, could you sic your wonderful bot on every template in Category:Number one singles in the United Kingdom templates (that is, {{1988 UK number one singles}} all the way through {{2009 UK number one singles}}? I would be much obliged. Peace, delldot ∇. 06:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks a ton! :D delldot ∇. 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, if your bot gets hungry again, could you feed it Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Standard numismatics external links? I can always do it myself if you prefer, I don't know how many links it should have before bothering you to do it. Thanks again! delldot ∇. 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Another template orphan request for GargoyleBot

Listed here. Template:Explain-inote needs to be removed from 150 or so pages. Thanks again. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shussein2003.png

Hi, I do think this image is not PD, but besides that. For the next time, could you at least warn me before you basically overturn my decision by undeleting the image, moving it to commons, and than deleting it again from Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I only deleted it and undeleted it because Wikipedia was having technical issues that wouldn't let me view deleted revisions and save from that version. I would have notified you that I was taking it to DRV (as I will if it gets deleted from Commons). Frankly, I didn't notify you because at the time I was rather irritated at what I thought was such a dreadfully bad close that I wanted to avoid any incivility on my part. I was thinking about sending you a quick note when I saw that you messaged me now. As for Commons, it is a different place, and I checked to see if the image had ever been deleted from there (it hadn't). I was quite sure that the image belonged there (it does), so I uploaded it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image

• sigh* I didn't even know that rule existed... Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the trouble... Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, again!

Feel free to go to wikipedia:deletion review. At least this time you told me in advance. Appreciated. Regarding consensus, one person was for deletion, one for keeping. That I deleted the image is a good indication I agreed with the nominator and not with the opposing comment, in this case yours. I basically am the only one working wp:pui and I don't have the time to write an explanation every time I make a decision "that rests solely on my own overly restrictive notions of what is and is not free". For this image I don't think {{PD-textlogo}} applies. The logo is more than just the text (typefont), plus it has other writings on the box. I might be wrong of course, so please ask for more input at wp:deletion review, much preferable over simply uploading it commons. Also, I missed your comment you made the last time, forgot to watch your talk. Why for heaven's sake were you worried about incivility on your part. It is just an image, if I made a mistake, message me or post a deletion review. Nothing to get worked up about. Garion96 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That really was minimum confirmation at best. Nevertheless it was more than what was known before so I undeleted the image. Garion96 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Tom Birdseye Signature.gif

Depends on the signature, of course, but that's fairly artistic, you can see it at http://www.tombirdseye.com/ - That the user had a bunch of other copyright violations probably biased me - we might run an IfD, but looking it over freshly, I don't think it's clean either way. WilyD 23:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Treaty-pg2.JPG

I don't recall it being used anywhere. At the same time, I would think pages of a treaty would really rather belong to either Commons (if the license allows) or WikiSource. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

I replied on my talk page Skier Dude (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Big-babijar14

It is File:Big-babijar14.jpg.jpeg which is on commons. Slightly different name. Garion96 (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaning

A bot snack!

Hi again, I wondered if I could get your lovely bot to orphan the batman templates I just listed at WP:TFD#To orphan? Thanks much :) delldot ∇. 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it also be able to replace {{Totally-disputed}} with {{articleissues}} with the "disputed" and "POV" options? (I'm not sure if it would be able to handle the varying date parameters, but I'm sure it'd be fine to reset them to 1/09 if not). Thanks again! delldot ∇. 02:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the request!--Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, be aware that the date might have to play a role as {{articleissues}} requires each parameter have a date. IF you need assistance reqriting code for this let me know.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly IronGargoyle! Here's a treat for your bot. delldot ∇. 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bug you again, but would your bot also be able to replace {{Totally-disputed-section}} with {{articleissues|section=y}} with the "disputed" and "POV" options? Thanks much! delldot ∇. 05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo bot! :)

A request for ze bot. Could you have it orphan Template:IT giants per this? I listed it here as well. Thanks as always. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Work for your bot

Could you(r bot) please help orphan Template:Infobox Political Division per User:This, that and the other/political division orphan? Thanks in advance. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Lol. That initial sentence was great. And honestly I was thinking a lot about my RfA (and the fact that you were one of the supporters) when commenting. Just speaking from personal experience, I've found myself involved in quite a few situations which I don't believe I would have, if I wasn't an admin. Helping to find (and blocking) certain socks, for example. The whole thing about this being "for life", means that we really don't know what may be around the corner, and what ways we may be asked to help. The editor assistance program didn't exist when I became an admin, for example. Nor did the ability for admins to give out certain user-rights. Or the ability to interact with the abuse-filter. And who knows what else may be on the horizon?

Anyway, I'd like to agree with your sentiments. But my experience in reading about the various messess in the past (I remember AN/I and AN and RfAr and even RfA - and remembering all sorts of extended sets of messes), is that I really don't think we can trust this user to his word in this. I'd like to WP:AGF, I really would (as I think you may know, I'm a fairly string believer in AGF), but I just think I've seen quite a bit of evidence which suggests the contrary. I didn't bring up the past and/or add links, because I was only reading about the discussions at the time, and thought that eventually those who were involved in those discussions would comment, and perhaps link to them. (And they've apparently started to.)

Anyway, this was longer than I had intended, I mostly just wanted to share that you made me smile and laugh with your first comment about you supporting my RfA : ) - jc37 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside (nothing to do with the current RfA under discussion), the issues with canvassing in that RfA, and the discrepancy of how canvassing was presented at WP:SPAM (where the policy on canvassing was located at the time), was one of the reasons I got involved when WP:CANVASS was split from WP:SPAM. And I don't think it turned out too badly : ) - jc37 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill Forge Mill

Hi IronGargoyle, It has been suggested that an article on Churchill Forge Mill be merged. Please see: talk:Churchill Forge Mill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

Message from Elad189

Why did you delete "prof. Jacob Sheskin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.120.123 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it was an unambiguous copyright violation. The article seems to have been re-created in non-copyright violation form though. It looks likes it is still in need of references, so if you are interested in not having it be deleted again, you should probably add some. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Message from Elad189 (2)

Hi IronGargoyle. As you can probably understand, I am pretty new to this Wikipedia thing. However, I am not stupid. I have some things I want to tell you: 1. Relating to your comment: "It looks likes it is still in need of references, so if you are interested in not having it be deleted again, you should probably add some". If you didn't have a chance to see the updated page, I recommend you do. I put there 2 external links, verifing what I wrote there. I think that for now, it's enough. 2.BE MORE PATIENT - I don't know if you are a Wikipedia editor or something, I don't know about these stuff yet,(I do know I wrote Ryan an e-mail which he didn't answer me yet), but please - people don't like their work deleted, especially when there is no notification of its deletion. When I saw what you did, I was very angry, so I deleted your pages. Lucky for you, you are known to Ryan/Wiki management, so you didn't have to do nothing. I HAD TO DO ALL THE WORK FROM NOTHING, ALL OVER AGAIN. I want you to remember your first days in Wiki. Things here can look a little intimidating at first. 3. Take a minute and run Google Scholar about the man his Biography you instantly deleted with such ease. He was my grandfather, and besides of being a great man, he saved lifes, and got the world ridden of an awful ilness - Leprosy. Best, Elad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elad189 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you were upset with the deletion. I didn't intend any offense and I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid at all. If you had a problem with my deletion you should have contacted me in the first place instead of blanking my user page (see Wikipedia's guidelines on civility). I would have been happy to explain my deletion and help you reconstruct the article in a form that did not violate our policies on copyright. Given that the article was copy-pasted from a BBC source, there was nothing really that could have been done with the material you had initially created the article with. That said, you can certainly reference the BBC article while writing the article in your own words. You seem to have made an admirable start on the article by adding the references. Please also keep in mind that writing about close relatives--however laudable they are--may not always be the best idea, because it can present a conflicts of interest and can make it difficult to write with a neutral point of view. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Message from Elad189 (3)

I thank you for the answer. I will try to make the article better. Just that you could understand the whole picture - I didn't even know 10 hours ago HOW to contact you. What happened was that I got a message from Ryan, and sent him an e-mail, through Hotmail. You are absolutely right that I should have talked to you first. Maybe it's a good idea to put a little button on each page with "contact us" or something, since for new people like me, there was no one to talk to.I totally respect experience, and I know that you and all the other editors could help me a lot in making this article worth reading. If you have any other comments, I will be more than happy to hear them. Elad189 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2 009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi IronGargoyle. I would like to show you my appreciation for your contrabution to the page prof. Jacob Sheskin. I will try to keep up the standarts!Elad189 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)