User talk:IronGargoyle

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

IronGargoyle is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Crab boil

I understand that a "Crab boil" is a gathering, if more definition is needed then provided in "Seafood boil" it should get its own article. It does however need a different article than "crab boil" the seasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.188.35 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better idea to create a new article "Crab boil (seasoning)" then? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would agree the very first line "Crab boil is a spice mixture that is used to flavor the water in which crabs or other shellfish are boiled" shouldn't be there? 207.255.188.35 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it belongs there until someone makes a new article. After that, a disambiguation hatnote can be added to the current article. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section "Louisiana and New Orleans" covers this. I would like to point out however that this entire article should just be a section under "Seafood Boil". 207.255.188.35 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the "Seafood Boil" article and it is clearer and more informative than the "Crab Boil" article. The "Crab Boil" article provides no new information on the Louisiana event or the events in the Carolinas. It should either be deleted or changed to cover the seasoning mixtures. 207.255.188.35 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest discussing this possibility on the talk page of the article and not here. It would be good to get wider input than just the two of us. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stop reverting my edits

Per my explanation, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I am going to delete it again and I expect you to respect this deletion. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-referenced. If you continue to edit-war you will be blocked. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WolvesandWhales you have made no effort to discuss your changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, discuss my changes. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Read what was deleted. Having a citation does not make something well sourced. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WolvesandWhales Have you provided a reason that this material is contentious, other than your own assertion?Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to the definition of contentious: "causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial." WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a citation does not mean something is well referenced. There are additional actions being taken as to the articles, as well. Why are you so interested in aiding and abetting defamation? Don't threaten me. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us have threatened you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overtraining

You made a mistake on my edit. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraGates (talk • contribs)

@NoraGates: I did not make a mistake. The additions you are making are all uncited and also do not adhere to a proper encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a health advice guide. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District

Your vandalism and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Federal_District&diff=1134113109&oldid=1134110461

removal of cn-template
changing establish to founded
changing included to includes
engaging in EW
using admin rights to protect the page in vandalised state that violates the copyright rules of the WMF

are bad for the reputation of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Please revert what you did. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs) [reply]

There is currently a discussion at Incidents regarding edit war on Southern Federal District. The thread is COPYVIO and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District by IronGargoyle. Thank you. Please note that this discussion was started by the anonymous user, but they did not inform everyone involved so I am. –DMartin 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!

Hey, IronGargoyle. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe Le Pew

In March 2021, it was reported that Pepe Le Pew will not appear in future projects. But his cameo in Animaniacs conflicted those articles. And the fact he was edited out of the Annecy version of a previous short that's still available makes it even more confusing. Does it mean is it still official that Warner Bros. had banned and retired the character from ever being used again or was the whole controversy short-lived and it didn't mean anything? But I have seen Pepe Le Pew being left out of recent new merchandise. 72.189.139.68 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Maybe best not to speculate. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combermere

You reverted my edit because I “didn’t provide a source”. If you click the link, you would see it goes to somebody else with the same name.

Thanks 2607:FEA8:5460:AF00:118E:9B34:F004:DD94 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry about that. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your forbearance at the 'Glasses' article

Hello, Iron Gargoyle. I must promptly acknowledge you for your forbearance at the "Glasses' page. You don't know how rare it is for an established user to give an unregistered one the benefit of the doubt, and even characterize their efforts as "good faith" - no matter if they clearly are, and include serial proper edits (each with proper edit summaries).

Some contributors have older eyes, or hands, or something in their computer or smartphone gets a hiccup, and errors happen. I appreciate your allowing me to correct mine. 18:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC) 2601:196:180:8D80:7C01:8DCD:A10E:B71 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I do think the new wording works better now that it is fixed. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You sure don't live up to your screen name. ;) 2601:196:180:8D80:7C01:8DCD:A10E:B71 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you remove the current Nick logo from the international pages (including one of the closed Nickelodeons)? 2601:8C:980:2F00:D186:8D02:7C89:FBD (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:8C:980:2F00:D186:8D02:7C89:FBD: The file is currently nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Normally logos like this are copyrighted and cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons (they would need to be uploaded locally with a fair use rationale). After some thought though, I think I might reverse myself and argue the image should be kept as being below the threshold of originality for copyright. The logo is fairly simple. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator

Hello IronGargoyle. Hope you're doing well. I just noticed this user, who seems to be impersonating you [1]. I assume it's the same user that you reverted and blocked [2]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the sock is blocked already. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change information

I want to change information in Natalia Rotenberg she say me for i edit your info Rolandnayladab (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolandnayladab: Changes you make need to backed up with reliable sources which should be added to the article. You also shouldn't edit any page where you have a conflict of interest. It sounds like you may have a conflict of interest in this case. Instead, you should suggest changes on the article talk page. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only 31 hours?

I may be talking emotionally rather than logically here, but that IP could've gotten at least a week considering the blatant transphobia presented in their edits. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: I always block IPs for a short term if it is a first-time block. IPs can be shared or reassigned to other customers, so long-term initial IP blocks risk collateral damage. Obviously if the editor comes back and continues to disrupt in the same topic area from the same IP, it would warrant a substantially increased block duration because it indicates the IP represents a particular user in a long-term sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins Revert

Hi, My most recent edit to the Miami Dolphins page is, in fact, a fact. Between 1970 and 1999, the Dolphins had the highest winning percentage of any team in the NFL, making them the defacto most dominant team during that time period. 192.55.54.52 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other definitions of dominance than winning percentage. It's obviously your POV that the Dolphins are the most dominant, but we need to follow what the reliable sources say and attribute the claims to those sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Men

He keeps getting rid important in the Mr. Men list 92.251.192.16 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unclear what you are trying to say here. I do notice from your edit history that you have been making a number of edits to the Mr. Men page that have been largely unhelpful by removing templates and adding unreferenced information. If there are contributions you would like to make, I would advise you to suggest those on the talk page of the article. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Iron Gargoyle

You have been editing on this Wikipedia page a lot recently and I am here to ask you a question. Could you please tell me why you keep getting rid of the stuff that I add to this page. It's getting very annoying and I want you to leave the important stuff that I add alone please. Also there is nothing wrong with Mr. Rush's Ludo, Mr. Men Flip-It, Mr. Men Shopping Spree and Mr. Men: The Great British Tour 92.251.193.79 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with your most recent edits on that page. Previously you removed ISBNs, pictures, and referenced material without explanation. That is why I reverted your earlier edits. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:Robinsons-Equitable PCI Bank Tower, Ortigas Center - panoramio.jpg

The page File:Robinsons-Equitable PCI Bank Tower, Ortigas Center - panoramio.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image was an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links were updated.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Explicit § File:Brazil National Football Team (no stars).svg

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Explicit § File:Brazil National Football Team (no stars).svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm not challenging your close of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazil National Football Team (no stars).svg; however, as I pointed out in that DR, Wikipedia has non-free files of the same badge that are now directly affected by the close. Since past discussions about the non-free files were quite heated, it would be great to avoid that drama this time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure what you would like me to weigh in on. I also tried to find the heated discussions, but I couldn't. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my original post being unclear. The badge has changed a number of times over the years (and as a result deleted and reuploaded under multiple names) and there have been a number of MCR, FFD, NFCC talk page, WikiProject talk page and user talk page discussions about its non-free use not only related to the Brazil team badge but also other national team badges general, their usage in various individual team articles and whether their uses were OK per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png was specifically uploaded for only non-free use in the women's team article, whereas File:Brazilian Football Confederation logo.svg is limited to non-free use in the men's team and confederation articles. Your close now means there's no longer any need for the local non-free file women's team file. If your close also applies, in principle, to the men's team file even though it wasn't specifically part of the Commons DR, then there's no need for a non-free version of it as well. Since the women's team file already exists on Commons, the non-free file can simply be replaced and left to be deleted per WP:F5 or separately marked for deletion per WP:F8. The men's team file, however, doesn't already exist on Commons. Assuming that it would be OK to do, it could be converted to PD and then tagged for a move to Commons. The only real difference between the two files seems to be five stars added for the men's World Cup championships. Would your close also be applicable to the men's team file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Храм св. Јована Владимира у Бару .JPG

Hi! I was wondering if you could shed some light on the license status of File:Храм св. Јована Владимира у Бару .JPG – per WP:NOMOREGFDL, solely licensing an image under the GFDL is no longer acceptable. House Blaster^talk 15:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Given the original upload date on Commons, this was licensed as GFDL no later than 2019 (it was created in 2015 and uploaded several years later by the original uploader). That meets the cut-off date of 2021 for GFDL acceptability on a Wikimedia site but not that for relicensing. I have updated the image description to reflect that fact. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! House Blaster^talk 21:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organ composers without wiki pages

Hi IronGargoyle, I've noticed that you removed many of the composers I added — specifically, I believe, ones without English language wiki pages. Many of my professional colleagues and I feel that there is not enough information available to English speaking classical musicians about fine composers from non-European or American countries. Is it absolutely necessary that any composer listed here have an English wiki page? And if not, what do you consider a reliable source (since you deleted some that have, for instance, a Spanish wiki page)? The list will have far less value if names continue to be deleted, and I may choose to take my work elsewhere. Thanks Ioanna624 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioanna624: Other wiki pages are not reliable sources (see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source). WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the entries in lists of people be notable (see WP:GNG) and that this notability is supported by multiple reliable, independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but that's not consistent with the nature of this list, which is simply a compilation of links to English language wiki pages about people. Composers for the pipe organ are not likely to be terribly famous, AND they are more likely to be better known in Europe. I can understand wanting RS but insisting that English language wiki pages exist (rather than foreign language wiki) is unfortunate. Ioanna624 (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just saw your name pop up on my watchlist, and it made me smile. Glad to see you're still around : )

I hope you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 08:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP from Commons to WP EN

Hey IronGargoyle, thanks for your help at Maret Building. There are tons of other pictures of architecture in Morocco, zealously deleted on Commons becuase of no FoP. For example, there is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patio_with_minaret_view_-_mosque_Assuna,_Casablanca,_Morocco.jpg which was used at Assunna Mosque. What's the quickest way to get these images back in WP EN articles? إيان (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no quick way that I know of. I try to keep an eye on Commons deletion requests and move them over when I can. I wish other Commons admins would do the same. I am busy in real life, however, and I'm not always able to monitor deletion requests as closely as I'd like. Sending me links with past deleted files or deletion requests is helpful though. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MugamCenter panorama 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MugamCenter panorama 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Legal problems with photo of EU Court of Justice

Hi IronGargoyle, thank you for your edits on File:EU Court of Justice overview.jpg. I had understood that this file had been deleted due to copyright problems under Luxemburg law. But apparently its still on Commons. This is just to let you know that it's OK with me if it is deleted. A pity, as I think it's a rather nice photo, but I bow to the force of the law.;) Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine under US law, which is why I uploaded it to English Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerelly Thanks for saving photo

This. I think, that law about author rights in many countries should be (slightly) revised. Copyright problems are strongly abused by demokracy enemies. Noknowledged people are more easily manipulated and abused, namely by ruSSian propaganda - among others. Photos for education issues should be lead by [binary wikimedia - author rights law]. --Kusurija (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gautama Buddha statue at Kyaikto, Myanmar.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gautama Buddha statue at Kyaikto, Myanmar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hello, colleague. Can you please tell me who I can contact about creating a bot for the Talysh Wikipedia to correct spelling? With respect. Smpad (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive edit from 2014

Dear IronGargoyle, I ask to take more care when you remove people from lists Diff list of oboists. If they have been added there is a good chance they are relevant. That list has been kind of raped from you and now that I noticed, several years later, It will take quite some time to fix it.

In particular I highlight a parsonal case, that i know. You removed Diego Dini Ciacci, among many others, from the list of Oboist. In 2014 he was already very famous (maybe actually declining in pure performance). However, Diego Dini Ciacci is still one of the most famous oboists in Italy, he teaches in the Conservatorio di Milano where he is full professor, he gives master classes where they fly from all over the world and has been the youngest Oboist to be primo oboe at Teatro alla Scala of Milano at 18-19. He has published 8 Albums and recently has been in the jury for selection of Genevra oboist. https://www.consmi.it/it/didattica/docenti/5346/dini-ciacci-diego

Do not take it personally naturally, great work. But in this case I would have gone to the talk page and checked some references. The fact that wikipedia misses a page about someone is maybe:

1) that someone does not want to pay for fake edits
2) that someone likes to be reserved (Diego's case)

Gabriele Dini Ciacci (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriele Dini Ciacci: I'm going to assume that English is not your first language, because you use very inflammatory language in your question when you say I "raped" the list. I suggest being more careful with your word choice. That being said, the entry for Diego Dini Ciacci does not belong on the list. Entries need sources which are independent. Biographies from orchestras that this musician is part of and faculty bios do not count (see WP:LISTPEOPLE). I would also suggest reviewing the conflict of interest policy, as it appears you may have a close connection with this person. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoyle It is correct, English is not my native language (looks like you are trying to be offensive, but no offense taken, it's a fact). I point out my wording to "not take it personally" even if it looks like you did. This is unfortunate, as the tone of my comment was very pacific and well written. However, let's start again.

This is not personal, but the series of edits to the article are worrysome. I used the locution "kind of raped" exactly because you know, it looks like your edits were very distruptive. When I visited the aricle I could only notice that you removed most oboist a passionate oboe person would know and consider the most talented. Oboists that published CD and play in front of large crowds in first class theaters. If an oboist that plays on invitation for China's president or that teaches in the most important univeristy of Italy does not go in the list, well the list is biased. Hence, for sure I got upset by such an edit, because it is not a "cleanup", but a removal without research reverting someone else careful job. Adding people to a list is painful, removing them is fast. That is why your series of edit looks not great, and with internet pages disappearing, it's hard to find back people to add back.

I'm (distantly) related to the person, this does not make the person less famous or less encyclopedic.

I have concerns in the interest you have in elevating that article. If you have more experience than me, instead of reverting the edit, you would have added references that are appropriate for the standard if I have failed to. You could have improved the article given the opportunity. You could have added a note to the talk page for the need of specific references for some specific elements of the list. I got very upset by your edit because it looks like it is biased and it looks like that letting you note that does not reduce the bias, but on the contrary increases it. Again, you took the time to review the person and you removed it instead of checking it out and adding appropriate references. There are a ton from newspapers quoting Diego Dini Ciacci. Not considering them is called bias. Best Regards. Gabriele Dini Ciacci (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be offensive. I was trying to assume good faith that you used uncivil language in error. As you make it clear that there was no error in your word choice, I suggest you review Wikipedia's civility guideline. To the rest of your reply: The onus is on the person wishing to add a new entry to provide independent evidence of notability. I am under no obligation to search for independent sources before removing what clearly seems to be a non-notable entry. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About my photos

Hello, please do not transfer my photos that are marked for deletion from the Wikimedia Commons to the English Wikipedia database. I want such photos to be transferred to the Russian Wikipedia database, because I used them to illustrate articles in the Russian Wikipedia. Liilia Moroz (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The files you uploaded are under a free license, which means they can be uploaded and used anywhere, including English Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the image policies on the Russian Wikipedia, but if they are open to locally-hosted images of buildings (following Freedom of Panorama laws in your jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of Wikimedia's servers) you are welcome to upload them there too. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KilburnSportsplex2024.jpg

Hi IronGargoyle. I've often noticed you working with {{FoP-USonly}} files showing up at Special:NewFiles; so, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:KilburnSportsplex2024.jpg. This file was uploaded locally but it seems OK for Commons per c:COM:FOP Australia. I can tag it for WP:MTC, but there's no local license equivalent to c:Template:FoP Australia. Should the file just be tagged for move to Commons and the additional license added after the move? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I can't see any problems with importing that file to Commons. I am not sure what you mean when talking about a local license equivalent, as it shouldn't need any templates other than the {{CC0}} license which is already there. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I thought that a FOP-Australia license might be needed for the stadium in addition the license already provided for the photo, but I'll just tagged the file with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} if it doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives FoP

Hi again IronGargoyle. Would you mind taking a look at File:Hilaaleege in 2021.jpg, File:Muraidhooge in 2024.jpg and File:Building of Supreme Court of Maldives in 2020.jpg? There doesn's seem to be any FoP in the Maldives per c:COM:FOP Maldives, but perhaps these can be converted to {{FoP-USonly}}. However, the uploader doesn't appear to be the person who took the photos which could make the files a problem per WP:FREER even if the buildings themselves aren't considered protected under US copyright law since someone could take a similar photo and upload it under a free license with "FoP-USonly" added for the photgraphed building. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You outline the problem well. I do not think those files should be kept. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling local images of Philippine buildings

Hello. Can you also list all of locally-hosted images of Philippine buildings you imported from Commons at User:JWilz12345/PHL_photos_FoP#By_IronGargoyle_(imported_from_Commons) (my userspace page)? I made this userspace page around 3-4 years ago, for the purpose of facilitating restorations of images at Commons should a commercial FoP now introduced here in our country. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: The past uploads will take a while to go through, but I will try to add new ones there going forward (and chip away at some of the backlog over the next weeks/months). Doesn't going through geographic categorizations of deletion requests work better for this purpose though? That way you are undeleting everything and not just the ones I happened to import. I think that is the method that was used when Mongolian FoP changed a few months ago. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All existing PH FoP-related requests at Commons are already categorized at c:Category:Philippine FOP cases/deleted. I thought of including local enwiki ones on my userspace page as there is a chance of some users, once having heard that PH FoP has changed, would transfer the local ones instead of waiting for the undeletion of the Commons copies of those local ones (thereby "overwriting" the deleted Commons file, which I would not want to happen). Should FoP now introduced here, then the Commons copies are the ones to be restored first, and any local copies here that become duplicates are best handled by {{NowCommons}} tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I felt it is best to sort under subsections by original Commons uploader, since it makes the gallery section (for the imports you made) somehow organized. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to organize them however you find helpful. To me this organization method seems onerous and contributing to it would take away from my effort to import as many US-compliant architectural images as possible. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philippine Arena (Bocaue, PHI).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little help saving some pics from commons?

Hi. First of all, I gotta thank you for previously helping me save this pic from deletion. Unfortunately, I was not yet familiarized with this "freedom of panorama" thing when I uploaded several more building photos from the Arabic area before. Can you please lend a hand again with these ones if you have some spare time? Thanks!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 JeyReydar97 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred all the images except for the logo to Wikipedia. I don't think the logo is actually below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Although I don't know why they tagged the logo with the COM:TOO tag. It's literally the original work from its mother site without any specific modifications. JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion at WP:MCQ § File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IronGargoyle. Perhaps you can help here since you often work with this kind of file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]