User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 5

Archives

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

Bwuhaha

[1] Don't worry, it can happen to the best of us.

...doesn't make it less hilarious, though. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Just so you know, your cascade protection of your social psychology subpage protected {{tnavbar}}. Octane ^{[improve me]} 31.07.07 0023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll get right onto fixing that! IronGargoyle 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem. I was worried about that happening, but I thought I'd caught all the transclusions. Thanks for catching that one. IronGargoyle 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. (: Octane ^{[improve me]} 31.07.07 0057 (UTC)

Shut out the blinds, oh, you mighta been seen...

Nice to hear that I inspired that close and that some people appreciate my sense of humour. Will ^(talk) 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deletion Review

Oops! The page isn't as clear as when i last used it. Therequiembellishere 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

about the Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

• but the public domain status of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg has been previously endorsed by multiple admins and I see no convincing reason to overrule them here
  • You have mistaking judgment. The image supported in many admins is the User:Johnnyboyca's. You have the duty that the file history is examined by yourself. --Hare-Yukai 06:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If the earlier image uploaded by User:Johnnyboyca is in the public domain, I see no reason why the second one is not in the public domain as well. Based on the evidence presented, there is no compelling case for a conspiracy theory. It seems to be a simple case of the original being folded when copied years ago, and then another faithful reproduction from the original corrected this later. Wikipedia is not a battleground to prove conspiracy theories. This is an interesting issue, and I appreciate you bringing it to the community's attention in connection with the first image. If you feel there are still copyright issues with the second image, feel free to re-nominate it at WP:IFD. Regards, IronGargoyle 07:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Will you assure this decision? The most simple explanation is that photograph was folded over along the vertical axis during an early version. But, I don't think so. --Hare-Yukai 08:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I think so, that This is an interesting issue, and I appreciate you bringing it to the community's attention in connection with the first image. If you feel there are still copyright issues with the second image, feel free to re-nominate it at WP:IFD.. But I am afraid of stoker of them two persons. They are starting to attack next target. Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg --Hare-Yukai 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

I noticed you deleted Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg. But it seems the original uploader has uploaded a similar image under the same name. Should this be speedily deleted? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am going to post a thread on WP:AN/I regarding this matter. Regards, IronGargoyle 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear IronGargoyle

With you I shall ever be; Over land and sea My thoughts will companion you; With yours shall my laughter chime, And my step keep time In the dusk and dew With yours in blithesome rhyme; In all of your joy shall I rejoice, On my lips your sorrow shall find a voice, And when your tears in bitterness fall Mine shall mingle with them all; With you in waking and dream I shall be, In the place of shadow and memory, Under young springtime moons, And on harvest noons, And when the stars are withdrawn From the white pathway of the dawn. Mary Darby Robinson

My dear IronGargoyle, I've hesitated when thinking about the appropriate words to express how much your incredibly kind words, and the wonderful gift you graciously gave me have moved me. It's not often that an editor whose name is familiar to me, and whom I look up to so deeply, as I do to you, comes over to my talk page bearing such a breathtaking gesture for little me. Many times, I try to struggle to find the way to put all the wonderful feelings that the magic of kindness can create, only to end up realizing that, I cannot; and it's best not to spoil the sweet spark with words. For this reason, may my brief, but heartfelt "thank you, my new friend!" and the charm woven within the little gift of poetry above be a token of my gratitude, and a tiny token of a beautiful newfound friendship. Have a wonderful day! :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Generations

Thanks so much for zapping the Generations template! Yeehaw! 'bout time that happened. The next step is to merge all of that Strauss and Howe junk into one page. I'm new to Wikipedia, so any help you can lend would be much obliged! :) --Dylanfly 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I thought the original research arguments were pretty valid. Although I don't think I'm really qualified enough on the topic to be designing the template, I would be happy to undelete and userfy it if the original code would be helpful to you at all in designing the new template. Best, IronGargoyle 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your User Page

I was looking around and came across your page and it had a long line of nonsense letters right in the middle. I was trying to get rid of that since it had been done by someone else.... I didn't think I had bothered anything that was supposed to be there!!!! Yikes! I'm so sorry! Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez

No worries. I was just curious. Best, IronGargoyle 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 01:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

koreanname template deletion

I think you might have made a mistake on one of your recent template deletions and consequently broke existing articles. If I am interpreting the deletion discussion correctly, the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_29#Korean_name_tables deletion review and your subsequent deletion action was for unused templates which redirected to koreanname, not for the template koreanname itself, which is now deleted. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Koreanname, the koreanname template is used on several articles which now display a red link. e.g. Korean People's Army, Seomjin River, and Kim Il-sung. -- Michael Devore 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I must have clicked a redirect by accident and missed the title. I've undeleted it, so hopefully it is working fine again. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Weird, though, I'm still not getting Template expansion on the three example pages, although clicking on the template link in those articles successfully goes through to the edit page of the now-undeleted template code. Ahh, but if I change the template name to 'Koreanname' on the articles' edit page rather than the original 'koreanname', then it works as expected. I'm not sure exactly what this means, as my understanding of the subtleties of Wikipedia templates has been fully exceeded. -- Michael Devore 02:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what happened. I'm a bit baffled too. IronGargoyle 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that these redirects still haven't been deleted per the debate. :) Regards. PC78 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. I had undeleted them to try and fix something in the main template which was malfunctioning. IronGargoyle 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed TfD for Mexican state "flag" templates

Hi, I just saw you closed this discussion with "adjust and keep all". What happens if nobody makes the discussed adjustments? Am I free to re-nominate them after some time period? Thanks for your advice, Andrwsc 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would give it several months at least. Best, IronGargoyle 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Months"? Really? I was thinking of weeks... Hmm. Ok, thanks for the reply! Andrwsc 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You could always fix it yourself... IronGargoyle 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I could, but I don't believe these pseduo-flags should be portrayed as real flags, so I'm not going to go out of my way to encourage that. I've got enough work on my plate managing the other ~900 templates in that set!  ;) Andrwsc 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive280

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg
You did mistake again. You decided as a original image the low resolution image, and as a fake the high resolution image. Those decisions violate natural science theory. How do you think about it? --Hare-Yukai 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, nor did I comment in the deletion discussion for your second edited image of the Nanking Massacre. I simply commented on an administrator's noticeboard that you uploaded a version of an image that was substantially similar to one I had deleted previously. There was firm consensus in the following discussion that the image you uploaded should be deleted. I'm not sure what else you'd like me to say. Best, IronGargoyle 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry It's my mistake. --Hare-Yukai 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can not find the deep argument except for this argument. If there is another argument, please show me it. --Hare-Yukai 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you are asking me. There was the image deletion discussion in which you participated (and you said yourself that the image should be deleted). I think it's clear that you want the originals to be deleted as well. I think it's very unlikely for that to happen though. Sorry, IronGargoyle 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed in your un-honesty. It's the argument of the extremely low level. I participate and say my opinion, too. And no one participates in the argument in the level of admin. You have the duty, which it answers again about the viewpoint of the resolution. --Hare-Yukai 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you tell me the reason why you thought the image of the less resolution was original. --Hare-Yukai 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I explained it in my close of the deletion review. I have nothing more to say on this matter. IronGargoyle 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate Rain, 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.

--Wizardman 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for the {{usertalkpage}} update. Much apreciated. Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! IronGargoyle 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability Tags

I am really not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, I did not indiscriminately tag articles I went through a catagory and its subcatagories and tagged articles that I felt showed no evidence of meeting WP:NN and WP:FICT - they have no secondary sources and no real world content - I do not see how placing tags disrupts Wikipedia as if there is evidence of notability then people should just add it to the article and remove the tag. I withdraw my nomination for the multiple deletions after I was informed that the relavent Wikiproject was actively working to remedy the situation. I do not see placing tags as stepping on anyones toes and I a sorry that other people feel that I have done this in order to be disruptive or prove a point. My general feeling is that there are a lot of articles on fictional works which do not meet the notability guidelines as set out in WP:NN and WP:FICT and that this has to be remedied. I am sorry to have troubled you however I think you coul assume good faith before accusing me of purposeful disrupting the project. [[Guest9999 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]]

I modified [links]

These modifications are just for better thing. You have to accept it. If you have some doubts, we should do argument in somewhere. --Hare-Yukai 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk template replacement

While I appreciate your desire to implement the recent decision made at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 20#Template:Talk page, I take great exception to what seems to me to be a highly irregular "discussion", and the alterating of my carefully chosen notice to my communicants by replacing a help-style template for them with a template with a completely different purpose. (If I'd wanted that at the top of my user talk page, I would have chosen it instead or incorporated it into my talk page header.)

It looks like few of the template users participated in the discussion. I know I certainly had not noticed the TFD notice, given I had only one communication during the TfD period, and had jumped directly to the discussion rather than think to look at the (usually) unchanging text at the top of my talk page. If there were so few of us users, I think it would have been considerate to have posted a notice to each of us so we'd be sure to notice. If there were many of us, and perhaps even if not, the TfD can hardly be considered any reasonable consensus.

Can you give me a good reason why you felt it necessary to nominate this template, and why I shouldn't file a request for a review? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the original template can easily be transcluded from your userspace if you wish to keep the old version (I'd be more than happy to help any user who would like this done). Nothing was being deleted here, it was simply a name standardization. It should be relatively easy to fix if you liked the old version. I wouldn't have deleted it with the level of consensus there was at the discussion page, but given that any user can use the template code to replace the template in his or her own userspace, I felt that the arguments for standardization were the strongest. Best, IronGargoyle 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting that all you have done is to standardize naming? You have effectively eliminated the friendly template by redirecting it to another one with a completely different purpose. If you really were looking for standardization, you should have recommended changing the template name so that it didn't interfere with your desired standardization. Instead, you have forced non-participating template users to accept your change of purpose or adopt the balkanized version of a hard-coded insertion of the old text and formatting for each of their pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be hard-coded... you can transclude it from your userspace (or mine... {{User:IronGargoyle/User talk}}). Best, IronGargoyle 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again missing the point. Templates exist so lots of pages can take advantage of the same desirable formatted text and possibly optional features. Individual subpage transclusion is not a solution, just another balkanization (by which I mean that people who once were happy with using a single structure are now expected to create individual replacements). Why did you believe it was important to deprive users of this template of this ability? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I specifically said I don't want the disclaimer template, and you put it in my talk page anyway. That's not cool. - BalthCat 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just replacing all transclusions per the TfD. Feel free to transclude the old version of the template from somewhere in your userspace (or mine... {{User:IronGargoyle/User talk}}). It's the same general idea as the userbox migration. Regards, IronGargoyle 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:MrStalker

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:MrStalker may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --MrStalker ^talk 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism. It was part of a good faith closure of a templates for deletion discussion. The old template can always be transcluded from userspace (i.e. {{User:IronGargoyle/User talk}}). Best, IronGargoyle 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another caution

Your vandalism of the apartheid article is not appreciated. If you're the sort of pathetic low-life who gets off this sort of thing, kindly take up graffiti. Robertson-Glasgow 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing the article at all (although I'm not precisely sure what article you are refering to, because I removed the template {{Allegations of apartheid}} from a number of articles). I was closing this TfD discussion and removing the templates that were to be deleted. This it not vandalism, but calling me a pathetic low-life could be considered by some to be a personal attack. It is certainly uncivil. If you have any questions regarding my TfD closure however, I would be glad to address them. Regards, IronGargoyle 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As is made patently obvious by a quick and simple gander at the comment that I left you, I did not, as you state, call you a pathetic low-life (although there's every chance); rather, I gave you advise on what to do "If you're [… a] pathetic low-life". Hair-splitting aside, though, here's a link which may just serve to refresh your ailing memory:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_Apartheid_era&curid=2200527&diff=154783115&oldid=154742441. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertson-Glasgow (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the wrong edit diff. Here is the edit that I made. The text removal was made by 87.78.66.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the next edit (which you cite). Either way, it's probably better not to even call vandals "pathetic low-lifes" (i.e., don't feed the trolls). Best, IronGargoyle 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tripe. It's there for all to see. How can you deny having written what follows?

"Then two very brave people one by the name of Barry Dhillon and the other by the name of rebecka john came to save all once they created the time element and figured that we ran by time and introduce the watch and the element of gravitartional force" Robertson-Glasgow 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I deny it because it is patently absurd. IronGargoyle 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are lying. It's there. Under your name. Here, again, is that link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_Apartheid_era&diff=prev&oldid=154783115. Explain. Robertson-Glasgow 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The material was added here, once again by an IP editor, 82.47.32.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have nothing more to say on this matter. IronGargoyle 11:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't, but I do: why did you bring back that rubbish a full two edits after it had been deleted? I see now that you were not responsible for it in the first place, but your subsequent action made it look otherwise. Robertson-Glasgow 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page template

Thanks for the talk-page template switch (I read the preceding conversation on this page, so I understand what it was about). You would probably want to add some sort of Wikilink into the summary so that people don't think you're just making changes arbitrarily, however. I was going to yell at you before I what the issue is really about, and I'm probably more patient than most people. In any case, have a nice way and happy editing. Alekjds ^talk 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, adding a better summary would have been helpful. I would done that if I could have figured out how to do the replacements with AWB. It was tricky because each template has a different variable for username. I was in a hurry and I didn't anticipate the level of anger in the response. Thanks for not yelling. :-) IronGargoyle 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from userpage

Hi there, I am sorry I am not sure where to put a comment :O) You helped out with my article Arden Wohl...but someone keeps deleting out that she was in Vogue magazine in July and trying to get the article deleted again...what should I do..so annoying! Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

TFD

Certainly. I just keep confusing the two different ways of closing things :) >Radiant< 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you! It had been bothering me for ages that the project was so split up and messy, categories all over the place and the like. I've sorted out the to do list over at the project so hopefully we're getting there! Next plan is to get Kingda Ka to GA, would be a much needed boost for the project - nearly every other article is a stub or start class. Thanks again for the barnstar! :) Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arden Wohl

hi there, would you be able to give any recommendations of fixing up this article to save from deletion? thanks! :O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk • contribs)

what I meant is help re:editing it!!! you know I am kind of new at all this..but I am not even going to bother anymore ...whats the point? I am not getting paid to take all this abuse from everyone...I just wanted to put up an interesting article about a girl who is trying to make a difference and I get beaten up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs)

I realize you are new to this. I was trying to suggest in the discussion that the article be kept on its own merits and the admin who closes it should take those into account more than anything else. I know you are new to this, and that's fine. I unfortunately don't really have any interest in the article or in editing it. I don't care if it's kept or deleted (and I'm not really sure which one will happen). You might want to read over our guidelines on notability so you won't run into these problems in the future. I don't think people are attacking you, they are just pointing out behaviors that are outside the general norm for deletion discussions. Keep in mind to that my decision in the deletion review (which you refer back to) does not mandate that the article is kept, it only mandates that it is not speedily deleted. In the future, can you post these messages to my talk page and not my userpage? It helps me see them faster. Thanks. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. :-) IronGargoyle 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gulf of Lune

Hello. You removed a notability tag - which I replaced - please see Talk:Gulf of Lune87.102.17.39 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone intends to merge it (which I don't really have a problem with), so it's a null issue. I don't agree with your tagging, however, and would have removed the tag had someone else not done so already. Best, IronGargoyle 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject roller coasters

Hi there, just to let you know that WP:ROCO has been given an overhaul. As you are listed as a participant, I just thought I'd let you know that there's a new to-do section and much clearer guidelines for roller coaster articles. Hope to see you over there! Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 09:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolution pic

Hey, thanks for the good picture Image:Revolution SFMM.jpg, but it's actually a picture of Viper (Six Flags Magic Mountain). ALTON .ıl 05:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your images

Hi. I as looking through the Baldwin-Wallace College article, thinking of taking some shots and uploading them. I then saw that you've uploaded some yourself. I must say that they're really good shots, much better than I could've done. Keep up the good work :) Wizardman 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments about the Baldwin-Wallace college pictures. I was pleased with them as well. :-) IronGargoyle 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 5! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, thanks so much for the nom! hmwith talk 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Holcomb article cleaned up

I cleaned up the Steven Holcomb article if you wish to look. Chris 14:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. Walton^One 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tags you removed

I suggest discussing it with User:BrownHairedGirl and/or at the WP:RINGS talk first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthanc (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive retaliatory mass-tagging. I will discuss it with the user if it continues further, but it's clearly not appropriate tagging behavior as it stands. Best, IronGargoyle 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irongargoyle, I see that you have reverted without comment my addition of tags to articles in Category:Middle-earth locations. I taggged those articles with {{nn}} because the articles not demonstrate notability as required by WP:FICTION and WP:NOTE, and with {{primarysources}} because they did not cite sources independent of the subject as required and by the notability guidelines. Those tags are an important part of the ongoing work of improving the encyclopedia by identifying articles in need of attention, and since you did not fix those problems, the tags should not have been removed. I will now reinstate the tags; if they are removed again without those problems bring fixed, I will not edit war, but will propose the articles for deletion (see WP:PROD). If you believe that there is some reason why these articles should be exempted from the notability guidelines, I will be happy to discuss that. But there is nothing either disruptive or retaliatory about tagging articles which do not meet wikipedia's quality standards, and I hope that in future you will assume good faith and not make accusations like that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and IronGargoyle, if I may? I think part of the problem is that the tagging comes with generic explanations that feel a bit like being templated (see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, an essay that applies to user interactions, which could be applied here - instead of templating the article, talk to the editors). If you gave specific examples as to what you were looking for, then people might actually engage with you more. Instead of saying "please provide reliable, independent secondary sources to assert notability", you could say "I've searched online and I think the following sources would help assert notability - do you think you could help add them to the article along with any paper (book) sources you have?" This is a problem with tagging in general, and is why I rarely tag - it is much better to roll up your sleeves and get stuck in trying to fix a problem, rather than just pointing it out. I'm also concerned with what you say here: "if they are removed again without those problems being fixed, I will not edit war, but will propose the articles for deletion" - to me that sounds like a threat - "if you remove the tags, I will escalate". It would be much better to focus on the behaviours of the editors in removing the tags - instead of using the behaviour of the editors (removing the tags) to justify an action on the article (AfD). Does that make any sense? Carcharoth 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't make sense to say that if an editor identifies a problem, it's their obligation to fix it. Those templates exist for a reason: to allow editors without expertise in a subject to draw problems to the attention of those who do have the expertise. I frequently tag articles that way within my own area of expertise, knowing that in some cases others have better sources than I do for some aspects of things, or maybe because I don't have time at that point. When it comes to Tolkien, I know little, and don't have the sources: much better to draw the problem to the attention of those who do have the resources and the inclination. (BTW, the essay WP:DTTR didn't reach consensus, and in any case refers to using templates to place warning messages on talk pages, rather than to tagging deficient articles).

The majority of the articles which I tagged are wholly unreferenced stubs about obscure details of a book series. It would have been quite legitimate to nominate them for deletion now, using {{prod}}, but I prefer to ask first for editors to improve the articles in case there is some obscure notability somewhere in there. If that option is rejected, then deletion may be preferable to having scores of utterly non-notable articles lying around unflagged.

There are hundreds of such articles. It took me the best part of 30 minutes to tag them all, but it would have taken hours to identify the editors involved and message them about all the articles., and I'm not prepared to devote that much time to the job. All those tags do is to say "there is a problem with these articles, please will someone with the relevant expertise fix it". I'm still left with the impression that somewhere in the midst of all this, there is a resentment amongst some editors at the suggestion that their pet subject needs to demonstrate notability. When we are building an encyclopedia built on core principles of verifiability and no original research, that's a serious problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and you've drawn my attention and that of the other editors involved in the WikiProject. Please have a look here for a series of 18 edits where I've added a third-party source for location articles that have an entry in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. That is at least a start, I hope, and demonstrates that those subjects are notable enough to get an entry in that Encyclopedia (the other location articles don't have separate entries). Can we agree that this solves the problem for the moment with those articles (though they still have other problems), and concentrate on the other ones you've tagged? Carcharoth 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Fraid not! That improves things, but multiple sources are needed. I have added the appropriate tags to the articles in that list which still have only a single source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

IronGargoyle - if you want to revert BrownHairedGirl's tags, you need to make your case, obviously. Looking at the notability guideline (there's a link from her notability tag) you could make a case based on (a) sales of Tolkein's books and (b) external sources. If you want to look for external sources, maybe try Games Workshop (e.g. their web site) who make a lot of use of Tolkein material in constructing the games that my son plays. I hope you do find something. But if you don't, maybe BrownHairedGirl is right? Best wishes to you both in resolving this one. --Pstevens 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging discussed at WP:AN

I thought I should point out that Carcharoth raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article_tagging_dispute, and I have responded there to the issues raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed

I appreciate those who have raised concerns here, and I particularly thank Carcharoth for his attempts at mediating this dispute. I have commented regarding my behavior at WP:AN. The dispute has been resolved as far as I'm concerned, and I have no interests in editing on this topic in the near future due to my busy schedule. IronGargoyle 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cirith Ungol notability, refs and inuniverse

See Talk:Cirith Ungol#Notability_tag_restored_again. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the article rather than simply removing the tags which identify where it needs improvement? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did improve the article. There are multiple secondary and independent sources. I understand you are trying to help, but legalistic attitudes and wikilawyering seldom help things. I think you should take another very close look at the statments brought up on your talk page by CBD. He once again has put things much better than I could have. IronGargoyle 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do read the guidelines: the requirement is for multiple independent secondary sources, and so far as I can see that criterion has not been met. You say that the article has "multiple secondary and independent sources", but the only one I see is the atlas. The other one you cite so far is a work by Tolkein's son, literary executor and posthumous collaborator, who cannot reasonably described as independent.

This is not wikilawyering: is about ensuring that both the substance and the importance of a subject is verifiable, and it is a great pity that after you have twice indulged in a mass-removal of tags indicating deficiencies in articles and then said that you won't be editing in this area in the near future. It is not helpful to disrupt efforts to identify articles in need of improvement and make allegations of bad faith rather than discussing the issues. If you don't have the time or energy to find more sources, why not leave the tags in place so that other editors can do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one good faith merge, to which you reply with an WP:ANI-like diatribe on the article talk page... I said I wasn't going to revert you again... I haven't. I've stuck with 1RR. I've read the guidelines, and your accusation that I haven't has much less good faith behind it. There is no point in discussing this with you when you seem to be deaf to the consensus of many other editors (on a number of key points). IronGargoyle 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I closed my comments by saying "If anyone wishes to claim that this article has established notability without references, please can they discuss that point here here rather than simply removing a request to improve the article? Thanks!" ... and I'm happy for other editors to decide for themselves whether that was a diatribe.

I see no consensus on wikipedia that a literary executor and co-author is an independent source, or that it is inappropriate to tag articles which do not meet the standards set out in policies and guidelines. I am aware that you and one or two other editors have firm views on both points, but I do not even see any support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth in favour of your position, let alone more widely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)