User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive

Archives

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

Goldstone Report

Regarding the issue of the Human Rights Council not being overrespresented by any one group, I have complied with your request and will continue to submit in the required formet however the paragraph remains factually incorrect. Maccabean (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Onome Sodje

Although he has moved into a more notable league he has not made an appearance in it, thus still failing WP:ATHLETE. Saying that he might play during the up coming season isn't guaranteed and against WP:CRYSTAL. Which is why it was deleted under CSD G4 a few weeks ago again. Could you review your decision on the matter. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The CSD G4 criterion requires that the copy be substantially identical and not address the concerns at the previous AfDs that led to deletion. I agree that the changes may not meet WP:ATHLETE and/or WP:CRYSTAL, but the article has changed substantially to warrant another discussion. Previous speedy deletion is not a criteria for CSD G4. The fact that it had been previously deleted under this criterion was something that I noticed, but it was something that I judged to be a misapplication of CSD G4 after carefully reviewing all relevant revisions and the AfDs. I respect your concerns, but I just fundamentally disagree with them. I won't delete the article, but I'm certainly not going to edit-war if you decide to re-tag the article. That said, I do suggest that an AfD or a PROD would be a better course of action. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for White Cyclone

Updated DYK query On August 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Cyclone, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Orlady 08:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:PD pg00018.png

Hello, IronGargoyle. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skier Dude (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fads

Just so you are aware. You closed the DVR for Category:Fads as restore with a selective repopulate. Shortly after that it was nominated as a speedy under C1. I relisted this for a full CfD discussion since I don't believe that this would qualify. You may want to comment there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • **FACEPALM**. Thanks for telling me. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt dialing

Too bad, but you'll get there... I think merging into Pocket dialing is the best solution. A Google search returns slightly more hits for "pocket dialing" than for "butt dialing". Also – while Wikipedia is not censored – there is no purpose to using deliberately crude or juvenile language just for the sake of it. That's what Urban Dictionary is for. Lampman (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the other way around. More results for Butt dialing than pocket dialing (slightly). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pitbull discography at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 16

I'm curious as to how you came to this result. Specifically, why you think there was "clearly consensus here that the page Pitbull (rapper) is not currently overlong". And why is it appropriate to determine such consensus at DRV? ÷seresin 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Because even the nominator admitted the parent page (Pitbull (rapper)) was not overlong. I didn't see one comment suggesting the parent page was too long. There also wasn't any consensus for the deletion to be overturned. Finally, there was a long history of repeated recreation; so that if the subpage was created (for which there was not a stylistic guideline justification), it would just be reverted back and forth and end up on AfD. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read what the nominator said.
The deletion didn't need to be overturned, because the decision was correct. However, the content in question has changed materially, so the reasoning behind the deletion is now neither relevant nor valid. CSD G4, therefore, no longer applies, and its consideration was the only reason the page was salted. The protection was the only reason the subpage wasn't legitimately moved to mainspace.
Whether the Pitbull article is or isn't short enough is not the issue, because it's not the role of DRV to make those content decisions. The commentators on whom you base your ruling focused only on an issue that was outside the purview of DRV, and they did not address the issue at hand—the AfD and salting.
Even if there were to be edit warring on the recreated article, that possibility is irrelevant. DRV should not take into consideration hypothetical future intractability. A future AfD with a non-certain outcome, also, should not be considered; articles re-created after DRV often shortly end up at AfD. If the article were to be sent to AfD, and be redirected because Pitbull (rapper) isn't short enough, that is fine: that is the job of AfD. It is not, however, the job of DRV to prevent, by retaining a now-invalid protection, future deliberation and process because of a two-year-old AfD whose reasoning no longer applies to the content. ÷seresin 02:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I definitely respect your opinion, and you make some valid points. I disagree with your point, however, that process for the sake of process is always the correct outcome of DRV. There are many cases where the consensus in a DRV is that the deletion may not have met the letter of the law, but the outcome is correct if the article didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. I read the consensus as saying "this article does not need a subpage" and no consensus that said "well, yes, we should run an AfD for a subpage anyway". If you feel the article should have a subpage, and that this subpage has a snowball's chance in hell of not being merged immediately back, then by all means unprotect it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
process for the sake of process is always the correct outcome of DRV ← I never said this, and I disagree with such a notion.
DRVs are indeed closed that way—I strongly support this. The difference, however, is that it is not clear that this article doesn't "stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept." A few commentators in a DRV are not indicative of how an AfD will close, both in principle and because AfD's temperament is mercurial on an impressive scale.
I'm not going to unprotect it, because you've made the decision and I will let you keep it. ÷seresin 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Goa State Museum

Hi there. Please be more careful with speedy deletion, criterion A3 explicitly states that an infobox counts as content and you can as easy just write a sentence based on such content. Such deletions can be bitey towards new editors who start with the infobox first (as I know the creator of this article who also started another like that which I declined and which they afterwards expanded). Regards SoWhy 19:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I accidentally clicked the A3 tab instead of the A1 tab (which it was tagged as). The article had been tagged for 12 hours, though, so it wasn't exactly bitey. The article also failed CSD A7. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
How can it be an A1 if it's clearly about a museum with location and everything? Regards SoWhy 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say what it is. Just the title of the article, a vague location and a couple of names. The contextual identification we are concerned about is "what is this?" not "where is this?" (Wikipedia isn't a directory after all). If an article about a website has a link to that website, that tells you "where" the website is, but it doesn't tell you what in the world the website is about. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:fads DRV

You wrote at the DRV, I will, however, allow selective re-population of the category under the expectation that all category inclusions are referenced at the highest standard. Does this mean that editors are free to re-add entries provided they are well sourced, or is there some process to go through? The reason I ask is that I tried to re-add the category to 15 puzzle (not realising there had been a DRV as the original deletion did not say) but was immediately reverted citing the DRV. The article supports the claim with reference to [this book which is not only non-trivial, but is entirely on the subject. Further quality references supporting an 1880s craze are not hard to find. Frankly, I don't care if this category gets deleted, but if the possibility is left open for it to exist then this article has a good case for being on it if any does. So a further question, what is "referenced to the highest standard" if this article is not meeting it? SpinningSpark 09:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no process to determine what references are acceptable, other than the the normal practice of discussing changes on the talk page. I'm no longer the custodian of this particular category. I can say that in my own opinion the source seems reasonable. I would suggest discussing this with the editor reverted you (as you seem to already be doing), as I no longer have any particular custodial power over the page. My opinion is just that: My opinion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 21

"Spurious arguments"? I wonder if you might consider re-phrasing that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have changed the wording while keeping the basic intent. I tend to think in statistical terms, where words like "spurious" don't have quite the same pejorative connotations. I think your arguments for a reinterpretation of Crown Copyright were persuasive (as were Protonk's arguments against reinterpretation), I just felt like I had to focus the statement on fewer points that more directly influenced the close. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD on Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat

Though I know that you are neutral on this issue but I want you to take note of the anonymous IPs adding their keeps to the current AFD discussion. I presume this is no less then sockpuppetry. You can check for yourself that those IPs have only contributed to this AFD vote and nothing else. Probably the creator of that article is behind that act. What can be done about that. -- MARWAT  14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the closing administrator will take these factors into account. If you think they are violating Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry, I would suggest filing a request for investigation. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing of DR of several categories

Just letting you know that while I agree with some comments you made in your closing statement, I disagree with your decision not to restore several deleted categories that I had placed under this recent deletion review. For starters, there are guidelines out there that not only favor the existence of these categories, but actually state that they should exist. In the original deletion proposal, the closing administrator did not state why s/he decided the result was delete; therefore this constitutes a vote. The general practice on Wikipedia (with rare exceptions) is, when there is no consensus to keep or delete any material, that it should default to keep. Therefore, this should be overturned to keep.

I am sending you this friendly notice, hoping to resolve this issue, and that you will reverse this closing to restoring these categories. I am going to wait a week for a response. If there is no response within a week, or if you decide not to restore these categories, I am planning on filing another deletion review. Shaliya waya (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

While it was regrettable that the closing admin of the CfD did not state the reasons for the closure until after the CfD (he did so during the course of the deletion review), there is no requirement that he do so. Furthermore, this does not, contrary to your assertion, indicate that he interpreted the discussion as a vote (if anything, a mere "vote count" in the CfD would have likely been closed as no consensus--not delete). I have no plans on reversing my closure, as you have provided no new evidence and are using the same arguments that you used in the deletion review. Although I cannot stop you from filing a new deletion review of my closure, I strongly discourage you from doing so. Deletion review almost never reviews past deletion review discussions. A new deletion review would likely be speedy-closed by another administrator. Some might even interpret another deletion review as an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. If you have problems with my conduct as an administrator, WP:ANI or WP:RFC would be better venues. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Baby Doll Article

The wikipedia article on the character of Baby Doll keeps being deleted for unfounded reasons. I apologize if I'm contacting you in a fashion that is socially unacceptable, but I'm very new to wikiepdia and the necessary social mores of participating in the creation of articles.

There are many DCU and DCAU charcters that are lacking in their necessary wikipedia articles, and Baby is one of them. Why do users keep deleting this article? Eduardohutch (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you are talking about or what you are asking me to do. I only see one article that you've created, and it hasn't been deleted. Was it deleted under a different title or something? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

Good call. When I was closing the AfD I had found that neither side had done well in arguing, and that there wasn't enough discussion of reliable sources (a view I probably didn't explain well enough). The article should in my opinion be deleted, and judging by the votes which stated it was the discussion that had failed that makes me feel like you took the correct course of action. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It is always nice to have compliments about closes instead of torches and pitchforks (as I'm sure you know). This is particularly true when one spends some significant time wrestling with the close of a particularly tricky discussion. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Good close, especially the explanation in both the DRV closing statement and the procedural nomination. My opinion is that there were too many confounding issues. Removing the correctness of the AfD close, "DRV is not AfD round 2", and past AfD history from consideration should help focus discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
D'oh ... sorry, shoulda looked a little. thanks guys (and or gals) ;) — Ched :  ?  01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In Heaven There Is No Beer

I guess that in North Carolina therer are no polkas! Some page patroller with a narrow musical background has nominated In Heaven There is No Beer for deletion. Please respond on the nomination for deletion page. Pustelnik (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I had this on my watchlist so I would have caught it anyway, but thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Midge Bitten Records

I created this page as it is a new record label that has been formed with Fellside Recordings in the UK, Fellside is a UK leader in Folk and Jazz music and it is notable in that it is the first time this institution as diversified into a "modern" genre such as rock and alternative. They have recently signed up their first act and I thought this was worthy of noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebeacons (talk • contribs)

Articles on companies (such as Midge bitten records) need to assert importance in the article itself or they will be eligible for speedy deletion (please review these criteria for speedy deletion). In addition to asserting importance, all articles should be verifiable with reliable and independent sources cited in the article. They should also meet the general and/or corporation-specific criteria for notability. I see you have a userspace draft you are working on at User:Thebeacons/Midge bitten records. It is probably best that you continue working on the article there until the article meets the criteria I describe above. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

I've placed Template:afd-privacy — {{subst:afd-privacy|article=Ashida Kim|result=keep, no consensus, or delete}} — on most of the AfD pages that you courtesy blanked. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination) are fully protected, I cannot add that template. Would you add {{subst:afd-privacy|article=Ashida Kim|result=keep}} to those two AfDs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Cunard (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering about the rational behind the AfD blankings, as the closing comments didn't mention it and there was no link to any discussion on the edits. --Natet/c 08:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a common practice involving AfDs of living persons when the content of the discussion itself could be considered harmful. There are guidelines outlined here. I am confident it met these guidelines. The discussion is still in the history for those wishing to view it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just supprised as the blanking wasn't mentioned in the close --Natet/c 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed one!

You closed the Sally Boazman DRV earlier and unprotected the article and redirect, but missed one protected (misspelling) redirect at Sally Bowsman. Can you unprotect that too? Or at least change the redirect to Sally Boazman? Much thanks! Miami33139 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have already been unprotected and redirected. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Jonathan Gleich

Greetings, You deleted Jonathan Gleich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_13) but said you would consider publishing if I followed Proper Wiki protocol. I have re-done the article, and would like your opinion before I republish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lscappel/Jonathan_Gleich

Thank you

Linda Cappel
Lscappel (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is better, certainly. I would not say it was subject to the identical re-post criteria for speedy deletion, but I also don't think it's ready for main-space yet. That's just my opinion, and it might help to get another outside opinion as well. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Is there a place to 'show' it to other editors, and get reviews / criticism / etc before putting it out for the world?
I really would like to 'publish' by October

Thanks again, Linda
Lscappel (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for feedback is probably the first place I'd try. Remember, there is no deadline. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember, there is no deadline - Sorry years of being a writer I still think / write in "news speak"

I have a question.

In my research I have a article from a magazine that is no longer published. The .PDF of the actual article, is hosted on the person who the article is about's website.
Is there a conflict of interest there? Article link

Lscappel (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, who published the source is an important factor when it comes to determining WP:RS and WP:COI. What website is currently hosting the source is not an important factor. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, but as this is regarding something I wrote over at Talk:Jonathan Gleich, I figure it's appropriate.
  • When figuring if a source is verifiable and reliable, you look at the article's provenance. Lscappel, what you're saying is, "there's no way to prove that this piece was ever published, but the article's subject put a PDF of a web page on his own web site, and I know this because I'm a buddy of his, so you should take my word for it." Then factor in that SpotlightHealth.com was just a PR firm that did marketing for gastric bypass surgery (refs: [1], [2], [3], [4]). Then factor in that it doesn't even add anything to WP's article that isn't also in this New York Press article—and I figure, why bother?
  • Conflict of interest, though, is another issue entirely. Lscappel claims to be both a friend of Gleich's and co-author of Gleich's future autobiography. As such, I recommended that she not edit the article, and instead add possible content changes to the talk page—which is what's recommended at best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. In response to that, she wrote, "your edit left the article a mess, and I am going to correct things."
Based on Lscappel's edits like this, I have to doubt that "correct[ing] things" will end well. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all your points Dori. The problem exists in the substance and independence of the source you mention (being a PR release), and not the location where the source is hosted. I also agree with the conflict of interest points and think that Lscappel should consider stepping back from editing this article (see also WP:OWN). IronGargoyle (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, Dori, but I am VERY new (a few months) to Wikipedia, and I am still trying to get used to the way things are done here (aka My comments about deadline, and "permanent" link.) In reading the wiki rules it said "be honest" I am trying VERY HARD to be honest, and my research is all based on as many facts that I can prove and show, the .pdf on spotlight health was a published story, and as I have said before a good story. I didn't go back in time and say "I need a article that makes Jonathan look good for wikipedia" I am gathering stories, articles, etc from before there was a internet (His star trek days, his radio show) even the Information of the BBS is sketchy at best, a snippet of information.

But it is not from "bills website" its from major websites. If Wikipedia does not recognize spotlight health, then its a wiki rule, but please don't imply I am trying to pass off fake or doctored information.

My comment about the article being a mess, was that you left it looking like a jumble, visually unpleasing, I corrected that, I am keeping to YOUR edit of the article, because it is more in wiki standard, But I am fixing errors. You discounted about 1/2 my references, and I am TRYING to get more validation.

The wiki rules, says that as long as the article if from a REPUTABLE THIRD PARTY it is valid. The spotlight health article IS valid (By my interpretation of wiki rules) I asked IronGargoyle for a second opinion.

</RANT>

Lscappel (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, my talk page is probably not the best place to be continuing this discussion. I closed the DRV on the article and then provided some brief advice on if the article met WP:CSD#G4. My involvement beyond that is minimal. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

File:La Purisima Concepcion circa 1900 Keystone-Mast.jpg

Has been restored per your request. Would you update the templated license as you see fit. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dr Prabhat Das Foundation"

Dear IronGargoyle I am shocked to see four tags put by you on the article Dr Prabhat Das Foundation.

First, I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) am the major contributor of this article mentioned in your tag. I am a retired senior civil officer from India, & am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.

Second, yes I am an active volunteer of this organization & I may have some bias for this organization, but I don’t think that this article is like an advertisement or propaganda. As mentioned in previous paragraph, all the information added by me are facts, well referenced & verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.

Third, the organization mentioned in this organization has more than ten thousand active volunteers, more than three hundred mini libraries and affects the lives of millions of people (the population of its field of work in India is more than ten million). All these are objective facts (not my opinion), and are verifiable by reliable, secondary sources, and is well referenced in this article. This organization very well meets the general notability guideline.

Fourth, this article already has several references from third party publications. I think the only problem in this whole article is that many references are in Hindi & not in English. Several third party references are already in this article. There are hundreds of references (in Hindi language) mentioned at the website of this organization that is easily available to anyone. In India where Hindi is the national language there are many big organization and (nationally) famous people who are mentioned in the books, newspapers etc of Hindi language only. Every important fact in this article is already referenced to at least one reference (English or Hindi).

I therefore strongly request you to review your decision & remove these tags from this article. Thanks. Sincerely.--Prakashkanth (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you volunteer for the organization does present a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that you've necessarily damaged the neutrality of article, but the potential for non-neutrality is there. Others editing the article should be aware of the conflict of interest for this reason. I still believe the tone of the article is not neutral and does read a bit like an advertisement. The tags attract other editors who may agree or disagree with this assessment and may improve the article, or remove the tags if they feel I placed them in error. Looking at the reference section I saw a bunch of links back to the organization's website. Although I see that there are a few third party sources that are being hosted on the organization's website, there are very few. Keep in mind that independent and reliable non-English sources, if available, can be added to Wikipedia.
Please don't take my addition of the tags as a hostile act (as you seem to be interpreting them). I added the tags so that the article would be improved. I could have very easily nominated the article for deletion (and was considering doing so), but adding the tags gives a reasonable chance for the article to be improved to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and neutral point of view. I often see editors who get very personally attached to a few particular articles, and get quite upset when tags are placed on one of their articles. Remember that you don't have ownership on the articles you create or edit on Wikipedia. Anybody can edit them, and decisions and disputes are ultimately the purview of the greater community's consensus. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dr Prabhat Das Foundation

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 07:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldish DRV question

Hello, I have a question about an oldish DRV you closed back in August 2009. It's the one here about Category:Fads. Do you have any advice about what to do at this stage?

A brief run-down of recent events: Some by-decade subcategories have been created as "XX00s fads and trends" and they have started to be populated, but so far from what I can see those adding the category to articles haven't been following your guidance whereby you allowed for "selective re-population of the category under the expectation that all category inclusions are referenced at the highest standard". I went through the by-decade categories, and approximately 50% of the articles in the categories did not reference the thing's "fad"-ness (or "trend"-ness), and a sizeable percentage didn't even mention the word "fad" (or "trend") at all in the text of the article. User:Alansohn created the new subcategories and added most of these, which is a bit troublesome to me because he was an editor who was pushing hard in the original CfD to allow the categories to exist provided the "fad"-ness is based on reliable, third-party sources. (I haven't approached Alansohn about it personally, mainly because of past conflicts between us. I'm not too popular on his user talk page. I don't want to provoke an over-reaction if he judges me to be wiki-stalking or harassing him. The only reason I found out about the new categories is b/c I patrol the newly-created category listings.)

Do I just continue to "patrol" the categories and remove inappropriate contents? At what stage would we need to revisit how well your recommended approach is being implemented? Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I would suggest just patrolling for now and remove any poorly sourced category like you normally would. If it remains a problem, I suppose it could be taken back to CfD at some point. This reminds me though of something I've been meaning to propose at one of the Village Pumps. There should be some sort of way that categories could be "footnoted" like regular references. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to check with you in case you had a strong opinion one way or the other. I'll continue to do what you suggest—they are quite new so I'll see how it goes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

canvassing

I'm interested in the timing of the canvassing attempt. If the RFA takes a sudden turn one way or the other, I'd like to be mark it against that.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, yes. I'm not sure I follow the last part of your statement, or if you are looking for an answer from me. RfAs don't usually take sudden turns this late in the game though, canvassing or not. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There certainly was a word missing there, wasn't there? "I'd like to be able to mark the timing of the turn vs. the timing of the canvassing." It's true enough that things don't usually change at this point. If it was just sent , it'll be pretty obvious if it actually accomplished anything. Absent significant tampering or scandal, this will close at 70% plus or minus a half percent. If the canvassing e-mail you received was sent four days ago and you just picked it up, it might have had a more subtle impact. I'm not going to ask for the contents or details of the e-mail, I'm just curious when it was sent.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It was only a few hours before I reported it at WP:BN. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)

Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

IronGargoyle ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Candidates

Hi there; I interpret wiki policy as indicating that while clearly a State Governor, or a former governor, is notable, and the loser at a gubernatorial election is probably notable, a candidate at this governmental level, before the election is not. But if you feel that my interpretation is at fault I will happily accept a consensus view on this and on future similar edits if you wish to solicit one. This page could, of course, also have been nominated under either AfD or PROD as a resumé.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrated notability is a higher standard than "assertion of importance" which is the criterion of CSD A7. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

human disguise

Your AfD nomination seems flawed ...   pablohablo. 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not flawed, I'm just still writing it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I was a bit too quick there.   pablohablo. 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not informed of DRV

Hi there, I'm rather severely disappointed, as deletion nominator that the DRV was closed without me ever being notified it was happening. Simonm223 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry you're disappointed that you were not aware of the deletion review, but it was not your tagging which was fundamentally under review. It was the decision of an administrator to carry out the deletion suggested by the tagging. Although it is a norm that the closing or deleting administrator is notified, this informal responsibility does not fall to the closer of the deletion review. This informal responsibility instead lies with the individual listing the deletion review in the first place. Furthermore, deletion review does not mandate that a discussion remain open beyond 7 days (a reasonable duration of public debate) if all participants of the past deletion process have not yet participated. If you feel the article should be deleted, you now have an opportunity to join the discussion at AfD. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mufti Umar Farooq Desai

Could I have the deleted article moved to my userspace? The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's been moved to User:The-Giant-Andrew/Mufti Umar Farooq Desai. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 21

Hi, IronGargoyle.

With regard to the closure for Kari Ferrell, shouldn't your closing statement begin with "No consensus to restore" rather than "Deletion endorsed"? I realise there's little difference in the final outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true. It makes little difference in the final outcome. That said, it was worded carefully to highlight that the discussion really bridged the line between a policy-based consensus to keep deleted and no consensus. The "many events argument" was poorly supported, but not entirely without merit. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adam Andrzejewski

I'm aware that it's been declined by one admin today. It's also been deleted by another admin once today. I'll think about taking it to AFD. Dismas|(talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted for a completely specious reason (CSD A7) that had nothing to do with the tag that was applied (CSD G4), and didn't reasonably apply to the article. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! And, I went through Category:Images lacking a description and evaluated a few in your honour ;o) Skier Dude (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human Disguise

I don't believe I've ever seen you participate in a DRV before, save to close them.  :)

I wanted to say that I have sympathy for you. I understand why you felt offended, and indeed I felt a little offended on your behalf.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha... it has happened before, but not that frequently. Xoloz has always been my model for closing DRVs. I like to close them because I tend not to have very strong feelings about them, and I hope that the community views me as a pretty neutral party and not particularly factional. I often enjoy reading/analyzing the discussions and arguments more than actually taking part in them. Anyways, thanks for the empathy about the close. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not the community, but speaking personally I don't see you as factional and it's rather rare that I disagree with your assessment of consensus. I've perused the DRV archives in some detail and I certainly agree that Xoloz was a master.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unexpected perhaps, but..

–Juliancolton | Talk 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm flattered that you would consider me (you even put a nomination template on my talk page and everything). :) You are correct that it was unexpected. Thank you. I may have to consider this nomination seriously. About 1 1/2 years ago, Jc37 brought up this possibility as well. While I was flattered then as well, I didn't think I had a reasonable chance of passing a request for bureaucratship. I certainly do a bit of lurking at WP: and WT:RFA, so I feel as though I do have a sufficient understanding of community norms to serve responsibly as a 'crat. On the other hand, I've never thought my volume of actual contribution there (or at WP:CHU/WP:BOTREQ) would satisfy the expectations of the community. I'm assuming that you think my RfB would have a reasonable chance of passage (otherwise you wouldn't have nominated me). Would you explain why you think I might be successful? RfB is a daunting process that I wouldn't enter into lightly. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubts that you'd do well at RfB, for several reasons. You have several years of mostly flawless experience with the admin bit, and the lack of any burnout shows, to me at least, that you have the integrity necessary to be a bureaucrat. I've also observed your work at AfD, DRV, and other processes that require sound judgment and the ability to accurately interpret the community's consensus at votes and discussions. Further, you seem to be quite active at RFA, which is where most 'crats are expected to lurk. Take as much time as you need to consider this offer; should you choose to accept, I'll write up a nomination ASAP. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to put forward my support. I was hoping you'd go for crat, given your excellent handling of deletion reviews; especially the Ashida Kim saga. Please do give this offer considerable thought. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you as well. This has given me a lot to think about. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jumbo Jet (Cedar Point)

Hello! Your submission of Jumbo Jet (Cedar Point) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the two hooks I added addressed the problem. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

The Original Barnstar
For an outbreak of common sense at [5]. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Now we can only hope the outbreak is contagious. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jumbo Jet (Cedar Point)

Updated DYK query On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jumbo Jet (Cedar Point), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DRV decision question

With respect to User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) I could care less about the underlying matter or how it turned out but I'm curious why you focused so much on the arguments that the MfD itself rather than the arguments at the DRV; particularly since the NOTWEBHOST arguments did not address the blanking which was critical to the MfD decision. You did not mention the blanking at all.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTWEBHOST does not address blanking either way. It seems reasonable to assume that material is still hosted in the same way that a blanked talk page is seldom deleted. Both sides made reasonable points here, although the slippery slope arguments were not helpful. As this could be taken either way, however, I largely set the issue aside in my close.
Deletion based on policy and strength of argument is a central tenant of the deletion guidelines for administrators. DRV, being weighted towards process-policy concerns, should often focus on issues related to said process. To aid in the determination of said process, DRV is closed with a neutral—but not blind—eye to the facts in the XfD case. As I said, I saw the prima face evidence of unrefuted policy-based arguments in the MfD. This alone might not be enough to close to overturn. The fact, however, that the arguments for overturning made in the DRV implicitly followed the logic of WP:DGFA in supporting a policy-based close were persuasive. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go

See Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/IronGargoyle. Feel free to add your answers and accept whenever you're ready. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Zompire

May I ask why you declined the speedy of this article? Though I do not wish to be rude, it's my opinion that this is exactly the kind of "article" that gives Wikipedia a bad name and, I must say, it puzzled me slightly that you would decline a speedy yet prod it, allowing it another week for someone to gloat over it when, I believe, it could fulfil any of the first three criteria for speedy. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I don't take your question as being rude at all. While I certainly agree with you that the article does not belong in Wikipedia in its present state, it did not fit the G1 criteria for speedy deletion in my opinion. It was legible and it clearly said what it was. Although it is beside the point, I also did a Google search for the term and came up with over 60,000 hits (none of these hits that I saw were in reliable sources that discussed the term, otherwise I would have added them to the article). Similarly, I did not feel as though it fit the criteria G2 or G3 either. I respect and share your frustration with the large amount of poor content that gets posted to Wikipedia every day, but the role of speedy deletion is not to punish anybody by stopping their "gloat[ing] over it". The role of speedy deletion is to quickly remove content that fits certain narrow and specific criteria. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well thanks for your response. There are few things I like more than an admin willing to explain themselves. I suppose it cannot be particularly easy asessing these things. Perhaps the criteria are a little too narrow (not the first time I've thought so) but there doesn't seem to be much to be done about that. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 14:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RFB

A tough call early on in the process - my respect for your reading of the possible outcome, but I'd have left it another day personally - though I can appreciate why you wouldn't wish to. Best wishes and happy editing!. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take my oppose the wrong way - I have a great deal of respect for the work you do, but I don't feel it would assist you in bureaucratic duties. I think comments like this display a sound and fair understanding of RfA, though, and I'm sure people would welcome similar input from you in the future. All the best :) ~ Riana ⁂ 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, that sudden spate of opposes was really rather harsh.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Iron. Let it be known you still have my full confidence that you'd make an effective bureaucrat. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should've been a bureaucrat because of that run. That run is unfortunately another reason why people don't throw themselves into the meatgrinder. Please run again in a few months, as no one has lately and we need somebody to set a prescedent here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought the responses you got were quite positive, I encourage you to run again in the future. Matt's point at WT:RFA#RfB that username requests are going stale suggests that username work is a big plus for any RfB candidate, if this work appeals to you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will happy to support you with more activity at RFA. In fact, I'm thinking my neutral was misplaced, as I've noticed several posts from you on RFA talk that I thoroughly agree with (such as irritating stock questions with set answers). Majorly talk 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy IronGargoyle's Day!

User:IronGargoyle has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as IronGargoyle's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear IronGargoyle!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

Just so you know, I selected you for this long before your RFB. I hope your next goes much better. I have a long list of future Happy Your Day candidates. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Anyways, according to the UTC mark, it is a new day. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


IronGargoyle, Thank you for the good work you have been doing. You have shown yourself to be a great asset to Wikipedia in many ways. Happy IronGargoyle day! One of your many fans! Thanks Again - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Queso flameado

Hi. A long time ago you deleted Queso flameado; would you please undelete it now so I can do something with it? Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Una Smith/Queso flameado per your request. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DRV closure

Hi. Out of curiosity, are DRVs closed on simple voting, or is it AfD type !voting. Can you point me to the relevant procedure where it is described. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been incredibly busy with the holidays. Xoloz summarizes my thoughts on DRV pretty well in this discussion. DRV is not a vote, but the untangling of the consensus can be trickier than in a normal XfD because of the need to consider policy, content, and process factors in the discussion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Timber Wolf

I see that you removed the Timber Wolf (roller coaster) article from the Amusement park accident categories with the note that it's not a helpful navigation for individual ride articles. I'm not sure that I agree with you. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks Eastshire (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the template that I removed—{{Amusement park accidents}}—also removed the associated categorization—Category:Amusement park accidents—automatically. The template wasn't helpful because the ride articles themselves were not linked to the template, and there were far too many rides transcluding the template to actually add the rides to the template itself. Most of the rides with an accident already have a link to the respective "incidents at..." articles. I'm not strongly opposed to categorization, but if you categorize rides it should be a subcat of Category:Amusement park accidents, like Category:Roller coasters with serious accidents, or something similar. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, somehow I missed that it was a template not just a category. That makes sense me. Thanks! Eastshire (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Night of the Demons 2010?

Hi! I was wondering if you could put a semi-protection on the article for the Night of the Demons remake. There's an unregistered user who is constantly posting unverified in-universe character information on the film. I've tried posting saying that if they did know that information & had seen the movie or knew someone who did (since the film premiered in the UK in October '09) they should post a plot synopsis. So far, that's been ignored & they continue to post the same info over & over again. It's really frustrating! Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

I'm sorry to hear that you are frustrated, but the unregistered editor(s) in question seem to have only made two edits in the past week. This level of activity does not warrant semi-protection of the article. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

I must have been distracted, with other discussions, because I lost track of this discussion. Yes, I was mailed the txt of image, at the time it was deleted. But the URL is to a page that has an embedded video. I don't usually watch embedded video, on the theory that it is often insecure, and annoying, when a page wants to play a video, without asking.

I took that screenshot on my previous computer I went to the trouble of setting it up to play that kind of video. I watched the video, took a bunch of screenshots, picked from among them, and uploaded some of them. From start to finish it took about two hours.

In theory, recapturing an image like the one that was (IMO very improperly speedy deleted) would take a minimum of ten or fifteen minutes. But, given that my new computer isn't set up to play insecure video, I don't know how long it would take.

It seems to me my options are:

  1. Struggle to figure out why my computer won't play insecure video, and fix it. Estimated time? Unknown. Probably at least an hour.
  2. Convince an administrator to copy the image to the commons.
  3. See if I can convince you, or one of the other administrators who participated in the deletion review to restore the image to the wikipedia, so I could upload it to the commons.
  4. Initiate another deletion review.

One of my concerns in the operation of the wikipedia and wikimedia commons are the minority of administrators who feel entitled to act in an unaccountable manner, and use the permission bits that allow them to delete material to speedy delete material, without warning, on their sole authority, -- and then not tell anyone. Of course if the speedy deletion is not on their sole authority, if they are responding to a speedy deletion tag, then the nominator who placed the tag should have left a courtesy heads-up on the uploader's talk page. In the interests of brevity I won't elaborate on the several reasons I have found this to kind of activity on the part of administrators to represent a serious problem to the future of our projects.

But I recognize that the corollary to this kind of stealth deletion would be a stealth upload. I wouldn't try to sneak an image onto the commons that had been deleted from the wikipedia. I'd leave a brief note on the village pump, asking for input on the image.

I am now confident that images that are clips from the two videos shot in Afghanistan, that CBS incorporated into their story, are clearly public domain -- once the CBS logo is blanked out. Blanking out the logo is about 20 seconds work.

Can you think of a fifth option open to me? Of those four number three is the one I would prefer. It would allow me to quickly black out the CBS logo.

Thanks in advance for your advice on this matter. Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I got your note. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Lee Shaver, Jr.

An editor has nominated Michael Lee Shaver, Jr., an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lee Shaver, Jr. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for a 7 day block User:Aberglaube

Feels like I'm addicted Wikipedia. So I probably had never until now created a user account. But please turn off the autoblock and write on my discussion also allow. Thank you ;-) Δεισιδαιμονία 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you are asking me to do here. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You broke Wikipedia rules

I put a hangon notice for the David Finger page. Why? Whats the purpose of a hangon notice if you go ahead and delete it? Explaination please. --Cutsurestart (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that I did not break any Wikipedia rules. I reviewed the article and your justification for the article on the talk page of said article. I found that article clearly and unequivocally met the third general criteria for speedy deletion. The following quote is taken directly from the hangon template you placed on the David Finger page: "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RPP

Since you just create protected it, can you take care of archiving my request, thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pepcid Complete

  • *Sigh*. Well now the new/old version is probably eligible for speedy under "no indication of importance". Taken to AfD, but a waste of time really. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The "no indication of importance" (CSD A7) criteria does not apply to drugs. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bormann Reference Link

I just checked the link to a November 4, 2002 interview right now and it worked for me. It is between Mr. Bormann and a guy named Chris, featuring Bormann talking about his life up to 2002. Why am I the only one here who can link to it successfully and read it? I wouldn't be posting it if it was dead. It is all a page in plain text format. Bonfire34 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a chance the old page could still be cached in your web browser. Otherwise I don't know. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned out my temp files, did my usual deleting of other temp internet files and done a scan then rebooted. The page link still works for me. have you tried to delete part of the address to access the Yahoo Group where the interview is posted? That's how I found it. Bonfire34 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chocolate Rain.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chocolate Rain.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IronGargoyle/Archive_9&oldid=1147940125"