User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:IronGargoyle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 |
Thank you for the nomination. I hope you're enjoying your Wikibreak. Natalie 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Souljazz etc
IronGargoyle, I'd like to thank you for your diligence in considering the Souljazz and Michael Brewin AfDs. It was a rather exhausting process, and I'm sure that it was more difficult than most to find the consensus. I believe you did well, and appreciate your taking the time necessary to reach the proper conclusion. (Please note, I've made a request for a deletion of the discussion at WP:AN. If you have the time and are so inclined, please take a look.) -Pete 03:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw your "endorsement" of the blanking. That seems like the perfect solution. In my request, I had intended that it be deleted from the database, but I understand that's a pretty extreme step to take. But I was concerned that someone might revert the blanking, as it is an unusual step in itself. Your visible approval of the blanking meets that concern perfectly, and I thank you for it. -Pete 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
The red link nuisance at OZ Indig art and others have embedded vndlsm in the art - and I hadnt weeded it out. It needs chaecking but I am about to go off - will try cleanup later SatuSuro 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Kosmo7895
Please refrain from editiing my userpage please. I prefer writing about the Pokémon games on my own. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmo7895 (talk • contribs)
- Sorry about that, I was just cleaning up what appeared to be vandalism. Best, IronGargoyle 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't realize you were trying to help. Than I Thank You kind friend. If you want, do you want start over? Be friends?
Kosmo7895 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism on my talk page
thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, its much appreciated, ip was mad that i reverted their vandalism apparently--Jac16888 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted article??
is there a way you can allow me to temporarily view the article you deleted? --Ambersman6307 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Ambersman, but what you posted is inappropriate content for any area of Wikipedia (see our criteria for speedy deletion and what wikipedia is not). I can't think of any wiki where a letter to your girlfriend or whatever would be appropriate content. My answer is unfortunately no. Best, IronGargoyle 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
User categories DRV
Just a comment. It seems rather obvious to me that someone whose userpage uses one of the deleted categories should not be closing the DRV in favor of overturning that deletion. In fact, I don't understand your reasoning at all anyway. You say this comment: "Radical usurptions of !vote counts should only occur when points by one side are completely amiss"—which, to me, seems to translate to "always vote count unless there is some reason like trolling to dismiss others," which is completely wrongheaded. We never vote count under any circumstances—says it perfectly, but then you, in any case, seem to go against the direct numbers at the religion nomination anyway. And the quality of many of the pro-overturn comments were particularly poor ("How can you argue that there is a clear consensus to delete." and "the entire UCFD process is out of control and doesn't reflect community concensus" don't offer any rationale for overturning). Dmcdevit·t 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dmcdevit, I appreciate your concerns regarding my close of this DRV. Let me first address your comments regarding my potential conflict of interest in the matter. While I have certainly had user categories on my page that have been deleted, these were not the categories which I closed the DRV to undelete. Frankly, it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic. Yes, if I'd have closed a "users who support the ACLU" discussion, that might have been improper--but I didn't. I must also contradict your assertion that I closed either DRV against consensus. I read and re-read the comments multiple times. In both cases, I felt the weight of the arguments (and the !vote count) was for undeltetion. Yes, there are some times when policy is strong enough to contravene firm consensus, but these cases are usually given criteria for speedy deletion (i.e. recent changes to BLP policy and policy on non-free content). Closes against 2:1 and 3:1 majorities were not warranted here (these are radical usurpations, not just a few votes one way or the other), and the DRV discussions agreed with this point. Although I agree with your general argument about discussing and weighing the quality of the arguments, voting is not always bad. Going against consensus because you don't like the outcome is bad. Best, IronGargoyle 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say "it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic," and yes I agree with you; that was my point. I didn't participate in either the DRV or the UCFD, but would not have dreamed of closing it. What we should have had was someone who neither recently deleted such categories, nor recently had such categories deleted from his userpage, close it. In any case, you don't seem to understand that votes aren't consensus; you can point to some nonsense essay that says otherwise, but if you are the administrator closing a discussion, that seems rather inappropriate. And I'm a bit taken aback that you cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when you (should) know that that essay is for people who make simple votes based on personal likes and dislikes of the subject, and not the merit of the article within an encyclopedia: the original closer gave a detailed rationale, and I don't understand why you are so dismissive. And your view of CSD is wrong, WT:CSD says "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus." I think it is quite normal for administrators to have discretion in these matters, when it is clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Let me ask you a question though. You say you felt the weight of the arguments was in favor of the undeletion; I'd like to know what specific arguments, other than the vote count, that you are talking about, because I'm not seeing it. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- You did participate in the DRV even if you didn't !vote in it, but that's beside the point. I think you misunderstand some of the points that I make. I don't care if some random category on my userpage gets deleted (heck, I didn't even know they were gone). You seriously think this biases me in some way? You think that an admin who has had an unrelated category be deleted (or an admin who has never had a user category) can't be trusted to close a discussion following consensus? Who is left then to close discussions? The tooth fairy? If you want my justification for the close, I pointed to tariqabjotu's arguments in both related DRVs (why I linked back to the earlier DRV in the close of the second). I don't feel like I could say it any better than he did. Was that the only comment I decided upon? Of course not, but it was where I felt the strength and weight of the argument lay. Were there !votes with little substance on the keep/overturn side? Obviously. But there were also plenty of remarks like "Poisonous Trash" on the delete side of the UCFD and DRV as well. Yes, there is policy cited in the discussion (the ubiquitous WP:MYSPACE), but this policy leaves quite a bit of interpretational room. I admit I made a mistake in linking my last comment to the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My point there was simply that the closing admin didn't like the consensus outcome, so the closing admin decided to toss it out the window. My point about CSD was that there is clear, unambiguous policy (i.e. WP:NFCC), and then there is policy that is much more open to interpretation (i.e. WP:MYSPACE). Admins shouldn't go against strong consensus in these grey areas. You seem to think that it's better for admin to do what he/she thinks is best for the encyclopedia--consensus be damned. I guess that's just where we will have to agree to disagree. Best, IronGargoyle 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- i think "strong consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration; it was closer to no clear consensus at all. Now, yes, I realize you cited Tariqabjotu remark about the vote count, but is what were the specific arguments about the categories' merit besides the vote count? You stated that the "strength and weight of the argument lay" with that side, haven't given me any of those arguments. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The arguments in the DRV or the UCFD? I am assuming you are asking about the UCFD, correct? Because I just gave you one from the DRV. IronGargoyle 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Either one, if you like. What did you find compelling other than the vote count? Because the vote count, and a comment arguing for it, is all you have actually cited. What was it that they said that was compelling? Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, as far as the UCFD is concerned, I thought both arguments had merit. Yes, the categories have the (slight) potential for divisivity. They do let bias be acknowledged. Black Falcon pointed out that this bias can be dealt with via userboxes (another user pointed out that not all editors have or want userboxes, but that these users may still want to declare bias). They also allow for networking and collaboration on an encyclopedic topic (hence why I thought WP:MYSPACE was a weak argument, although there is a valid counter-argument for using "interested in XXXX"). Because I was closing the DRV, I focused on the DRV discussion as well as the UCFD discussion, which served as a background frame of reference. I asked myself several questions: Did strong policy apply (i.e. a rule that should trump consensus)? My answer: No. Was there SPA involvement? I checked and I didn't notice any. What was the closing statement like? The closing admin was well-spoken, but the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion rather than some element of strong policy. Given that XfDs with no consensus generally default to keep without a strong basis in policy, my own personal judgment of 2:1 and 3:1 majorities (which I personally view to be consensus) and the analysis of the arguments in the DRV (closing against consensus without strong policy backing) led me to overturn. I hope this answers your questions and addresses your concerns. I'm not sure what else I can tell you though. Best, IronGargoyle 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus is about arguments, not numbers. That's why I want to know why you keep repeating that claim when it is not clear to me that there were strong arguments for reversing two administrators' independent decisions. I read and reread your response, and the only argument I can find for the categories is "They do let bias be acknowledged." Which makes no sense because bias can be acknowledged on userpages; categories do not help that at all, and deleting them does not hinder that at all. Categories are for grouping users based on point of view. Your concept of "strong policy" seems backwards; consensus is based on arguments like WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and if there were no good arguments brought to refute the claim, whether it "trumps consensus" doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm very surprised that WP:NOT, which essentially defines the project as an encyclopedia, is not a "strong" policy to you.
To be honest, it looks to me like "the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion" applies equally to you. Even on the basis of your votecounting, if no consensus is to default to the status quo, and the DRV most certainly did not have a 3:1 or 2:1 margin, but closer to 1:1, it seems to me that this is clearly a lack of consensus that defaults to the original administrator's decision. But instead, you overturned teh decision, despite the seeming lack of consensus. Are you taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement your personal opinion, criticizing the original administrators for both taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement their personal opinions? It doesn't seem reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Replace my use of the word strong strong with unambiguous. I think WP:NOT is one of the most important policies that we have, but it is also easy to abuse because of its potential ambiguities. As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression. I feel that I considered the DRV and UCFD and made my decision in as unbiased a manner as I could (again, I fail to see any COIs that I have with these user categories). Please take a step back and consider your own bias in this manner. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. If you feel that this is an important issue that you must pursue further, or you feel that I am abusing my administrative tools in some manner, you are of course free to pursue some avenue in the dispute resolution chain. Best, IronGargoyle 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- What isn't making sense to me is that your logic is not internally consistent. You apply a different standard to the administrators that you overturned than you do to yourself. Please take a minute to consider this: you just told me that " As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression" whereas before you told me that such no consensus results default to the status quo. Apparently that only applies to the administrators you overturned. What appears to have happened to me is that two administrators each (independently) had to close difficult discussions with no clear numerical winner, so they weighed the arguments and decided in favor of deletion. Then at the DRV, you similarly find it within the discretionary range, and close it as overturn, with the reason that they should not have used their discretion. This is what strikes me as illogical. If the only reason in the end, still, is "They do let bias be acknowledged," that seems to have been adequately addressed. Dmcdevit·t 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the arguments for overturning are strong in the 1:1 "grey area" of the DRV (as I thought they were), then an overturn is warranted. If the arguments were not strong in the DRV, I would not have overturned it (defaulting as you say to keep deleted). If the margin was closer in the UFCD, then I think Jossi would have been justified in closing the UCFD as delete, but the margin was not close. Best, IronGargoyle 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- What isn't making sense to me is that your logic is not internally consistent. You apply a different standard to the administrators that you overturned than you do to yourself. Please take a minute to consider this: you just told me that " As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression" whereas before you told me that such no consensus results default to the status quo. Apparently that only applies to the administrators you overturned. What appears to have happened to me is that two administrators each (independently) had to close difficult discussions with no clear numerical winner, so they weighed the arguments and decided in favor of deletion. Then at the DRV, you similarly find it within the discretionary range, and close it as overturn, with the reason that they should not have used their discretion. This is what strikes me as illogical. If the only reason in the end, still, is "They do let bias be acknowledged," that seems to have been adequately addressed. Dmcdevit·t 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Replace my use of the word strong strong with unambiguous. I think WP:NOT is one of the most important policies that we have, but it is also easy to abuse because of its potential ambiguities. As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression. I feel that I considered the DRV and UCFD and made my decision in as unbiased a manner as I could (again, I fail to see any COIs that I have with these user categories). Please take a step back and consider your own bias in this manner. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. If you feel that this is an important issue that you must pursue further, or you feel that I am abusing my administrative tools in some manner, you are of course free to pursue some avenue in the dispute resolution chain. Best, IronGargoyle 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus is about arguments, not numbers. That's why I want to know why you keep repeating that claim when it is not clear to me that there were strong arguments for reversing two administrators' independent decisions. I read and reread your response, and the only argument I can find for the categories is "They do let bias be acknowledged." Which makes no sense because bias can be acknowledged on userpages; categories do not help that at all, and deleting them does not hinder that at all. Categories are for grouping users based on point of view. Your concept of "strong policy" seems backwards; consensus is based on arguments like WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and if there were no good arguments brought to refute the claim, whether it "trumps consensus" doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm very surprised that WP:NOT, which essentially defines the project as an encyclopedia, is not a "strong" policy to you.
- Ok, as far as the UCFD is concerned, I thought both arguments had merit. Yes, the categories have the (slight) potential for divisivity. They do let bias be acknowledged. Black Falcon pointed out that this bias can be dealt with via userboxes (another user pointed out that not all editors have or want userboxes, but that these users may still want to declare bias). They also allow for networking and collaboration on an encyclopedic topic (hence why I thought WP:MYSPACE was a weak argument, although there is a valid counter-argument for using "interested in XXXX"). Because I was closing the DRV, I focused on the DRV discussion as well as the UCFD discussion, which served as a background frame of reference. I asked myself several questions: Did strong policy apply (i.e. a rule that should trump consensus)? My answer: No. Was there SPA involvement? I checked and I didn't notice any. What was the closing statement like? The closing admin was well-spoken, but the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion rather than some element of strong policy. Given that XfDs with no consensus generally default to keep without a strong basis in policy, my own personal judgment of 2:1 and 3:1 majorities (which I personally view to be consensus) and the analysis of the arguments in the DRV (closing against consensus without strong policy backing) led me to overturn. I hope this answers your questions and addresses your concerns. I'm not sure what else I can tell you though. Best, IronGargoyle 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Either one, if you like. What did you find compelling other than the vote count? Because the vote count, and a comment arguing for it, is all you have actually cited. What was it that they said that was compelling? Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The arguments in the DRV or the UCFD? I am assuming you are asking about the UCFD, correct? Because I just gave you one from the DRV. IronGargoyle 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- i think "strong consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration; it was closer to no clear consensus at all. Now, yes, I realize you cited Tariqabjotu remark about the vote count, but is what were the specific arguments about the categories' merit besides the vote count? You stated that the "strength and weight of the argument lay" with that side, haven't given me any of those arguments. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You did participate in the DRV even if you didn't !vote in it, but that's beside the point. I think you misunderstand some of the points that I make. I don't care if some random category on my userpage gets deleted (heck, I didn't even know they were gone). You seriously think this biases me in some way? You think that an admin who has had an unrelated category be deleted (or an admin who has never had a user category) can't be trusted to close a discussion following consensus? Who is left then to close discussions? The tooth fairy? If you want my justification for the close, I pointed to tariqabjotu's arguments in both related DRVs (why I linked back to the earlier DRV in the close of the second). I don't feel like I could say it any better than he did. Was that the only comment I decided upon? Of course not, but it was where I felt the strength and weight of the argument lay. Were there !votes with little substance on the keep/overturn side? Obviously. But there were also plenty of remarks like "Poisonous Trash" on the delete side of the UCFD and DRV as well. Yes, there is policy cited in the discussion (the ubiquitous WP:MYSPACE), but this policy leaves quite a bit of interpretational room. I admit I made a mistake in linking my last comment to the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My point there was simply that the closing admin didn't like the consensus outcome, so the closing admin decided to toss it out the window. My point about CSD was that there is clear, unambiguous policy (i.e. WP:NFCC), and then there is policy that is much more open to interpretation (i.e. WP:MYSPACE). Admins shouldn't go against strong consensus in these grey areas. You seem to think that it's better for admin to do what he/she thinks is best for the encyclopedia--consensus be damned. I guess that's just where we will have to agree to disagree. Best, IronGargoyle 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say "it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic," and yes I agree with you; that was my point. I didn't participate in either the DRV or the UCFD, but would not have dreamed of closing it. What we should have had was someone who neither recently deleted such categories, nor recently had such categories deleted from his userpage, close it. In any case, you don't seem to understand that votes aren't consensus; you can point to some nonsense essay that says otherwise, but if you are the administrator closing a discussion, that seems rather inappropriate. And I'm a bit taken aback that you cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when you (should) know that that essay is for people who make simple votes based on personal likes and dislikes of the subject, and not the merit of the article within an encyclopedia: the original closer gave a detailed rationale, and I don't understand why you are so dismissive. And your view of CSD is wrong, WT:CSD says "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus." I think it is quite normal for administrators to have discretion in these matters, when it is clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Let me ask you a question though. You say you felt the weight of the arguments was in favor of the undeletion; I'd like to know what specific arguments, other than the vote count, that you are talking about, because I'm not seeing it. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note (to irongargoyle): good call. I would've accepted it being deleted if that was the consensus (heck, I don't use user categories at all), but since there wasn't any actual consensus to delete, overturning was really the only option. Bladestorm 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add my appreciation for the way you closed. Common sense has been restored. The UCFD debate had good arguments on both sides, but in the DRV the overturn side — even if only just ahead vote-wise — was dealing with most of the endorsement's points and they weren't answering a lot of ours. Next time it comes up for discussion, maybe these guys will make it a Rename (and Merge) proposal instead of a straight Delete? From the looks of the UCFD, they might have secured something closer to a rough consensus in that way. And if in future some of them have the good grace to persevere whilst abiding by consensus, however it comes down, they would avoid putting people's backs up, which is perhaps more of a plus than they realise. Cheers, Gnostrat 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Template delete
I wish you would have given just a bit of notification before delete, because all the articles in the review category are now lost because the template doesn't exist any longer to act as a track to the category. It would have allowed us to put the category in directly so that we could find the articles which were tagged prior. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ack! Sorry about that. Can't you just use Special:Whatlinkshere on the redirect page? If not, I'd be willing to undelete to let you go through and re-add the category with a bot or AWB or something. I saw there was a lot of transclusions, that's why I redirected, I thought it would a lot less disruptive. Best, IronGargoyle 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which ones were in the category when it went, but since there was the 14 day window before they would appear, I know there were some that were waiting in limbo (so to speak). Eh, don't worry about it. We're trying to figure out how we are going to keep track of all the articles after the fact anyway, so whatever was lost will just be found again. Thanks though. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
- Personally, I would not have closed that as a delete. That said, a redirect is perfect to shut up both sides. Will (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead
MessedRocker (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
your blocking of my edit
my edit on Jose Mesa may have been considered "derogatory" by some, but it is true. He has in fact been convicted of rape. I am not being biased against him, just duly noting the facts. It is not intended as a personal attack merely as a reporting of events. Please allow me to repost my edit. Thanks, wasfffreak.
- In response to your query regarding the Jose Mesa article, the information can be added back in with a citation to a reliable source. See Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources and see the biographies of living people policy for a further explanation on why this is important. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best, IronGargoyle 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dated episode notability
Your closure was completely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Dated episode notability. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Recreating article R Weldon Smith or R. Weldon Smith
Thankyou for considering recreating the article R. Weldon Smith. It has been deleted now for the third time, but could be created to redirect to where the article is being tempered at User:StationNT5Bmedia/R_Weldon_Smith. I'm open to discussion, but hesitate to recreate anything without it. It need only be a simple redirect command for now, but a consensus should exist first. StationNT5Bmedia 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfB
 |
Thank you, IronGargoyle, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Thanks
Thanks for your very fair evaluation here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's so spooky...
...whenever that happens. ;) The thing was open for more than a week, and we both get idea to close it at almost exactly the same time! In my case, the impulse was relatively random, too; I hadn't clicked on MfD all week, and I've never played Runescape in my life! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Jennifer Ann Crecente - AfD result: Keep
I left this message on User:Jinian's talk page but was not sure if you would see it. I'm reposting on your talk page just in case:
It appears that the AfD has now been properly closed and I appreciate both of your efforts to make this change. I am surprised User:IronGargoyle that you perceived a "merge" result was indicated. There were six "merges" and five "keeps." This would indicate either a "keep" or a "no consensus" but certainly not a "merge." It is my understanding that status quo is the outcome unless the discussion indicates a strong preponderance for change.
In any case I appreciate the assistance in having this article restored. Drew30319 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note of thanks for my clean-up of the close. :-) To clarify my comment, I thought the close could have gone either way, but since the close was somewhat unusual I thought I would bring up that fact. I personally observe a smaller no consensus margin when one of the stated options of a discussion is merge; because with a merge, no information is actually lost from history. Best, IronGargoyle 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
taginfo removal
Shouldn't the tags that were moved to the bottom of the page be moved back up to the top? I haven't followed all the discussion on this item, so I'm not sure if this is covered, but I noticed you have been deleting the tags. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't think moving all the templates around was quite in the purview of the close, but feel free to move them back up if you'd like to. That seemed to be the general direction in which the discussion was headed. Best, IronGargoyle 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: TFD closures
Thanks for the heads-up. My XFD training (like for most users) began with AFD, so I haven't learned all the differences between AFD and other XFD. Thus, AFD and MFD are closed with the archive template above the discussion header; RFD and (I now learn) TFD are closed with the archive template below the header.
I also was not aware that a seven-day waiting period was standard for TFDs. For AFD it's five days. In case of a true landslide keep I would close it early just the same, but in the Camp Lazlo navbox case I probably would have waited. Again, thank you. Shalom Hello 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Gtkterm
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Gtkterm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Powerspace
Hi, I think my mockup of this article at User:Chubbles1212/Powerspace is ready to be transferred to mainspace. I'm guessing that since you closed the decision at DRV (this one) you are the person I should ask to do this? Let me know if there are any problems, thanks. Chubbles 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to check with me before you move it. I trust your judgment on the article and it seems to be a fine job of improving. Move it to mainspace whenever you'd like. Best, IronGargoyle 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sea Turtle edit?
Your last edit (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sea_turtle&diff=146915247&oldid=146791806 ) didn't change anything at Sea turtle. I'm just curious as to what you had in mind. Thx! - Bevo 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Steven Colbert mentioned Sea Turtles in reference to Wikipedia on The Colbert Report. I was just semi-protecting the article to preempt any massive surge of Colbert-related vandalism. Best, IronGargoyle 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is semi-protection supposed to be in effect right now for Sea turtle ? I don't see any protection at that article at this time. - Bevo 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, it's protected. IronGargoyle 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. I thought I'd see something on the article's page that indicated the semi-protection status (or in the markup). - Bevo 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, it's protected. IronGargoyle 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is semi-protection supposed to be in effect right now for Sea turtle ? I don't see any protection at that article at this time. - Bevo 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi,
In all honesty, it would have been more appropriate for you to have given the Barnstar to yourself, because the description fits you better than it does me! ;) Eternally grateful, Xoloz 15:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should leave it to others...
As user that had most of your uploads deleted, do you believe you're the best person to make such though judgments based on our non-free content policy? --Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and bringing your concerns to me. I'd like to point out that the upload dates on the images you cite were around a year ago, and well before I became an administrator. I have a much better understanding of the policy than I did a year ago (and the policy is significantly different than it was a year ago). My thoughts of image-related issues have changed since I became an admin, and I feel like I am able to close image-related issues in an unbiased manner. Regards, IronGargoyle 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good. It was not really about "bias", but more about "understanding of the policy". In a related note, it was a wise edit to remove your userbox saying "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive". --Abu badali (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
George Carlin mugshot
I believe you have just set a horrible precedent with the closing of this DRV. What you've just done is say that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria can be ignored when a specific image has a number of high-powered supporters (and by that, I mean, well-respected admins). I don't recognize your username, so I know you don't participate at IFD or at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia:Fair use review, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, so I presume you don't have a good grasp of our non-free content policies. I say this with all due respect and not to imply that you shouldn't be ruling on image-related discussions. However, this was honestly an open-and-shut case. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #7. Magazine covers are routinely deleted daily because they only accompany text like, "Joe Bloggs appeared on the cover of TIME magazine." Valid uses of magazine covers are like Demi Moore, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png in photo editing, or Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. So replace "magazine cover" in the text of this example of unacceptable use with "mugshot" and you can see how this image cannot be allowed. As a closing admin, I am allowed to ignore so-called "consensus" when it is clearly wrong and it clearly goes against policy. I make no suggestions as to what you should do here, but think about it. Perhaps you should spend some time lurking over at the pages I listed above and see how non-content media policy is supposed to be applied. howcheng {chat} 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel my close set a horrible precedent, and I appreciate you bringing your concerns to me. But just because I don't actively participate in policy discussions does not mean that I don't read them (in fact, I read them rather obsessively). I closed this discussion in good faith and I stand by my interpretation of policy and the consensus in the discussion. You clearly have an interpretation of Wikipedia's image policy that many other respected users (it doesn't matter if they are admins are not) do not share. If you feel I am misusing my administrative tools, feel free to raise this issue at WP:AN or elsewhere. Regards, IronGargoyle 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but my interpretation of the policy is responsible for writing it, so you can see how it galls me to be told that my interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect. This DRV discussion would have gone a whole lot differently if you have people who are knowledgeable about non-free image policy participating (like User:Durin, User:Jkelly, User:Ed g2s, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise), but I don't engage in canvassing so they missed it. As Wikipedia:Consensus states, consensus shouldn't be about who shows up for the discussion. I'll open a discussion at AN. howcheng {chat} 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)