User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 15

Archives

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

Master of Science in Management

This is in response to your following message : "Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Master of Science in Management seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)" - I have not edited any page till now. This does not seem to be genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.215.167 (talk)

It was this edit. I have no idea if you made the edit or not. It wasn't your current IP address. In many cases, multiple people use the same IP address. You may just be seeing a message for someone else who used the same IP address at some point in the past. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

about Sluсk

in the card write original name in the national language, or more options, you can see articles of other Belarusian cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.204.250 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad closure (DRV)

Hi IronGargoyle, I see you made [this edit to "fix" an incomplete closure of mine. Something appears to have gone badly wrong. I intended to close the Indigo debate, but after your "fix", it looks like I closed both Indigo and SnarXiv. This is the first time I've ever closed a DRV, so I suspect I just did something wrong (and I don't know how to fix it). Your assistance would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you probably added too many {{drt}} templates by accident and then added the {{drb}} template at the very bottom of the page as opposed to the bottom of the discussion. No worries. I think it's fixed now. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm using User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js, which appears to have malfunctioned. Glad it got straightened out. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

LMN

Trying to move Lifetime Movie Network to LMN (TV channel) but having trouble doing so since LMN (TV channel) already exists as a page. Thought moving the redirect would let me do it but it still doesn't, if you don't mind fixing or let me know how to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapfancorrec (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest taking your request over to Wikipedia:Requested moves and following the guidelines there. Hope this helps. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MMR Vaccine Controversy

Thank you for blocking the vandalism of the MMR Vaccine Controversy page.

Damotclese (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

AlphaCom deletion

Deletion review for AlphaCom

An editor has asked for a deletion review of AlphaCom. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 121.99.164.96 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I found another article referencing AlphaCom. Would referencing the information contained in http://aplawrence.com/Security/ssh.html help to raise the quality of the AlphaCom article and hopefully keep it restored? The author of that article has been mentioned in TechRepublic with regards to the author's knowledge in the area of terminals: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ap-lawrence-delivers-sco-unix-linux-information151and-lots-of-it/#.

Please see my comments on the DRV listing. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Morpho DRV close

Hi IronGargoyle -

I'd ask you to revisit the way you closed the Blue Morpho DRV. As it stands, the closing language contradicts what has actually occurred. The recreation of a substantively improved draft hasn't happened; User:BDD restored the AfD'ed version of the page during the duration of the DRV for the purposes of discussion. I reinserted (frankly mediocre) content from the history of the article, and added in a list of six reliable sources that back up the statements in the text I restored (it's worth remembering that although in-line citations are best practice, we don't require them.) I think that the points raised by User:Rich_Farmbrough in the DRV were poignant; with a well-established community member claiming that sources exist, it's a bit of a violation of AGF to not ask them to provide those sources (and, although Bearian did, now that we have ping functionality, you can ensure someone will actualy see the question.)

But, in any case, the current closing message on the DRV is not in accordance with what has actually occurred, and it is something probably worth remedying. The current version of the article was created by BDD for the duration of the DRV for the purposes of the discussion, but (a) still exists, and (b) would almost certainly pass any new AfD. So rather than allowing recreation to be performed at editorial discretion, recreation has been performed as a purely administrative action by BDD and the current article would pass an AfD with flying colors -- which is pretty much an undelete DRV close. (I guess the alternative here would be deleting the article BDD recreated, but since it would pass an AfD, that doesn't seem to be a very sensible course of action.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The decision of the DRV wasn't to keep deleted it was to endorse the deletion. Based on the consensus at DRV, I couldn't have closed that part in any other way. Over the course of the DRV you admirably improved the article. This is exactly the outcome I suggested could occur. Whether you did it during the DRV or after the DRV is immaterial. The improvement happened after the deletion so problem solved and CSD G4 avoided. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't improve the article. The text in the article is literally the same text (with the one exception of an inline cite that Rich put in) that was originally AfD'ed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I get that the text was the same, but the references weren't there until you added them. I would say that's an improvement. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen articles G4'ed that had undergone way more extensive changes than the addition of half a dozen external links - which leads to a potentially nonsensical situation in that an article is eligible for G4 while easily passing an AfD. Consensus should be found by weighing the balance of policy compliant arguments. The points Rich and I raised avoided this rather odd situation where an article could be G4'ed but would be kept at AfD. Saying that the references I threw in as external links to the copy of the article that had been temporarily restored for the duration of the discussion are a sufficient improvement to the article to save it from a G4 is remarkably close to a backdoor supervote in the initial AfD - it makes significantly more sense to close the discussion as undelete or as relist at AfD for further discussion.

For that matter, the situation that occurred isn't the one that you suggested, either. You suggested someone could create an improved article; no one did. BDD temporarily restored the article explicitly for the duration of the discussion. Given that, it could be argued that the article is literally a G6. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you're less concerned here with the outcome (an article which is improved with references, in mainspace, immune from CSD G4, and likely to survive an AfD as you suggest), and instead more concerned with "winning the battle" of the DRV. You clearly seem to be upset because you feel your comments went ignored in the AfD (and possibly the DRV). I get that. I certainly didn't ignore your (or Rich's) comments in the DRV, and I didn't close the AfD. I determined what was, in my best judgement, the DRV consensus and closed the DRV accordingly. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we're all (hopefully) working for the same goals here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I care very little about whether or not the argument I initially advance is the one that ends up being held in the end - frankly, I don't terribly care about Blue Morpho, which is why I haven't rewritten the article. (Though I'd also point out that I've seen way more significant changes G4'ed since it's up to admin discretion, and this one literally even qualifies for a G6 as an article temporarily restored for a DRV that closed as 'uphold original delete.' If I were to interpret CSD strictly myself, I'd go delete the article myself.)

If you take a quick look through my contribs (or for that matter, my user page,) you'll note that most of my work focuses on areas that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias in, whether from our skewed demographic base, a lack of online material about a subject, etc. Processes that have the possibility of worsening our existing biases concern me, and this is one of them. As a completely theoretical example: for some time, I've been intending to write an article about The Woman with the Basket, Catherine Webb's history of roughly the first era of the Co-operative Women's Guild. Using online only freely available sources, it would be quite hard to prove that Webb's book is notable, and it could quite easily end up being deleted if the original author of the article was not pinged about it, or was not responsive when they were pinged. I have roughly 500 pages of secondary source material spread across probably 20 major sources dealing with the significance of The Woman with the Basket; there's pretty much no doubt it'd pass both the WP:GNG and the relevant book standard. If such an article came up for AfD and someone commented "there are sources in these six locations," then became too busy to participate in the rest of the AfD without anyone doing independent research or pinging the original author, if the process proceeded as it has in this instance, we'd likely lose a notable article about a historically important subject that would be unlikely to be recreated unless the original author had decided to be a tenacious pain in the ass, even if they had named half a dozen books that dealt with the subject ("I can't find those books on google.")

So, in the end: I don't really give two shits about whether I win or lose an argument about the outcome of this particular DRV - I care about whether or not our AFD and DRV processes are systemically skewed towards deleting content that is not of interest to our primary user base (and this particular DRV/AFD combo suggests, strongly, that a problem exists here.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this matters, but DGG was the one who restored the article, not I. You know, I even made a hatnote... --BDD (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, sorry about that BDD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are two purposes to DelRev: The primary one is to see that the right course is taken with articles, the second, to guide closers. The right course here as essentially everyone seems to agree was that there be an improved article, and there is. The second is to indicate whether or not the person closing the AfD was correct. I think there is agreement that at the time of the AfD close, the closer was correct. The Del Rev close ought to indicate both of these, and it cannot always be summarized as one word, "Endorse": or "Overturn" (this is a fairly common situation, when an improved article is presented at Del Rev.). The actual text of the close was " Deletion endorsed. Recreation of substantively improved drafts are at editorial discretion. " There is another solution I've seen others close at DelRev. "Moot, acceptable version available". I think that either one of these describes the situation. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. All I needed was a polite note saying "would you mind adding 'moot, acceptable version available' at the end of your statement? I'm worried about overzealous admins applying CSD G4." I still think that my statement captured the situation, and I think it's pretty far-fetched that an admin would apply CSD G4 (or especially G6!), but I'd be happy to add that in. Instead I get multi-paragraph rants on my talk page continue the battleground focus from the DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for amending the statement, it works well enough for me, especially since after further thought I don't see a way to address the problem I outlined in my previous post without at least some degree of policy change. That said, I don't think it's terribly useful to describe my good faith question and explanation of the problem as I see it - which was certainly verbose, but not particularly hostile - as a multi-paragraph rant. Having been misunderstood in earlier posts at the DRV (e.g., by RoySmith,) it seemed like a good idea to head towards detailed precision rather than the briefest comment possible. If you're active in other admin areas (I don't recognize your name, so I don't know offhand if you are,) then a two paragraph question about your DRV closure is pretty minor as far as rants go... Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An Drochaid Eadarainn

Hi IronGargoyle,

Thanks for your help, I think I did make a mistake. I notice that the An Drochaid page has this notice at the top ... The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "An Drochaid Eadarainn / The Bridge Between Us" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images (April 2013)

I would like to add more information, or whatever is required, to have this notice removed, but I'm not sure how to best proceed. Thanks for any insight you may have.

Shay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.193.0 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that while you're trying to add references (which is good), it looks like the references you're adding are from unreliable sources (one of them seems to be from a blog; see WP:Reliable sources). In addition, when you do add in sources it is helpful for those sources to be cited in-line with the page (see Help:Citing sources). This makes it more apparent that you are not simply adding links to pages you are in some ways associated with or are trying to promote. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

216.54.48.45

216.54.48.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I extended the block to 6 months since they had recently come off a 3 month block and placed a {{schoolblock}} notice on their page. If you disagree you can revert the block to your 31 hour one as you were the first sysop there. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 18:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm happy to have the block extended. I must have missed the past block in the log. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

for article pratishtha sharma

hi iron ok i have deleted the external link as same deleted by u but i have a confusion that i have seen in many article in external links official website is used. so if u dont mind may i know what is the reason of deleting the official website link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.72.210 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Upon closer examination I think this external link was fine. I got confused because the subject described in the article seemed to have a different name than the subject of the website, but it seems to be an issue with a title or perhaps Indian naming conventions I'm unfamiliar with. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you somuch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.72.210 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

new zealand

I was precisely deleting some vandalism. It was not me! We happened to make corrections simultaneously. Thanks for taking care! Gustave55555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustave55555 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

About deletation of my page

Dear friend can you tell me the reason of deleting my page New way to filter light please. I really want to know the purpose behind your action Ravindra Zemse (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It was not deleted—only the redirect in mainspace was deleted. The page was moved to User:Ravindra Zemse/New way to filter light because it's not a suitable encyclopedia article at this time. It seems more like a personal essay. IronGargoyle (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then how it must be to suitable for encyclopedia article? So I can make respective changes in it Ravindra Zemse (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I only deleted the redirect before, I was not involved in moving the page to your userspace or making any decisions in this regard. That being said, I looked over the article and I'm afraid to say that it looks like original research and probably would not be salvageable for its own Wikipedia article. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But I took this information from various news channels and websites. I also have given the references from which I took this information. Then how could it be a original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravindra Zemse (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong. WP:Help desk or WP:Teahouse would be a better location to go to. I have zero interest in this topic and I only did routine maintenance in deleting a redirect. I did not delete the original article. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Looks like you dedicate hours of your days to fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, a level of dedication definitely deserving of another one of these barnstars. :) Thank you for beating me to reverts on Huggle. Mz7 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :) IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Mary's College of Maryland

Hi,

You may not be aware, but you just removed one of my edits about 1 minute after I added it.

I have added nearly 100 references/citations to this article so far--

So I just want let you know, a citation was coming, but it's hard to keep track of things if your edits disappear before you are done with them.

Thanks2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please instead add an inline "citation needed" flag and I will take care of it in a timely manner. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's simple enough to go into the history of the article and find the removed material to re-add with citation. WP:LISTPEOPLE is quite clear on the requirements for an individual to be included in a list on Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nope" is rude language. Please don't be rude. Also the ability to add an inline "citation needed" flag is a courtesy extended to editors who are working hard and are providing references. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing rude about saying nope. I'm just being clear that I will remove unreferenced material from lists of people per WP:BLP and WP:LISTPEOPLE. As I said, it's very easy to go into the history of the article and retrieve the names once you have a reference to add. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed unsourced edit that can be sourced.

Hi. I am a new user the put in true, unsourced conntent to the Alberto Del Rio page. I would like some help sourcing it. Its about the memorial battle royal at Wrestlemania. Thanks. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know a lot about where to find information on WWE-type stuff, sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OpEdNews

Hi Irongargoyle

My userspace or Michael Q. Schmidt's would work equally well, I think; he's welcome to edit in my userspace and from past experience I'm sure I'd be welcome to edit in his.

All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Restored to User:S Marshall/OpEdNews. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks muchly.  :)—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

İzmir

Dear Friend Add us as a company because they have external links izmir we serve. Our goal is not any advertising. Adding to inform've done purpose. I would appreciate if you can help. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolgacatak (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's rules on what types of external links to avoid. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You may be interested in this discussion. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it on my watchlist a few minutes ago, thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Accidentaly blanked.

I am actually cancelling the redirect because I am creating the actual page for the upcoming conference. Chambr (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I see you've created an article there now. Sounds good. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you seem to be a little more experienced so I will ask you a question. I asked another editor, but they have yet to respond. Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014 is the first article I have created. Before I added the content, it was a Redirect page. My question is will that count as a created page in my statistics? I know from experience that creating a redirect page doesn't count and even after creating this article my created pages number is still zero. I was just wondering who gets the credit of creating an article that was originally a redirect? Thanks for the help. Chambr (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. My guess is that you wouldn't get any credit in any automatic system Wikipedia has for tracking such things. Just count it for yourself. As those sorts of technical "official" counts don't matter to anyone anyway, you might as well count your articles however you want to if that motivates you to create more. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and happy editing! Chambr (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wolf of Wall Street

What?

I merely added that it is CONSIDERED one of the greatest films of all time, not that it WAS one of the greatest films of all time. Stating that something is "considered" great is merely a statement of a group's opinion and so doesn't clash with any rule on neutrality as it's not stating an opinion on that thing's worth, good or bad, but merely states how something is perceived. Please explain why my contribution has been removed without hiding behind the irrelevant "neutrality" explanation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.250.19 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There still needs to be a reference for such a broad statement as "considered one of the greatest films of all time". Both claims are extraordinary, although certainly of different degrees. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree. It was nominated for seven academy awards and grossed over a million dollars. Is that not evidence enough it being considered one of the greatest films of all time? Do I have to interview every human being on earth just to put a simple fact into a Wikipedia article? You're insane! --82.40.250.19 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)--82.40.250.19 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC) The Intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.250.19 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to interview anybody. Just find some reliable sources that describe it as being considered one of the greatest films of all time. I should add that I don't appreciate the personal attacks. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll find a source. I consider you removing my contribution a personal attack, so while you're being presumptuous and rude enough to continue removing the content that people work hard on maybe you should get used to "personal attacks". --82.40.250.19 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)The Intelligence

I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks, because your comments don't indicate that you have a clear understanding of what a personal attack is. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. You imply that I'm stupid in the same sentence as you quoting the no personal attacks rule. Sir, I think you really need to consider your actions on this website, I do not think that you're helping Wikipedia's best interests, but are instead using it to give yourself a sense of authority and power which you then abuse by picking on the little guy who's just trying to improve an article. Sure, maybe I haven't added thirty articles to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean my contributions aren't valid, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to imply that I'm stupid or cannot read and it doesn't make you a better person than me. Please have a think about how your words can hurt others. --82.40.250.19 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)The Intelligence

Tiferes Bais Yaakov

I feel that my edits to the page "Tiferes Bais Yaakov were constructive, as Tiferes Bais Yaakov really is a camp and not a high school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.70.47 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not judging by their website. Even if there are some camp functions there, I sincerely doubt that their languages include Pig Latin and Mandarin Chinese. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your right.

sorry... i just got carried away. thanks for getting me on track about the "stay cool" thing. promise you nothing like that will ever happen again from me. Ever From, Donotlook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotlook (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor Chris Beer

You may not be familiar with University Challenge, or at least im hoping this is the reason you don't find it noteworthy. As a institution which in its current form has been running for 20 years, the achievement to even be on one of the teams is noteworthy. Never mind if you are smart enough to be an integral member of a team who came runners up. Chris Beer was mentioned numerous times on social networking sites during the shows broadcast due to him 'smashing it' and also due to his quirky last name. As a resident of Retford I'm proud to say I'm from the say town as Chris Beer, and it is also fair to assume he is the most intelligent resident of the historic market town. So I leave you with this, IronGargoyle, if you can for a second imagine the stress of having to appear on national television against some of the most intelligent people in Britain and not only hold your own but also 'smash it'. Yet you don't deem it noteworthy, than all i can say is poor Chris Beer.

I hope you can see that this is worthy of wikipedia and you'll undo your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.106.7 (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not seeing it, sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:OldManWillow1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:OldManWillow1.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. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I appreciate you moderating wiki, but I don't understand why my stuff was deleted?

Ronniecpr3 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See The 7th article criteria for speedy deletion (CSD A7). You described a minor school website that didn't assert importance of that website. The rest of the page you posted was simply a copy-paste of information about the school (which already has an article itself). IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sea Serpent (Morey's Piers)

Can you please explain to me how there is "significant coverage" (per Wikipedia's notability guideline) of this article/topic?--Dom497 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The book and newspaper article? Something doesn't have to be the sole subject of a work for it to be significant coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is a park/model article that it can be merged to, can I just move the info and change the article into a redirect by myself without having to go through a process like PROD? If so, I'm sorry with PROD'ing all those articles. Also, would I just delete all the info on the article and replace it with the redirect template/code?--Dom497 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be better to leave a notice up for a bit and go through the requested merge process so discussion can happen on the talk page—but basically yes. You can merge them and then discussion can occur later if someone disagrees (basically the prod process, but you don't need the fancy tools to rescue an article with new references). I noticed a few of them that I can probably find books for (books.google.com is another place to check besides just Google and Yahoo), but I don't have a whole lot of time for article writing and research at the moment. I wish Google News archive function hadn't been gutted. That was a great source for articles on coasters.

Another thing I'm not sure about is if they should be merged to articles on the model or articles on the park. There are more park articles already available, but these often would get bloated with the merged info. I think the model articles (like Vekoma Boomerang) are ultimately a better target. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, some info get get put into the park article and some of the other stuff into the model article. Also, Google still says their archiving system still works (you just have to change the dates) and I always thought there was something wrong on my side...but I know it doesn't work at all!!! It's such a shame...I got lots of ref's from the archives (but there's still wayback...I just gotta find the url's which isn't fun!). Also, I don't have access to any library's so book ref's are out of the question unless Google gives me something. Thanks for you help!--Dom497 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Alaskan Beer

Trying to figure out why you decided to remove 60% of the missing breweries for the List_of_breweries_in_Alaska page.

History only says "remove unlinked entries referenced only to linkspam" however this is not linkspam, these are the actual references to validate the existence of the breweries listed.

As opposed to outright deletion, let's work together to get the information in a format that you prefer.

Removal of facts from a wiki page is not the right approach.

Ak hepcat (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LISTCOMPANY. The sources for entries on the list must be independent and reliable. Links to the breweries themselves are not independent. Furthermore, they violate Wikipedia's policy on the types of external links to avoid. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Trout Lake Sasquatch Hunter

Despite Luke Dearden's contributions to the Sasquatch hunt in the Trout Lake region, IronGargoyle does not find it "constructive" to include Dearden's efforts on the Trout Lake Wikipedia. If necessary, I can cite primary research with the Trout Lake article addition. Iron Gargoyle sounds like one of many ignorant citizens who denies the existence of Bigfoot - despite a plethora of "constructive" evidence. Have you looked at a map of Northern Canada, lately? I find that this information, although possibly located under the incorrect subheading, is highly relevant. Luke Dearden is a citizen of Trout Lake who paved the path to recent widespread Bigfoot research at a Trout Lake local level. Whether IronGargoyle believes in Sasquatch or not is irrelevant to how "constructive" a post is. Trout Lake culture has grown due to Dearden's efforts -- and it would be an act of prejudice to omit certain parts of Trout Lake culture just because the beliefs represented are not currently held by the vast majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.84.121 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Key word there is "primary research". Additions like this require secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). IronGargoyle (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chadwick

I just wanted to let you know I undid your revert of my removal of the content about the drama teacher. Although it does pass WP:V, it isn't within school article guidelines as we do not discuss achievements of individual students or faculty. And someone else sent the editor to AIV, quite rightfully. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine to remove the material, but it's certainly not vandalism. Admittedly I slipped up on one of the reverts. If someone wants to block on the personal attack path, whatever, but it's not vandalism at all. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't, but everything else he did was. Feel free to chime in at AIV, tho. I've seen enough to not bother myself. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Central Europ J Mathematics

Dear IronGargoyle, I've modified the wikipedia page for the Central European Journal of Mathematics as a former member of its Board before having resigned. In order to see what was the Board before the massive resignation one can lookup http://www.springer.com/mathematics/journal/11533?detailsPage=editorialBoard As you can notice, this page contains the last Editor-in-Chief listed on wikipedia. The new CEJM website cited in wikipedia http://degruyteropen.com/serial/cejm/ does not correspond anymore to the previous information.

So please include the following modification: As of March 2014, the Editor-in-Chief resigned together with the quasi-totality of the Board in protest against the transformation of the journal, recently taken over by De Gruyter, into a "golden open access" journal financed by author charging fee. About non-profit publishing and "green open access", one may consult for instance http://msp.org/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtibar (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I see how you can infer the editorial board changed from those references, but I don't see how the references can support the reason for that change. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi, This is regarding a page that I'm trying to create for a tabla player from India Pandit Keshab Kanti Chowdhury...I see a message to contact you as it has been deleted due to the lack of supporting references...here are some paper clippings... please let me know if this servers the purpose for me to create this page http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=3 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=4 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=6 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=7 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=9 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=10 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=11 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=12 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=13 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=14 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=15 http://www.keshabtabla.com/media?page=17 ICN Digital (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The handful of English sources there seem promising. I can't comment too much on the non-English sources, but they could be good too. You may want to review Wikipedia:Citing sources to format them properly. It would also be helpful to have more complete source information on some of these references than simply the clippings themselves (e.g., dates, newspaper names, authors, etc.), although the link to the clippings is a good start. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

List of breweries in Australia - Thank you!

I hit the "Thank" button, then thought: "Well, given his effort and diligence, that's rather inadequate, isn't it."
Hence: "Thank you for your persistence and excellent work!" Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW: If you ever get the time, perhaps providing some words-of-wisdom at User talk:Mrkieranallen might "solve" the original problem? (And save everyone time / effort / energy?) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that if the issue comes up again. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Brewing in North Carolina

I've been concentrating on trying to improve the beer and beer-related articles that fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. I'm just getting into the swing of checking on the breweries lists and noticed your deletion of the list of breweries for being non-notable. Some of those are pretty well-known. Can you give me a clue how you decided to delete the list instead of some of the lesser breweries? Thanks for the help! Prof. Mc (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Preferably they should each have their own article before they are included, but at the very least each entry needs to be referenced with independent and reliable sources. WP:LISTCOMPANY is the relevant guideline. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that preferably each brewery should have their own article. However, I did include an independent and reliable source (NC Brewers Guild Brewery Map) when adding the list of breweries. I'm new to adding a large amount of information to an article like this, but would that source not be acceptable? Or would each brewery need to be cited separately? I feel like a list of breweries for NC would be a helpful addition to Wikipedia as many other states have them as well. Please help advise as to the best way to approach adding this list. Thank you.Dymogeek (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense--each already having an entry. This is to ensure that they have some notability? Prof. Mc (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think notability is an issue. The map might be verifiable, but I think that just having a list of non-notable entries in this case would fall afoul of the policy that states Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a number of issues with the "Lists of Breweries" pages in this regard. From Leads that simply say "This is a list of breweries in **" (contra the WP:LEADSENTENCE guide) as well as lists that are all redlinks, ie List_of_breweries_in_Arkansas in both cases. In the next few days I plan to rewrite all the leads that are nothing but "This is a list of breweries" to be something more substantial, along the lines of what I did for the List_of_breweries_in_Florida. Thoughts? Prof. Mc (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that solution. It looks like it adheres well to the WP:LEADSENTENCE guide and would help to provide context to someone who is not familiar with the list's contents. In the case of the North Carolina brewery list, would it be appropriate to add that list to Brewing in North Carolina, which already exists, or would it be better to create a new article solely for a list of breweries? Also, what would be a good guide line for categorizing a brewery as "notable?" Would a separate article talking about the brewery be enough or would there need to be some additional criteria? I think that there are definitely some breweries in NC that are worthy of an article and I would like to work on creating those. Dymogeek (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Ouch! You hit those vandals quicker than me. Good job! A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :D --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sagrada Familia Tickets External Link

How come creating an external link for the official tickets selling platform for the Sagrada Familia is against ELNO, point 5? Point 5 states that "web pages", which are not the same as websites, and have "objectionable amounts of advertising" but there is no advertising at all. Yes, it primarily exists to sell products or services, but as stated before, is not a web page at all, is the official platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.182.6 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's saying that commercial websites can be linked to, but the specific pages which are focused on selling things cannot be linked to. The ticket page is specifically directed at selling tickets. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems lame, Sagrada Familia has some problems because they have long queues of people buying tickets at the door and they are investing a lot in having people know that they can and should buy the tickets online in advance to prevent the long queues and also to prevent the social problems with the neighbors. Is not like they need advertising, is the most visited monument in Spain, is a matter of letting the people know about the online sales, that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorg87 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are other (and more appropriate) ways that the Sagrada Familia can market their ticket sales online besides using Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)