User talk:Magog the Ogre

-----> FAQ: My Maps <-----

Maps of regions of development in Romania

• File:USA location map.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• commons:User talk:Magul#Images without a source

Hi,

I saw You have requested deletion of this maps, unless I have find the source of this maps. And I have saw that You have done some maps with fingerprint of stores in USA using USA location map.svg as source, so my question is: what is distinct difference between this maps of Romania and that one You have use as source? --Magul (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that someone actually created File:USA location map.svg from scratch. They drew every boundary and made every color on it. Did you actually make the map itself, or did you find an image of the provinces in Romania, and just color it in and/or crop out the other regions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,

the first thing is that I'm not the author of this maps, I have only uploaded them to commons from en.wiki, but I saw on en.wiki, that their has been released under PD by them author User:Andrei nacu, so we should ask him/her about it.

do You have proof, that these maps have not been created by User:Andrei nacu, or is this only assumption? If it's only assumtion, then, I guess, are two wyas of dealing with that maps: first - accept every statement about authoring, if we cannot prove that them are false, or mark every map with deletion reqest and wait until author will prove, that he/she does it by himself/herself. --Magul (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most often maps are not made by the uploader in these circumstances; only the derivatives are. This presents a big problem, especially with PD tags, because often the underlying maps are cc-by or cc-by-sa/GFDL; as such, they are copyright violations for failure to cite the original author. While I realize it's best to assume good faith, copyright policy is something where we have to be more careful. I consider the onus to be on the uploader to give a proper explanation of their work. And yes, I have notified Andrei naci: if you look at User talk:Andrei nacu, you'll see several recent messages. I even would have emailed the user, but he didn't have it turned on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can guess that lots of maps are not a original work of uploader, but I'm standing on position, that unless we can prove that it's a copy violation, we need asume good faith. Now the maps You have labeled are in queue to deletion at Dec 29, unless User:Andrei nacu will provide a source of original work, but what if He/She will still stand, that He/She is original author of this map? It will be deleted, because He/She dosn't provide origin work, or if He/She will still stand, that it's his/her work, we should beleve him/her? In this case You have istead of proving, that this maps are copiright violation, You have dump burden of proof that this maps are his/her work to the User talk:Andrei nacu and in situation, that it is his/her work it very difficult, not to say imposible, to prove that statement. --Magul (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Andrei edits fairly often, so I expect him to see the message before they get deleted. But I tell you what... if it's getting near the date of deletion, feel free to extend it by another week by editing the template parameters, either here or on commons. You can even do it for a few more weeks, which seems fair. But if the editor doesn't respond within a few weeks, eventually we might have to delete them. If he returns after they're deleted and asserts otherwise, we can always undelete them. If you're not satisfied with that, I suppose you can feel free to remove the nsd at commons (where really this discussion should be located, but isn't for procedural and simplicity reasons), but I will nominate the images for deletion via another method. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I have decide, after Your sugestion, to remove templates about leak in sorces from file pages. if You still think these images should be deleted, fill free to insert a deletion template on image page, but choose any procedure, where we can discus this issues in more public place, not in mine or yours talk page.

Thanks in advance. --Magul (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Delinking

Hi! You are most welcome to run your bot on files in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by MGA73.

You may also have noticed that I recreated a lot of deleted categories. Multichills bot found a lot of images that was also on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Will do. I still have a few pieces of code to write. It's also gonna check that an admin is the one who did plopped the template on the page; if you have anyone you trust enough otherwise, let me know. I should have it running in a few days at most. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, all done. I'll say you picked out some weird images that are stuck in odd parse parameters in templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Well I just started from one end :-) It is a good idea only to replace files checked by admins and other trusted users. Some users do not check properly. Have you tested the review script I use? I'm sure you will like it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm using it as we speak (although it's clearly having some unexpected bugs). It will only replace if it was placed by an admin. I'll add trusted users from commons by hand at request, too. w:User:Kelly is trusted, so I would add her. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it. Man my bot, not to mention I, was mightily confused. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I only used the script for a short time because I became an admin shortly after. And it is only after your bot was mentioned I started to use it again. So you are probably right that there is (was) some problems. Hope you got them fixed now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly functional; I'm supervising it enough that any errors won't be an issue. My only request to you is the same as the one to Kelly: please don't tag any images with the same name on en.wp as on commons until I update the documentation to clarify that the feature is enabled. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Charterhouse School "Crest"

Hi Magog! :) I noticed that you marked the above file for speedy delete, on copyright grounds. I'd just like to let you know that Coats of Arms, under English or Scottish law, are NOT copyright items. They are classified as an "honour" - something that is part of the person or corporation to whom the arms have been assigned. They are not intellectual property. You might like to look up a copy of this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aldermen-Citizens-Mancherter-Manchester-Varieties/dp/B0012O5VCA where this issue was decided in the Court of Chivalry in 1953. I suppose I also need to contact the uploader to inform him that he's used the wrong declaration. All the best! Neuralwarp (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the actual image? I happen to mark lots of images, and there are a few reasons I might have marked it. In any case, I'd like to refer you to our current policies on these: Commons:Coats of Arms and Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. If you have something to add to either of those that we're not aware of, that would be great; I'd point you to the talk page of the commons essay I linked above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Local image templates

What's your opinion on the templates {{KeepLocal}} and {{NoCommons}} for obviously free images? Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it on a case by case basis and try to figure out why the user added it to begin with. Often times s/he added it because it wasn't free in the home country, or it wasn't quite clear yet if it was free. If in doubt, I'll contact the uploader. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it seems to be an ownership issue too. Do you see any problem with just removing the templates if the uploader seems to be absent? Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2. What a wonderful idea! The main reason I hate dealing with the "different name" Commons dupes is that it's such a pain in the ass to delink the images. Perhaps you could consider some kind of "trusted user" scheme (like Flickrreviewers on Commons) to allow selected non-admins to place templates that will trigger the bot. I'm not an admin but I do understand Commons and copyright. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll add your name to the trusted users list (for other people I'll still have to take it on a case-by-case basis). You'll want to install MGA73's script at User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js. Just do me a favor: don't tag any images with the same name on English as on commons quite yet; it's not yet implemented and I have to handle those on a page by page basis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No rush, I'm still working on cleaning up images with the old license {{No rights reserved}}. So just to be clear, the tag is to be used only on images with a different name on Commons? Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For now; I'll eventually update User:OgreBot/Commons instructions if that changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question, how does the interface work? I put the script in my monobook.js and refreshed my cache, but I don't see any new widgets. (I use Chrome, FYI.) Kelly ^hi! 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Add this to your skin javascript. Mine loaded right away, but you might have to do a hard-refresh. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks... Kelly ^hi! 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the awesome things about this is that, when I move an image to Commons that has a bad name, I can give it a proper name without worrying about creating extra work for admins. Kelly ^hi! 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried it and it seems to work great. Am I supposed to get my own category? Kelly ^hi! 04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you'd like; my bot could care less, as long as you spell the new category name right ;). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilderbot

I try to be super-careful about maintaining copyright links for derivative works here and on Commons - for a long time now I've used derivateFx to transwiki derivative works and trusted Bilderbot to annotate the pages of the source works. But I've gone back and checked some files I've transwiki'd lately (for example File:1980s montage.png), and Bilderbot seems broke. Do we need to start doing that job manually? Because that would really suck, especially for works derivative of multiple images. You have any contacts or inside info? It looks like Luxo is kinda hands-off on his bots. Kelly ^hi! 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnus' bot is great for attribution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I typically use a combination of the two - using derivativeFx for upload of the image, but copying text from Magnus' bot for file history during upload. (Don't ask, it's complicated, but I have it down to a system.) But I was relying on Bilderbot to add the "other versions" part to the source images. Kelly ^hi! 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you: I'm a straight Magnus man. I'd recommend the VP at commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm eclectic - CommonsHelper, FlickrUploadBot, and derivativeFx. Thanks, sorry for bugging you so much tonight. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Error

Looks like there was an error [1]. It should have been File:Hillside in Sunol Regional Wilderness.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 08:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my error, not a bot error. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Kelly ^hi! 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Hello, I noticed you dealt with the last 3RR issue, would you please deal with the latest one I have reported. I am tired of dealing with this editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Amraamny_reported_by_User:Zabanio

Thank you, Zabanio (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Derivative works of now-deleted files

Trying to figure out how to verify copyright on File:Feistel.png, which was derivative of a file deleted per this discussion. Kelly ^hi! 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File history:

• 22:58, 20 January 2004 . . Lunkwill (talk | contribs | block) 450×695 (25,732 bytes) (Feistel network diagram. Created by me, public domain.)

It is a public domain work. The images are essentially identical, minus a small cropping of whitespace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move it over and attribute it correctly. Kelly ^hi! 21:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Feistel cipher diagram.png - Lunkwill was the original author, right? Or did it come from somewhere else? Kelly ^hi! 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is properly attributed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about source information for World Factbook images

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

Quick question

Sorry to keep bugging you - just to confirm, I am not supposed to "review" files with the same name on Commons, right? Only ones with different names? Kelly ^hi! 05:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've changed the bot a bit; you can review those images, but, um, make sure they're the identical copies, not higher resolution versions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Kelly ^hi! 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment about source information for Doc Holliday 1882 photo

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

Larsen twins

FYI. I noticed you had created the template, wanted to check to see if you investigated this already. Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice I provided a link on commons to the page. I think that page was made before there was OTRS permission. If you want, you might consider contacting OTRS yourself to have them follow through, or contacting the person who made the permission page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem - that's why I left the note at the OTRS noticeboard on Commons. I just wanted to make sure nobody had already checked. I'm just asking because I've run across several images sourced to them and the original website is dead. Having an OTRS ticket will prevent them from being deleted in the future. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I suggest the waybackmachine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That reminds me - I've been thinking about making a bot proposal at Commons to check and archive links to image permissions - for example, there is a bot here (I forget the name) that automatically archives references to WebCite to keep them from being lost. Doing something similar with image permissions might keep us from losing them to link rot. What do you think? Kelly ^hi! 04:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would bring that up at VP; my knowledge of how commons works is too limited. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OgreBot error report

In this edit, the bot converted an image description page into a redirect to itself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; thanks. I'll fix that in the code. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple versions of files

For instance, File:Bled lake.jpg. Should I take the top version off and give it a different name on Commons, then let the deleting admin decide whether or not to retain the underlying versions. I'd only do this with files that may have multiple versions worth saving. I think it's too much hassle when there have just been incremental changes to a file to save all the different versions at Commons. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The top version is its own file, and I would delete and replace it. The bottom two versions would constitute another file, although I notice it was never licensed because it was uploaded in 2003 (I haven't a clue how they handled those images... I'll probably post somewhere if I have to deal with that file). No, I don't bother worrying saving incremental changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:VPP#Image tags pre-2004. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Hi MTO, I'm new, and I posted a question somewhere and just found your reply. But I'm not sure if this is how I should be contacting you. Please forgive me if I am doing this wrong. I need help. I have two images now that need to go (I added a 2nd while trying to get rid of the first). They can both be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tufino_almaadentro.jpg Can you remove them for me? The copyright/user info is wrong, and I have to get them off of there. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.131.224 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the image on commons. Actually, you'll notice on your talk page, commons:User talk:Imagesforall2, it has instructions on how to proceed in the future. Let me know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Do you know how long it will be before it is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesforall2 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It should only be until an administrator on commons clears out the category, which shouldn't be too much longer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Harland Sanders.jpg

After noticing the edit history of File:Harland Sanders.jpg, it may be time to delete the prior upload versions and upload protect the image. It may be funny for some of us to see Colonel Sanders with a light saber, but it's obviously not within the Wikipedia scope. mechamind90 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez

Hi Magog, I semi-protected this after a request on RfPP. Could you say why you changed it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

He was fired from his job within the past hour, a major news item. I wanted IPs to be able to add information on the article, as they've contributed well before. If you want to reverse it, go ahead. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi was added because the PC wasn't coping, per the request on RfPP, so I'll restore it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statue

Good catch on the Logan statue, don't know how I spaced out on that one. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:European empires.png

TES hasn't edited for two years, but with the lack of a response, I'd be glad to pick up any requests you have. To address each one:

• It looks like someone else mentioned Patagonia on the talk page.

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Iran, so I can make this one equal?

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Thailand?

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the Russian influence on Xinjiang?

• The Ottomon/Russia parts are probably something to take to the talk page. FYI, I am probably going to move it to commons, along with the whole attribution history.

• That's something else to take to the talk, as international law doesn't recognize any claims to territory below a certain latitudinal line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

- The Russian and British zones in Persia were fixed according to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The article has a map attached to it.

- Here's a (partial) description of the French and British demarcating "zones of interest" in Thailand/Siam, but a proper map is harder to come by. I'll have to get back to you on that.

- Here's China at the maximum absolute extent of European influence (Tannu-Tuva is missing however). These areas decreased in size somewhat in the lead-up to WWI in 1914 (only the British and the Russian zones, the rest of them remained virtually unchanged), but they reached their height in 1911. The other ones would also need fixing though.

Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so long to respond to this. I'll get to it soon enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Banks Peninsula

• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 5#File:NZ-Banks P.png

If you don't mind, I've moved this to the FFD. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons Review

Hi! I just noticed this notice User_talk:Avicennasis/MainArchive/2010Q4#CommonsReviewer. Are you saing that files should not be reviewed if they have a different name and is still in use? --MGA73 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No not at all; he was using a different script that tagged it with {{db-f8}}, putting it under the immediate CSD categories. Actually I prefer if you tag images with a different name. It's OK if they're the same name, but if the one on commons is a different resolution, then my bot will get confused, go belly up, and make me fix it by hand. At least for now. ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've excluded images reviewed by your bot from detagging, FYI. I don't know if you're hand reviewing those; if you are, then I'll add your bot to my approved list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My bot delink usage during transfer if I choose a different name. So there should not be any files for your bot to work on. If there is then something went wrong during transfer or someone used the file after I transfered it. So no need to have your bot spend time on those. --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you very much for catching this fraud! Bearian (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh haha thanks. Although I only caught it at the SPI, I guess I'll accept this because I did block before the CU results. All good! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mcqueen prints.jpg

Are depictions of things like this free? Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Commons:COM:CB#Graffiti. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion on graffiti has gone back and forth over the years I've been working with Commons. Kelly ^hi! 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird

Check out File:Headbg.jpg. Not sure why it's protected, but it's the same as File:Headbg2.jpg on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it links to the same image, but the monobook script uses http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/headbg.jpg in the background. I'll ask at VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Magog the Ogre's Day!

Magog the Ogre has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Magog the Ogre's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Magog the Ogre! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well that's quite nice. I certainly enjoy being awesome! Thanks you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Gobernador.jpg

• File:Gobernador.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know if there's a different template that I can use on this image. The Commons image and this one are not the same because I cropped out the watermark and whitespace before uploading the image there. That's the only difference between the two. I'm posting this here because you added the NotMoved template. Hellbus (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 DoneI've deleted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. Hellbus (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party movement article

Howdy, Magog. Could I impose upon you to keep one eye on this article for a short time? There seems to be a bit of a slow-boil editwar bubbling up. It hasn't gotten ugly enough for ANI or the edit-war noticeboards yet, so I'm pestering you about it instead (only because your signature keeps popping up on the "probation" and "1RR" templates, so I figure you are familiar with the situation). Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake... apparently one editor has been warned here, and also reported on the edit warring noticeboard. Maybe a little guidance here would be helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(copy of statement by North8000 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC) removed... preserved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive148#I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war)

SecurityException_in_IAutoWikiBrowserForm.get_LogControl

Here's some questions for you:

• Do you still catch Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#SecurityException_in_IAutoWikiBrowserForm.get_LogControl?
• The bug appears randomly or every time?

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can read my description here: [2]. It always happened when I tried to load the IFD plugin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it happen in version 5.2.0.0.? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Next time I power up my virtual machine, I'll let you know (I'm usually an Ubuntu user with a Windows XP VM). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Section title w/comment

Hi Magog; i was changing a few things with WikiCleaner, and came across this where one of the section headings (Game log) has a hidden comment ("==Game log== <!-- Please do not edit this line: OgreBot Begin-->") which invokes your bot. I don't know its purpose, and that is irrelevant anyway to my question, which is this: At MOS:SECTIONS the example is given such that the hidden comment is inside the "==" of the headline; is there a reason not to do that with this one ~ and any others that may exist (i don't know they do, but it seems likely, given that a bot's involved)? Any objections to my changing it? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may by all means change it. The project was cancelled due to opposition at WP:BASEBALL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

I am back. Can you please give us a second opinion at Talk:Pashtun_people#Pashtuns_in_India. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Question about a recent deletion

I was looking over the FFD for log for January 5, and noticed your close at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 5#File:NZ-Banks P.png. I was a little puzzled about it when I read the discussion and saw the close. I'm not quite seeing how you came up with a delete for it, because based on a reading of the discussion, it looks as though it should have been a keep, as all concerns appeared to have been resolved. How did you ultimately come to the decision to close the discussion for this file as "delete"? I'm a bit curious. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is available on commons: [3]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef full protect on Senkaku Islands dispute

Hi Magog. I was recently checking pages that are indefinitely fully protected in case there are any pages that remain that way inadvertently. I came across Senkaku Islands dispute and it looks like you protected this last October to stop an edit war. Despite the fact that there are a couple successful edit requests, I was wondering if we could give unprotection on this article a try per the third pillar. I'm bringing this here rather than WP:RFPP as I've only spent a few minutes reviewing the article history and talk page, and thought you might have more insight. If you do want to unprotect the article, feel free to do so, as I'm not an admin. It's entirely up to you. Hope you're having a great day!--Gnowor^T_C 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I think I told them to let me or an admin know when the edit war calmed down, because I would forget (which I did). This was a very hot button article for a while. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what happened to a lot of the articles I've been looking at. Last month I went rather Huggle crazy and I'm sure there's at least a few hundred things I should check up on that I can't remember. Figured this was a short list that I could clean up quickly. Thanks so much for addressing it.--Gnowor^T_C 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this unlocking. I had been thinking about requesting the unprotect myself; I don't think there's been any significant movement on the article's talk page in weeks or more...plus, since the topic is temporarily out of the news, maybe there will be less vitriol. Also, I think we've got the naming issue (handled on Senkaku Islands) under control, so it looks like its time to see if anyone actually wants to work constructively on the dispute article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Prof. N Wickramasinghe.jpg

Dear Friend, could you pales assist me to solve this problem ? Thanks .--Butterflylk (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes; are you the subject of the picture or does she know you personally? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I am not the subject and i don't know her personally. Recently most of my images got same problem. you can see my talk page. I want to know solve the problem and lean. if you can assist me to solve this problem, I can do my further editing better . Thanks.--Butterflylk (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, when you uploaded the file, you added this line on it:

{{cc-by-sa-2.0}}

When you look at the page, this renders as:

In essence, you were saying that you know this image is released under the creative commons license. That license isn't terribly common in the business and academic world, so you probably made a mistake about that license unless you explicitly saw it somewhere.

What that means is that you'll probably need to send an email to Wickramsainghe asking for her permission to release that image under the cc-by-2.0 license. She might have to ask someone at the school for permission as well, depending on who took the image and what the policies are (but that's her job to worry about after she gets the email, not yours). Then, as per the instructions on your talk page, if you get an email back saying yes, forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Then we'll have proof from her that whoever owns the images has agreed with the license, and it can stay up.

I realize this is complicated, but copyright law is a very sketchy thing, and we want to make sure we don't violate anyone's rights (which is illegal and immoral), but also that we can provide the most free content possible so everyone can use it without fear of the law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Thanks lot for your advises . Can we upload a image using other way for this mater. I mean not asking permission. AS a help if you can show me a Sample of uploading , I can follow and lean .--Butterflylk (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia's policy states that for a living person, we need to have an image compatible with our license, meaning that no one claims a copyright on the image at all, with the exception that the person who created it must be attributed. You can read more about that at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Also copyrights automatically exist on every image that someone creates, so a person has to explicitly release the copyright. In this case, we will probably have to do without an image unless you know someone who has taken a picture of her. I suggest asking question at the Media question center for more help. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear friend, could you please see it this problem again. I uploaded and changed the copyright way.--Butterflylk (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

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

Please read the response. Thanks Magog the Ogre. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with a file

I want to discuss about your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASzekely1992.png&action=historysubmit&diff=407637185&oldid=407551773 This map is moved to commons, but I also uploaded an corrected and improved map version there too. If you check older version of this map in commons you will see that it is same as map in English Wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szekely03_original_map.png I am original author of that map (something that en Wiki uploader Ro2008 forgot to mention, but he did mentioned that it is first version of this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Szekely03.png And if you are able to check history of that file - whose page in en Wiki is deleted because it was moved to commons - you will see that I was original uploader and author of that file in en Wiki. Note that you should check history of deleted page in en Wiki - I think that admins can do that, not history of page in commons where they also forgot to mention that I created that map. Uploader in commons only mentioned User:Andrei nacu, who just modified original file that was created by me). So, file is moved to commons, and as its author, I would request that you delete this file from en Wiki because 1. it exist in commons, and 2. because this older version has several errors which I corrected in new version that I uploaded in commons. I am not able to upload this corrected version into en Wiki too because when I try that I got message that file with such name already exist and when I hit "Ignore warning and save file anyway" button it return me to the main upload form. Is that some kind of bug or something? In the past I did not had such problems with uploading of new file versions. PANONIAN 14:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to upload new file version by using "Ignore any warnings" option (this is new for me because in the past upload worked without that option), so now both file versions (old and new) are located in both files (one in en wiki and one in commons), therefore, I see no reasons why this file in en wiki should not be deleted. PANONIAN 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, it's deleted now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR?

I see you're online now - look at the history of Power Rangers Samurai and tell me what you think. Ryulong asked for full protection, but since you were the last admin to block him for edit warring I want your input. I think the block hammer should fall myself. KrakatoaKatie 06:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I note he self-reverted; otherwise i would agree. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An edit war over the number 18, this was. Now it's been changed to 19, which I guess makes all the difference. KrakatoaKatie 06:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. To be frank, I'm rather ambivalent on this one - if you wanted to go halfway you could only give a five day block (no doubt, he would excuriate me for saying that). And damnit, I'm not sure how two contentious RFA's, two RFC/U's, a desysopping, and multiple blocks haven't gotten him to realize he needs to slow the heck down. [4] Also, without a doubt I am in favor of removing his rollback rights: [5]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I guess part of me says to give a warning, and the other part says he has one-hundred thirty thousand edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Champions Day Picture error

There's a problem with a picture from the Champions Day page: Champions day

I was direct to come here if there was a problem with the edit made.

It looks like a bot tried to change the link for the picture from a .jpg to a .tif image, but the image isn't found. Any idea what happened to the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.47.141 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the past 24 hours or so, Mediawiki's servers have been performing very poorly (in fact my bot is getting false errors quite a bit [6]). I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the image is actually working, but the server is not returning it properly. That said, I notice that it's an image with a .jpg MIME but with a .tif extension. I'll work on this shortly to make sure it's at the right MIME type; that should fix it. Thanks for the heads up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that fixed it. Looks like that's an error I'll want to plug into my bot. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding here. I won't edit this page anymore, but I was wondering if there was a way to have someone look at the article and help fix the problems with it (is there a list I can add it to or a notice I can add that will bring in helpful contributors?), since the two users seem to stubbornly be resisting changes that would improve the article. Thanks so much for your help! Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes; you can try WP:RFC. If that fails and you really feel like ripping your hair out over nothing, then you can try WP:M. Of course it may or may not come out if your favor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I don't think mediation is needed, I couldn't care less about "winning" an argument, I just want to draw attention to the article so that other users will look at it and improve it. Thanks again for your time. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering if there was something I could tag the article itself with, just to make a note that it needs work (repeats the same thing multiple times, list isn't clear, etc.) I'm not exactly sure of the methods and etiquette for this, so any help would be appreciated, but don't worry if it's too much trouble, I understand you're probably busy, and sorry again for taking up your time and talk page. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the conflict, you could try {{Lead too long}}, but I warn against using tags when a dispute already exists; it fairly often serves to piss off the other side. If you do decide to tag it ultimately, you might consider asking Cirt, and waiting another 12-24 hours to do so to avoid creating any angry mastadons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, alright, thank you very much. I'm guessing I could predict his response, and at this point it's probably not worth it, so I may just leave it be. Thank you for your time. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding your warning

Doesn't look malicious to me, no block. Also, Cirt, you have an interesting way of referring to the people you're speaking to in the third person rather than the second. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way you can respond to that; I was just sick of edit conflicts and neither of you getting anywhere in the discussion above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I found it somewhat patronizing at the time, but it is pretty interesting. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Undelete request

Could you temp undelete File:76693565 b44605f726 o.jpg so I can fix copyright attribution at File:Shankly Gates.jpg? Kelly ^hi! 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no; I've nominated the image for deletion on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the non-commercial license at Flickr and was wanting to check if the uploader was the same person as the Flickr user. Kelly ^hi! 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, it looks like it was already nominated for deletion but kept. I'll handle the attribution myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's used in an article that's up at FAC. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong file - it's File:76672557 45f63b3324.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw fishsticks. Fixed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I demand to see the American consul

Well, this block (of me) was sure an error.

I know you are busy and I'm sure that you mean well, but that is absolutely not an excuse. I was an admin for several years and I would have disemboweled myself with an oyster spoon before I made a block like that.

I still haven't more than scanned WP:DRNC although I will when I get a chance. I'm sure its an interesting essay, but I'd still strongly recommend that you not include essays in the body of block remarks - it looks like you're citing the essay as a reason for the block. Instead, I'd recommend writing it in a separate note on the talk page.

Anyway, it's hard enough just keeping up with policy, and the operative policy here is WP:CONSENSUS.

WP:CONSENSUS opens with "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia", and then goes on to describe this in more detail.

But what if no consensus can be achieved? WP:CONSENSUS talks about this too:

• "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." There's a flow chart too.
• "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.
• "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."

To be fair, there's also a lot about edit warring and not doing it. However, honestly, what the hell are you supposed to do when the other editor won't engage on the talk page? Just throw up your hands and say "well I guess he gets his way"?

OK. The question of the image in the article is a contentious one, and has been for some time. Looking over the talk page archive and the talk page, I see a lot of back-and-forth over a long period, but looking over more recent history, we see this:

As of January 10, 2011, the image had not been in the article for some time. It was in the article on November 22, 2010 - for three minutes, after being inserted by an editor as his third (and so far last) edit to the Wikipedia. (It's very, very typical for new users, usually anons, to edit this article by adding the image. We generally call this "porn trolling".)

Before that, it was in article on November 8, 2010. It was added by an anon editor as his first edit (he has made one other edit, so far). It was in the article for a little under three hours.

Before that, it was in the article on September 5, 2010. In this case, though, it was added by a very long term well-established editor (User:Exxolon). Nevertheless, it was reverted (by me), and was in the article for about four hours. (I think that's far enough to go back.)

Upon this revert, Exxelon went to the talk page, which is of course exactly the right thing to do, and opened an RfC, which was also good. The RfC was never closed and I guess is technically still open. FWIW the "headcount" is now tied at 9-8 against including the image, by my count. "Strength of argument" is particularly hard to assess on this issue since it mostly comes down to what one considers appropriate editorial standards for a popular general all-ages encyclopedia, and positions (including mine) tend to be entrenched. (But the point that image is, in addition to its other problems, not even accurate is also in play.) So let's say that "strength of argument" is even. So no consensus.

So. You have a situation where

1. The image has not been in the article (for more than a few hours) for at least several months.
2. There is RfC on the image which is either open and stalled at no consensus or, if one considers it to have expired, expired with no consensus.

OK?

But in spite of this, on January 10 2011, an editor added the image to the article. This was by User:Valknuter, and it was his 14th edit to the Wikipdia. The justification in the edit summary was "image adds to article". So I reverted the edit, with a summary of "no consensus to restore image".

If I understand the policy correctly, and also per WP:BRD, the next step would be for the other editor to go to the talk page. (I could have invited him to do this in my edit summary, but at this point I figured that this was just another drive-by.)

So at this point, User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval all decided to support Valknuter's edit. The next edit was Cyclopia again inserting the image, with an edit summary of "no consensus to remove it either, it seems"

This was a spectacularly bad edit, and Cyclopia, who is an experienced editor, knows better. "No consensus to remove it either, it seems" absolutely violates the spirit (and the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS. If Cyclopia's logic were followed, all situations where consensus cannot be achieved would devolve to an endless string of "Reverting, no consensus, and I prefer my state". Right? You can see how this would follow?

So this edit was edit warring, and an open invitation to chaos.

Anyway, at no point did any of these users go to the talk page. At no point did any of these editors respond to my messages on their talk pages. At no point did these editors engage in the thread that I opened on the talk page, until after I was blocked.

They all knew that there was an RfC which was either open or, if one considered it to have expired, had expired with no consensus - they knew this, because they had commented in it.

They had all commented in it, and they had all wanted to include the image, and they lost. Sometimes you lose, and move on - we've all done that often enough. But they couldn't accept that. "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute", it says at WP:AN3. If these users weren't doing that, I don't know what you would call it.

Yes, I was a little bit snarky. Yes, I was tardy in opening a thread on the talk page (which was their responsibility, not mine, anyway). Yes, I was little bit slow in realizing that I was being tag-teamed and set up. I'm not perfect, and these were manifestations of imperfection. But they were not blockable offenses.

I was enforcing the policy. If no one enforces the policy, you have either chaos, or simple victory of the most determined in a purely political war of all against all. Right?

And so what was your hurry? If you had taken 15 seconds to look at my user page, you might have said "Hmmm, here is a person who has been editing since 2005, has 20,000 edits, 100 articles created, 29 barnstars, various other useful contributions, and a clean block log*. Perhaps this is not someone we want to throw to the dogs, I could drop him a line and find out what's going on here".

*Well, I was blocked once - but by mistake, and the person was admonished by ArbCom for doing it (not at my instigation, I'm all for letting mistakes go).

I'm sure you admins are overworked, but would that have been so hard? I would have done it. If you don't have time to do something right, don't do it at all. Especially if the something is blocking people from editing the Wikipedia. I mean, the Wikipedia was not going to collapse over this if you'd left it to someone who did have time to assess the situation. Blocking established editors wrongly is not good from an organizational development point of view and absolutely not the way to build and maintain a volunteer organization like this.

The material result

Well anyway. Beyond alienating me, the material result of your action is:

1. Article existed in state X.
2. Discussion over going to state Y was extensive, but no consensus was reached to do this.
3. Article is now in state Y anyway. And nothing can be done about it.

It's maddening to see edit warring succeed in this way, and depressing and demoralizing too, for everyone. It's certainly a slap in the face of the editors who took the time to comment in the RfC.

Resolution

Well, I would like my name to be cleared. I can't erase my block log, but if it's acknowledged that it was a mistake, at least I'll be able to point that out when Cptnono taunts me with some variation of "We had you blocked, and we will do it again if you don't let us get our way" (and he will).

As far as I know, the only way to do this is go to ArbCom and ask to have the block reviewed. This depresses me on many levels, because I hate the idea of digging up all those diffs, I hate to bother ArbCom, I hate the idea of contentious proceedings, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your volunteering to be an admin and all the good work the admins do. I'm sure you're a good admin, and everyone makes mistakes, and I commend you for being polite, which some admins have a little trouble with.

However, I guess I'll have to. However, ArbCom is busy and they probably won't take the case anyway.

It'd be neat if you decided to consider the issue, cowboy up, and admit your mistake. Christ knows I've had to do that enough times. I would do it here if I had made a mistake (beyond the minor ones I allowed to). Then we could go to ArbCom together and much time and trouble would be saved. Hope you'll consider this. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to your query shortly. There's a lot there so it will take me a bit to get back. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time. I appreciate your willingness to consider the issue, which is very important to me. (FWIW at Wikipedia:Administrator review/Beeblebrox#A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid (just go to near the end) Beeblebrox and I are undertaking to go through this edit by edit to try to figure out what, exactly, happened). Herostratus (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait! Stop! I have been going over the entire history of the article edit-by-edit, and I found that the state of the article as not having an image may have been achieved improperly. Not necessarily - I am still looking at this - but maybe. What happened was, the image was deleted from Commons in spring 2010 - not properly, I think, and it was immediately restored, but CommonsDelinker, like a good efficient little bot, had meantime removed it from the article. And after that it gets confusing - still looking at this - but it looks like this might have been leveraged to set a new default state for the article. And not only that, at this point I was involved, and it looks like I may be legitimately faulted here. (I don't remember any of this, and I don't recall gaming the system, and if I did I hope it was unintentional, but still). I'm actually kind of interested in figuring this all out now and will continue and will provide a full report soonest - just didn't want you to work on this unnecessarily. Not necessarily withdrawing anything I said at this time.Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I can wait. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry

You need never block me. I'll never waste my time attempting to contribute to this stupid useless site run by abysmally incompetent idiots ever again.
Because I DO care if I'm right or wrong, and so should anyone who gives a damned about the contents of the site.
>:-/ --OBloodyHell (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I misspoke; or perhaps, I didn't speak clearly enough. I care very very much who's right or wrong; I simply meant that just because someone is wrong doesn't excuse the person in the right from making personal attacks. If I remember correctly, I reviewed your edits and thought you had a good point, but I needed to step in to make sure the civility of the situation stayed above water. It is, after all, one of our five core pillars: WP:FIVE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick opinion

File:Meherazad.jpg - OK to transfer given the presence of the painting? Kelly ^hi! 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I forgot India has FOP. Kelly ^hi! 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1) I wouldn't assume that applies to the painting as a) it's unclear it's permanently in a public place, and b) the FOP essay on commons ambiguously discludes paintings. 2) The painting is de minimis, so it's OK to transfer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons transfer

The history on File:Mehera.jpg seemed kind of messed up so I asked about it at the OTRS noticeboard here. From what they said, the current version is the one with with permission so I copied it over. I don't know the status on the earliest version. Kelly ^hi! 06:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented on OTRS noticeboard. It looks like the permission is for another file. --MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no deleted versions of that file. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is right?

I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On the image of Hasan Taqizadeh

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

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

Rationale for deleting File:MarketStreet2005.JPG?

You deleted the image File:MarketStreet2005.JPG, listed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_January_3#File:MarketStreet2005.JPG, despite the conversation there indicating it is pretty clearly protected under PD-1923. Since you provided no rationale for your deletion or reasons for disagreeing with the sentiment expressed, I'm asking you to explain your decision and reconsider it, before I take the matter to a deletion review. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The image is available on commons [7]; we delete duplicate images on English Wikipedia that are available on commons (WP:CSD#F8). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Could this be TyDwiki?

Hi there. I've been here several times about blocked editor TyDwiki (talk · contribs) and the numerous IPs he was using to get around the block. (Thanks for your help.) I have come across another editor who appears to have the same edit patterns. S/he edits TV pages, and mostly list pages, adding viewer data, just like TyDwiki. MrJohn321 (talk · contribs) has edited ~29 unique pages, of which TyDwiki also edited 25 of them. (Note that of the 4 he did not, 2 did not exist before TyDs block) Is there a way to check whether this could be the same person? Of course, I hate to accuse an innocent editor, but this seemed fishy to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, yes, it could. The editing patterns are the same in every way, even the time of day and edit summaries. The route to go here is to file a SPI report; as a Twinkle users, it's pretty simple: just click on the editor, then click "arv", then click "sockpuppet investigation", and make sure to choose "ask for checkuser evidence". Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. You are right, it was pretty easy! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About File:SAM Linux Desktop.jpg

I got that image to the Wikipedia in Spanish. And perhaps that user (w:en:User:Matknny) uploaded it before a commons. I had no way of knowing that the user had uploaded the image to commons, because the names are different.

If you want, you can delete the image, if it is the same, but it is being used in article es:SAM Linux (Wikipedia in spanish)... and not in the English wikipedia ... Whatever you decide to do, I'll accept, but please, notice what you decide, and then I remove the image of the article in Spanish, if the image is removed.

Thanks for warning.

Have a nice day.

V A R G U X write me a comment 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no, there's no problem with it. I just need to figure out who the author is. Did you take that screencap? As you can see at es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Miscelánea/Actual#File:SAM Linux Desktop.jpg, I openly wondered if you'd uploaded it to Spanish Wikipedia first, and then maybe Matknny took it from your upload on Spanish Wikipedia. Because we don't have a history on Spanish Wikipedia though, it looks like Matknny was the author, and you took the image from him. If that's not the case, it's quite OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If my memory don't fails (sometimes is fragile)... I remember that I got this image from SAM Linux's website... for this reason, you can remove it freely... I don't have problems with this... don´t worry for it.. (when I take screenshots, I mention it in the image).

To other hand, the SAM Linux project now is knows as SAMity Linux... the image "in question" is some old... man, you can remove it :)

(Check this out: http://www.sam-linux.org/ )

Have a nice day - and year...

V A R G U X ~ write me a comment 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:User photo Benlisquare.jpg

I'm never sure what to do with stuff like this. Only one user editing, if it was orphaned it would undoubtedly be deleted - it seems dumb to move all the revisions of various userphotos out to Commons when only one is actually used anywhere. But if we leave this stuff on en, various users like me who are moving files to Commons have to endlessly sort through the same crap. Kelly ^hi! 10:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You might consider nominating it for deletion at FFD or asking the user to tag it db-self. I highly recommend the second option if the user is active. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But if the user already replaced the old file with a new one, isn't that pretty much a db-self? Kelly ^hi! 10:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to F8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say no in this case, because the user might want access to the old image for whatever reasons. Not all users have the wherewithal for it to occur to them to upload under a different name if they want to keep the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia isn't Facebook. Those users probably still have their smiling faces on their hard drives, can get an admin to undelete the images if not, and can put those images on Commons if they want to keep them around forever. But like I said, cleaning up everyone else's garbage gets old after a while. Kelly ^hi! 10:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I'm sorry. You sure do move a lot of userpage images. Perhaps you can suggest a change to F8 at WT:CSD, or ask at WP:VPP if this would qualify as G6. I just don't feel comfortable pressing the button out of process unless it's 100% unambiguous. But your work is appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it's time to do something else if I'm going to get smart remarks. The only reason I move the idiotic userpage images over to Commons is that I get sick of looking at the same ones over and over when I work through the license categories. Kelly ^hi! 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sleepy tonight - are you OK? I wasn't giving you a smart remark... Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just annoyed dealing with ancient garbage image uploads, though I do find gems amongst the dross once in a while. Are old revisions of this guy's userpage photo really of any encyclopedic value? I hate anyone wasting time on this crap. Kelly ^hi! 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Reykjavik_sound.ogg

• File:Reykjavik_sound.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Magog, I was the originator of the file and fixed the sourcing.--The lorax (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And you have a beautiful voice! Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That is to say I recorded the girl who said it. I'll still take the compliment!--The lorax (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is embarrassing or funny. I'm going to go with funny. And you're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work!!!

See Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons - no more files from 2006 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you! I've been working hard. I've actually moved into 2010 for the time being because more of those files haven't been unlinked yet, and I have use of my bot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: FFD/JamesDignan.jpg

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

Grutness...wha? 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I am really, really sorry for being so grouchy the other day. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries . This is the internet after all; if I can't take a little grouchiness, then I'm not in the right place. Not like I haven't had those days either . Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

px

I added safesubst to {{px}}, so this is now possible. A bit cleaner to substitute everything. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

Hi, since you were the involved administrator a while back ... It may or may not be true, but, I have some reason to believe that User:Me chase girl she chase me might be User:Lagoo sab also known as User:Jrkso. He has changed nearly the whole article Afghan civil war in its contents and removed quite a lot of sourced and important information. The content and nature of his edits as well as the way he conducts his edits are identical to those by Lagoo sab/Jrkso. There is also the same tendency towards engaging people in edit wars. Maybe you can have an eye on it?! —JCAla (talk) 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please file a WP:SPI and ask for checkuser evidence; I'm simply not good enough with the specifics to confirm - sorry. It's pretty easy: click on the user, and click the "arv" that comes with twinkle, and choose sockpuppet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait and see. If the user keeps up the same pattern I will do what you advised.—JCAla (talk) 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands again

Sorry to bother you again, Magog the Ogre.

My position is you should lock the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Island dispute pages again, possibly for several months at the very least. I am not one who'd bring up such a matter purely because my contents are always overruled, but that I don't believe any constructive efforts are being made or can be made given our current selection of participants. The impression I have at the moment is that we have some very strong partisanship in the page with one powerful bloc promoting and blocking content based on principles that deviate from WP:NPOV and that contents that were added were not very useful in general.

Since you probably are also sick of this, I'd make this short.

It has been shown time and time again that some editors like to introduce contents/changes without reverting them despite strong opposition. Some examples would be:

• Addition of irrelevant or misplaced content despite well-justified opposition
• Relentless filibusters (1)(2)on removal of content that were well-proven to be fraudulent (1)(2)(3).
• Stubborn removal of sourced materials with some questionable reasoning

At the same time, I find the general editorial environments to be unconstructive. For example, some editors refuse to communicate in a way that is convenient for others to parse (for example, just read some of Tenmei's comments). Mind you, I am a scientist myself and I don't find this seemingly cerebral style of expression smart or helpful at all. The intense amount of tag-teaming (1)(2) also makes enforcing WP:NPOV an exceedingly difficult chore. Granted, others can argue that they are adhering to WP:NPOV and I am not, I believe most (if not all) of my edits/comments in that page to be reasonable.

In general, the main issues of debate are really on edits that promote a pro-Japanese tilt. Examples are:

• Obvious mis-uses of an Remin Ribao article and citations Japanese references that (intentionally or not) mis-translated the this Chinese article. This issue was actually supposed to be resolved but, somehow, the Japanese editors that seemingly conceded the issue now decided to pretend it was never resolved (see "Relentless filibusters" above)
• Name usages -> Japanese editors wanted to snuff out as many references to Chinese names as possible (part of that could be seen in "Addition")
• General exercise of WP:Civil POV pushing

On the other hand, despite all this effort spent in arguing and all, very little constructive editorial process occurred at all. If you compare the mid-October 2010 version of both pages with their current counterparts, they were almost the same with perhaps some extra junk (like the table in the dispute page) and some rewording of existing sentences/paragraphs (as part of the continual battle of POV). With that said, I'd opine that it is much better to simply lock the two pages again and allow changes to only come through with the approval of an admin (as happened before). This will save all of us a lot of time and still permit updates to be made in a controlled manner.

To avoid being accused of canvassing, I'd note that this is simply a personal message/advice to you. As such, I don't feel compelled to bring the matter to the attention of other relevant editors (although they have a habit of stalking me these days). If you are interested in getting involved in cleaning this mess up, then it will be great to have your input.

Oh, and by the way, editors such as User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's have been showering my talk page with warnings. I think they will appreciation your help in slapping me with a ban. In User:John Smith's case, you might want to teach him how to use the warning templates too (after all, it looks cooler). Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I'm sorry for having to jump in like this, but from what I can see Bob has basically been trying to sabotage the pages and create the image of pages that need protection. Basically he's lost the argument over details like what they should be called and what names should be used in them. So he's slow edit-warring.

A little while ago he left this message on a sympathetic user's (STSC) talk page. Now he tried to claim he was telling STSC not to edit-war. Yet he also made it clear that he wanted to do something to get the pages locked in the hope other editors would go away. My interpretation was that he was telling STSC not to overtly break the rules, but do something to nevertheless get the pages locked. Only yesterday (29) he reignited a dispute that had gone quite for some time by reverting twice on Senkaku Islands dispute. It's worth noting that he only left this message on your talk page asking for page locks after I warned him that if he kept edit-warring I'd have to take it to the admin's board.

Bob sees things in a black-and-white situation. You're for a Chinese POV or a Japanese POV. I think he needs to cool down and go edit some other pages, preferably ones that have nothing to do with Asian politics, Asian history or Asian diplomacy. He might listen to you, because he certainly won't listen to me. John Smith's (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)