User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 6

The Future of WP:40k
Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

British Royalty dispute
Hi, I'm looking for a bit of objective and level-headed help with the dispute raging at these sections. Would be much appreciated, please! DBD 10:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately don't feel as though I have enough expertise in this area to comment. Sorry. IronGargoyle 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV
What ever happened to "when in doubt, don't delete"? You seem to be standing that on its head with the closure of the television series DRV. You say "there was no consensus that the article was not original research", but "no consensus" has, since Wikipedia began, defaulted to a decision to keep, not to delete. If there's no consensus that an article is original research, we should still delete it? --W.marsh 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I appreciate that you (IronGargoyle) acknowledged that my argument was correct in that an administrator should not rule against consensus. But then you left it up to "administrative discretion" when there is no consensus. But this is contrary to deletion policy, which does not leave it to administrative discretion, but specifically says not to delete if there is no consensus. The policy is written that way for a reason: if an administrator can delete when there is no consensus, then deletions can be performed at the whims of a small minority, since all it would take is someone (or a few?) to argue a policy violation, and an administrator to endorse that opinion and claim that there is no consensus that it doesn't violate policy. DHowell (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The principle arguments for deleting and keeping centered around the question of original research and synthesis. Some said yes, some said no. There was certainly no evidence of bad faith, and so I felt as though there was a hard policy concern where administrative discretion was warranted. The DRV was a re-hash of the AfD (it was original research vs. it wasn't original research). WP:DP states that it shouldn't be deleted unless there is some overriding policy concern. I think there are two places where these overriding policy concerns can be best applied. A: Cases where a clear majority of editors are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring a major issue. B: Ambiguous cases where--barring bad faith closes--a reasonable editor might conclude the article violated a major policy. I think that the discussion fell in the latter category, I assessed the article myself and I concurred that the conclusion of OR was valid to the best of my judgment. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So the DRV was reviewing a decision where the closer listened to his own opinion on the article more than what people in the discussion said, and you concluded it was a good idea to close the DRV based on what you thought about the article? --W.marsh 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My own evaluation of the article was just one factor as I elaborate above. I think the closer did observe the discussion closely and followed a key policy concern. I stand by this. I do appreciate that your concern was with the procedure of the AfD close and not the article itself (I can only assume this since you don't seem to have participated in the AfD). If you would like me to take this to WP:AN for further review, I am willing to raise the issue there. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that, if you are are concerned with procedural norms, the burden of proof in a DRV discussions seems to be erring on the side of the closing admin in cases of obviously good-faith closures when no consensus is achieved and there are not overriding policy concerns. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD on Images of Wikipedians
Was curious to see who would wind up closing that one, seemed to me it'd probably be one of those cases where you'll get people hounding after you, no matter what you do. Just a quick note of thanks for stepping up to the plate. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. As heated XfDs go, it wasn't that bad. :-) IronGargoyle (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was a sound closure. Hopefully it'll be the last attempt for a while... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Any chance you could upload Black Refuge EP also? It was deleted at the same time, for the same reasons, and I also believe it could easily fixed up. LiamUK 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've userfied the other page per your request to User:LiamUK/Black Refuge EP. I think it probably needs a little bit of work before meeting notability requirements for mainspace. Best, IronGargoyle 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help, and your input. LiamUK 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

huh?
I made an article that was deleted on sparky the hedgehog and it says you made it what goin on?if you get this message me back. --Shadow rocks101 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article that you wrote (Sparky the hedgehog) was extremely short and provided no context, which meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. I should also note that articles on fan-created characters are unlikely to meet our notability criteria for fiction. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best, IronGargoyle 14:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ok ok
ok I'll stop calling amy a buttcheek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow rocks101 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/Recreation of Lizz Robbins
You closed the deletion review of Lizz Robbins. The decision was to keep deleted. The page is back, recreated by one of the people active in the deletion review, User:Miranda. My understanding is that this is just plain not okay. I was not a part of this discussion, I just noticed the blue link on the deletion review page. I don't know what the process is from this point and I'm not an admin so I can't check to see if the page is substantially different from its predecessor, but I felt I should let someone know.--CastAStone|(talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since she made a genuine attempt to improve the article, I thought it was in good faith and I userfied the draft back to her userspace. Substantively you are correct though. The draft did not address the concerns that led to the deletion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think she made a great effort and I appreciated that effort, all else considering. It was created by someone who was a newbie, I tried to correct as a newbie and asked for assistance, didn't understand the deletion process. Then User:Miranda was kind enough to take on the job to make the improvement on the article and to me that speaks volumes. I'm learning the process as I create and contribute to Wikipedia. Best regards,Knicksfan4ever (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it was an issue of notability, not how cleaned up the article was. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you compared the articles you can see where the notabilitly issue was addressed see . Thanks Knicksfan4ever (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did compare the articles. The recreated version was just a cleaned-up draft of the one that was deleted. There was no new evidence of notabilty. The link you pasted above only shows that her name is on a list in Wikipedia. That is not evidence of notability and is not verifiable (see WP:SPS). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If notability is shown can it be recreated?Knicksfan4ever (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, wanted to view the last edited version of Lizz Robbins, also wanted to know if I could sandbox it. User:Miranda suggested I contact an administrator. Can you assist with this? Thanks. Knicksfan4ever (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to your userspace, but please do not move it back to mainspace unless there are more independent sources that indicate her notability. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate that. Regards,  Knicksfan 4ever  16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

good well-explained close
on Emily Sander. It's a very useful contribution to the discussion of how to handle these articles. DGG (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, although I wasn't really following the Afd or article, I think that your efforts went above and beyond the call of duty and are much appreciated - thanks IG -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK hook
Your nominated hook on the BAE Herti is on the next update page. I fixed it. It said that the thing was the only one to fly legally in the UK. This is not true according to the reference provided. The reference seems to say that it flew in the UK, was later certificated. So it was probably in some sort of developmental phase before receiving the certificate. It wasn't flying illegally then. Rather than remove the hook, I fixed it. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the reference on that. The Second-to-last paragraph in the first reference seems to say that it was the only one with clearance to fly. If I am misunderstanding something though, I'd like to know. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:TubeMapZ1 TFL.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:TubeMapZ1 TFL.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 91.84.86.19 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

vandalism
no probs, blimey just looked at the history, I was quick lol, think I just happened to look at recent changes at the right time. It's rare for me to type faster than an RC patroller lol:) Has that vandal been blocked yet? Me rk i n s m um  20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, Waggers blocked the vandal after my page was hit a second time. I know what you mean about some of the RC-patrollers being inhumanly fast (and even some actual humans as well). IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry about that, meant to post it on the main board, must have clicked discussion before I clicked edit. Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]]

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, December 2007
Sea serpent 85 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi IronGargoyle, thanks for your kind note on my userpage. I was a bit stressed about things unrelated to Wikipedia, and overreacted and blanked my userpage when I saw the db-spam tag on The Firework-Maker's Daughter. I definitely could have handled that situation better -- I'm not usually so melodramatic (at least I hope I'm not!) Merry Christmas, Bláthnaid 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PUI
In your close of Image:TubeMapZ1 TFL.png at Possibly unfree images/2007 December 6, you said "Image kept per 2 editor fair-use rule." What in the world is that rule? (I'm not questioning the decision - the decision was correct and that image obviously qualifies for fair use - I'm just curious what the rule is.) --B (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is in the second-to-last paragraph under Possibly unfree images...


 * Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.


 * If I misunderstood this, please correct me. It strikes me that this rule was probably intended for those editors who shoot off an invalid fair-use claim in response to a claimed-as-free image being challenged. WP:IFD would have been a more appropriate venue for the ip editor to nominate the image in question. WP:PUI largely deals with possibly unfree images that are being claimed as free. That being said, both venues generate very little traffic, and two (now three) editors in agreement seem to indicate that I made the right choice. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescue
Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure
No real "sour grapes" here, though I disagree with a couple things, as I understand your closure. Would you mind clarifying?

First, I have no problem with it being overturned because I didn't more fully explain the applicability of WP:AADD. I apparently made an inaccurate presumption of those commenting.

That said, last I knew, "policy" is only something that reflects current practice. We don't need to have them "codified" for the "current practice" to exist. So I'm not sure I udnerstand your closure in light of that.

Further - "arguments in this case that Jc37 deleted without consensus (contrary to the deletion guidelines for administrators) are compelling and borne out by my own examination of the UCFD in question" - While I closed as "delete", I didn't delete or undelete anything, that was Doc glasgow, and others. Could you explain that, as well as what guidelines you felt/feel I didn't follow?

Also, while I disagree with your assessement of "consensus", I know I made an active choice in this DRV to not go "play-by-play" through the discussion showing how those commenting in the DRV were glazing over salient points by those commenting in the UCFD discussion. There was a lot more present in the discussion than ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. But I decided that that would sidetrack the discussion even further, considering we had those who didn't even wish to dignify the first discussion as having any value at all.

I'd also be interested in clarification of who this "broader community" is that you're comparing the previous UCFD discussions to. (It "feels" like a gross generalisation, but that's not been my experience of your comments in the past, so clarification would be welcome.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me hit your third point first. The "who actually deleted the template issue". Yes, there was much sniping back and forth about that. It personally seemed like a petty issue (as a side note it was interesting how fast this discussion went from being very civil--even jokey--in the UCFD to very uncivil in the DRV. Perhaps an indicator that we should not be so quick to delete things the community has great affection for without very good reason). I was not happy with Doc's behavior in this, but then there was much sniping back at him with equally questionable civility. I didn't mean to single you out in as accusatory a manner as that. You did close the discussion, so the spirit of the statement applies to you, although I didn't mean to imply there was any bad faith in the closure.


 * Likewise, I saw no reason to question the good faith of any of the support or oppose voters in either the UCFD or the DRV. My impression from this follow-up comment seems so clarify an earlier suspicion (only vaguely formed from the mass of comments in the DRV) that you disregarded most of the UCFD discussion and closed largely on precedent alone, ignoring the discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.


 * I agree that there was more going on in the discussion, but even though ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT don't have policy speaking for or against, they do indicate the weight of consensus, which seemed to be present for keeping in the UCFD (particularly when you examine the course of the discussion), not present (although tending towards overturn) in the DRV. Perhaps my statement in the close was a bit oversold, but I stand by the general principle (I used to waffle a bit too much in the language of my closes, perhaps I am swinging the other way in my old age. ;-)). Relatively high traffic (barring sock puppetry) does indicate a broader community input. Both the UCFD and DRV were relatively high-traffic. Given these various facts, I considered the impact of policy first. Arguments about consensus seemed the strongest since they were based on policy, so I overturned.


 * I used to spend a lot of time closing Templates for Deletion, so I know how certain low-traffic XfDs (such as TfD) can get mired in groupthink. For example, we are obsessed with having only one template to accomplish any given task. For the most part, that is fine, but then there are cases (rescue is not a perfect example, but it comes to mind), where community affection should be taken into account. There are certain times when it is very appropriate to use the "past deletion precedent" but I think this should be limited to cases where there is very little discussion overall (as is the case very often on UCFD), or there is no consensus leaning towards deletion.


 * I understand what you mean when you say things don't need codified, but they certainly hold more weight if they are. Unwritten rules seem as though they should have lower thresholds for being ignored. Hope you are having happy holidays! Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll wholly agree with your comments about civility. (I personally wasn't thrilled with the way I was being attacked - on my talk page, Doc's talk page, and in the DRV.) This was merely a category, after all - a navagational aid. The end of the world was not at stake : )


 * No, I actually went though and regarded the entire discussion. My whole point about WP:AADD was to try to convey where weight was and wasn't given. But, as I said, apparently that was too vague in light of IWANTIT. (Just because the closer may be neutral in reading through the discussion, they shouldn't presume that the commenters will be as well, I suppose. I dunno, I guess I just presume too much "good faith". Maybe I just need to become a bit more jaded like other admins I've encountered : )


 * And speaking of admins (Though not the jaded ones in the previous reference : ) - I am heartened by the fact that the ones (admins and non, alike) endorsing were the CfD/UCfD regulars. People who are used to discussing the ins and outs of category policy and guidelines. And the one exception was a weak overturn (tough call, etc).


 * My comment above about "broader community" was that there have been many such lengthy discussions at UCFD. (Even now, if you were to look over the page today, you should see discussions that are as long if not longer than the trout discussion.) So I'm not sure that "quantity" of discussers has the weight that you seemed to be giving it.


 * I think at this point, I'm going to have to corral some editors, and see if we can "codify", then. I always thought we were supposed to avoid that with categories, to cut down on the bureaucracy (else it's very easy to have guidelines for every category - naming conventions, and so on). But if it's leading to confusion, then so be it, I guess. (Note that there is policy/guidelines listed at Userboxes concerning categories. It's noted at the top of WP:UCFD as well. Were you aware of that in your close?)


 * I'll admit what I hoped for in closure was "relist". If the discussion was as bad as some were saying (I don't necessarily agree), then a relisting should have dealt with those questions. And I still would like to see this renamed, at the very least ("whacking" would seem to be the generally preferred term : ) - At this point, your closure doesn't seem to preclude relisting, do you disagree?


 * And yes I am, thank you. I'll need to go soon for some family gathering. And I hope you and yours are having a very Merry Christmas as well : ) - jc37 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My closure certainly doesn't preclude relisting at all (anyone who thinks a closure can't be relisted or discussed further should be, well, you know...).


 * That being said, I might give it a little while and see what the demand for the category really is (i.e., do any more admins add themselves and compare the general wikipedian-trout category, since that was an interesting--if tangential--point). I didn't really see a theme in the discussion for relisting, so I didn't interject it. I thought there was just much too much polarization for any more helpful discussion to really occur at that moment. I was aware of that little bit of category discussion in the userbox guideline (I didn't interpret it was prohibiting the category in question... a rename would be silly, but then the category is silly :-)). I also see your point about avoiding instruction creep. This does seem to be a frequent concern brought up at DRV though. Can a rigid but uncodified modus operandi be bureaucratic as well?


 * One of your comments raised a bit of a side thought in my mind, and maybe the argument is circular. But since you mention number of discussions at UCFD turning out like that, I wonder if that is just because editors see most user category deletion as a fait accompli given the possible groupthink nature of UCFD closures (most editors not caring about most user categories, and lack of notification are other possible interpretations I have seen raised). A side issue, but interesting food for thought. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rofl : ) - Well I don't think it hurts to ask for clarification, nonetheless : )


 * And If I do relist, I intend to wait (there's another DRV I'll be posting soon. I've waited this long at the request of Xoloz. I had intended to list it on the 23rd (due to my finding this edit summary, and all the implications thereof, humourous), but as this one was still ongoing, I decided to wait.)


 * Not sure what you see as "rigidity". The Collaborative/contributive purposes requirement? The inappropriate use of categories as bottom-of-the-page notices, or as "feel-good" groupings?


 * And I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood my comment (and perhaps when I made it, I misunderstood you...) You seemed to give weight to the quantity of commenters (using the term "low-traffic"), I was attempting to suggest that I wouldn't consider UCFD as "low traffic". Typically you get several people who are interested in each individual nomination, and then several regulars intermittantly comment. It's about as trafficked as CFD, except that there are fewer noms, which means that there are fewer individuals interested in those noms. It's interesting to note that most don't bother to comment in the other discussions. Which means that we're as "trafficked" as Wikipedians are wont to contribute. Honestly, I don't think most even care. There is a broad confusion between the userboxes and the categories, and often as long as they have their userbox, they really don't care about the category. (Though we do run into those who see the categories as "status" symbols to their userboxes, or those who personally identify with the inclusion criteria, and so take any suggestion of deleting a category as a personal affront - not that you may have noted that in this most recent discussion : )


 * I hope that clarified, and didn't further contribute to a communication muddle : )


 * Have a great day : ) - jc37 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "I was not happy with Doc's behavior in this,"
 * At first glance (because I have remarks on jc37's talk page and because jc37 and others will refer to me as just "Doc"), I thought, "What the heck did I do?" Nowhere on jc37's page could I find where it says Doc glasgow, so I had to come here too before I saw who you meant. I just hope nobody thinks that was about me. Doczilla (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. And you know, When I re-read I thought of you, but decided to not re-edit, due to presuming context would be enough. You'd think I would have learned by now about presuming. Again, my apologies. - jc37 14:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, that's nothing to apologize for. It would be presumptuous of me to feel that nobody else should ever be called "Doc" around here, or that very many people would actually even think of me. I inserted my remark only so anybody scanning this stuff might also scan across my remark, thereby letting them know it's not me. Thanks for the apology, but don't worry about it. Doczilla (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

cristian fleming
I strongly advise you to take a look at this. Omotorwayo (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox begin
Thank you for adding the "deprecated" text to the 'Taxbox begin' template. I wasn't sure quite how to do that. &mdash;Noah 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I had to look up the template myself. I've closed a ton of TfDs and I don't think I've ever actually depreciated one before. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD close
Hey, thanks. Three days without internet in the farmland will clear your mind a bit. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sound Factory Band
The article about this band has a relevance as they are one of the best bands in Italy of that genre and they will collaborate also live with Mike Stern. There is written that he played 4 songs in that project. Go to their myspace page, he really plays in the tunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredsoul2 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sardinia National Team
You Can't do this...I contested the deletion! So you can't remove so quickly the page...!! However it was also right! Instead to take a deletion mania find sources to improve the pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanza13 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD Tagging
Thanks for the note of confidence; it's appreciated. I'm a relatively new administrator (about six weeks) and I still feel that my judgement is not so absolutely perfect that it could not be overseen by another admin (although I'm getting more and more fearless as time goes by). I do delete lots of pages without getting a second opinion -- ones that I'm 100% sure are nonsense, spam, attack pages, etc. But I've been wrong a couple of times and have been trying to be a little bit more wary, on the basis of trying not to bite the newbies. I hope I don't seem to be wasting the time of other admins; I'm just trying to be careful. Incidentally, the only time I tag pages myself without deleting them is when I've looked at every single page in the speedy category, deleted everything I feel sure about, and left ones about which I'm not so sure (for instance, I know so little about today's music that I have no idea which are reputable indy labels, so I leave deletions based on that criterion to others) -- then I start tagging things for others to judge. So it doesn't happen often that I tag things without deleting them, but I'm encouraged that someone thinks I'm doing it right!! I can always learn from more experienced admins, so if you have any hints, I'm all ears. Thanks for taking an interest. Accounting4Taste: talk 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being cautious. I just wasn't sure if you were aware. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaltura
Per a suggestion in the deletion review for Kaltura, I have created a new page in draft mode and would like for you to review it in order to hopefully reopen the article "Kaltura" for creation and editing. Please review the draft I created User:Lishkee/Kaltura and let me know. Thank you.Lishkee (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I undeleted it. Nice work. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, January 2008
Sea serpent 85 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
You're welcome, that vandal vandalized my user talk page as well. He have been blocked. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays  20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Speech
Look at this page, the ISO code is "art". -Babelious 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) Somebody appears to have an unhealthy obsession with James Chapman. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV of Zaydra Pena
Please revert your revision of closing that DRV. I still have a few more comments. And, your closing speech was a bit odd. Editorofthewiki (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted my closure on your own. I have reversed this edit. Please don't continue to disrupt Wikipedia by reverting administrative closures or you will be blocked from editing. If you have further concerns with my closure they should be raised on my talk page first, and WP:ANI second since this has been repeatedly raised on WP:DRV. The discussion was closed and I will not reverse it. If you could clarify, however, what you didn't understand about my closure, I will attempt to clarify. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You said:


 * Neither this DRV nor the prior AfDs preclude the creation of an article about the band. Nor does it preclude the creation of redirects to the band from these titles.

So, I will create an article on the band and I ask you to recreate Zaydra Pena so I can merge and redirect the article to the band. Deal? Please refer to me on my talk page. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I created Zayda Y Los Culpables today. Though really stubby and just nominated for speedy, it will get better with your addition. By the way, what was Aquino's band? Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar for the WP:BRC
Thanks. It was actually Riana's idea. Dfrg.msc started putting stuff together and the_undertow did the original images and expanded the text. I just put it on a page and made it pretty. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraLove (talk • contribs)

Your "assessment" of the DRV
For one thing, your statement that my deletion was "in blatant opposition to established policy" is completely and utterly false and I have laid that out in at least several places. Second, the previous DRV was withdrawn by nominator. Third, of course my talk page has been stormed by "free speech" defenders frustrated with their cruft being deleted and process wonkers who love to swim in bureaucracy. It was expected and I have been only refuting their arguments ever since. My talk page is in no way a measure of (in)appropriateness of the deletion. Fourth, please revert your actions (i.e. redelete the page) or else they constitute a wheel war. Regards, Миша 13 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC) PS: Thanks for not even dropping me a courtesy note telling you have decided to discard my judgment.


 * I brought it up for discussion with you first. My (and others') discussion with you clearly indicated that you were disregarding policy (not to mention consensus in previous discussions). I have been uninvolved in the discussion regarding this particular userbox and saw that other administrators advocated the unilateral re-opening of discussion at MfD. A wheel war is repeated reversal of administrative action, as you will see at WP:WHEEL. I have only made one revert. I don't intend to touch this issue again with a ten foot pole. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

XCritic at DRV
Just to say that I entirely agree with your closing remarks. The wider discussion has demonstrated that this article should be deleted and I agree that some of the comments were teetering on the edge of incivility. As you say, "if in doubt, do not delete", and when I closed the AfD I thought there was doubt. --Bduke (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
I won't be around to closed TfD for a couple of days. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lothlorien.jpg
Thanks for removing the speedy delete tag and tweaking words. I still wonder how the bot evaluated the fairuse rationale and judged it as "invalid". Best.  Ga lad ree-el  04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I think (without going back to look at the diff) it was just a case of there not being a link to the target article in the image description. That seems to be what the bot looks for. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD close
Thanks for closing them all. I expect you saw the reason for it, so thanks anyway. -- Solumeiras •  Talk  14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sanity prevails and a well-justified close. Kudos. Orderinchaos 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't much to the justification, just a withdrawn nomination and a bunch of keeps. Unless you are referring to one of my recent page-long DRV closures ;-) and the comment is misplaced? In either case... thanks! IronGargoyle (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough
I guess the close is fair enough. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's service!
Wow. Is there same way of seeing search terms people are using, or was it pure coincidence that you made slime eel right after I tried to look that up? Friday (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're watching Dirty Jobs too I guess? Haha... IronGargoyle (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image query
Hello IronGargoygle. You might remember me from a discussion back in November '07 regarding Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg, a photo of Nancy Reagan kissing President Reagan's casket in the Capitol rotunda. During the undeletion discussion, the issue of the image being iconic was brought up; I would like to inquire as to what circumstances an image can be uploaded under fair use because of its 'iconic' status (such as this image). The Nancy Reagan image certainly is iconic, and I believe it was deleted because, as User:Jreferee correctly pointed out, I had a lack of understanding Wikipedia's image policies. I'm much more in-tune now and feel it is time to revisit this issue, as you stated on the deletion review page. I was wondering if you could shed some light on how to do this. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the only way that you are likely to have a successful outcome at DRV regarding the image of Nancy Reagan kissing the casket is if you find references that specifically discuss that image (as opposed to merely using that image to illustrate Ronald Reagan's funeral or Nancy Reagan). Does this answer your question? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)