User talk:Magog the Ogre

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

Re: File permission problems

Dear Magog, you have tagged a large number of files uploaded by me. While I do appreciate your concern for copyrights, I must confess that it is becoming really cumbersome for me to keep giving the same explanation repeatedly. For the record once again, the page(s) in question are all about The Baloch Regiment of Pakistan Army. As the Regimental Historian and Archivist, I have full authority to release these images in public domain, most of whom are the property of Baloch Regiment. I will now try to give an item by item response to your objections:

• 1. "File:Gen Ashfaque.jpg" is an official government photograph of the Pakistani Army Chief, who is also the Colonel-in-Chief of the Baloch Regiment, from Regimental Archives.
• 2. "Lt Col MK Durrani, GC, 1st Bahawalpur Infantry.jpg" The late officer was from 1st Bahawalpur (now 8 Baloch). The photo is more than 50 years old and is the property of the Regiment.
• 3. "File:Sep Kamal Ram, VC, 3-8 Punjab.JPG" The painting of a Balochi soldier, it is hanging in Baloch Regimental Centre Museum, Abbottabad and is more than 60 years old.
• 4. "Action by Sepoy Bhandari Ram, VC.jpg" Picture of a Balochi soldier, published in a wartime (WWII) Army journal more than 60 years ago, from Regimental Archives.
• 5. "Sepoy Bhandari Ram, VC, 16-10 Baluch.jpg" Picture taken in 1945. Held in Regimental Archives.
• 6. "Gen Yahya Khan 1.jpg" Government of Pakistan official photo of General Yahya Khan, former Army Chief and Colonel-in-Chief of the Baloch Regiment from Regimental Archives.
• 7. "Officer 15th Lancers 1937.jpg" Painting published more than 50 years ago of an officer of a Balochi unit.
• 8. "Maj Gen Abrar receiving HJ from C in C 1965 2.jpg" The photo of a Balochi officer from Regimental Archives.
• 9. "Lt Gen HR Briggs, CB, DSO & Bar, Colonel of 2-10 Baluch 2.jpg" More than 60 years old photo of a Balochi general from Regimental Archives.
• 10. "R1. Lt Gen Habibullah Khan, SPk.jpg" Painting of a former Colonel Commandant of the Baloch Regiment, hanging in the Regimental Centre Officers Mess, Abbottabad.
• 11. "N2. Maj Gen AO Mitha, HJ, SPk, SQA.JPG" A Balochi general. Photo property of the Regiment.
• 12. "N1. Maj Gen Eftikhar Khan, HJ & Bar, SPk, SQA.jpg" A Balochi general. Painting hanging in the Regimental Centre Officers Mess.
• 13. "SM Lal Khan, 1-8th Punjab 1937 full2.jpg" Original painting done in 1937, in the Regiment's possession.
• 14. "Officer, 1st Bahawalpur Infantry (Sadiq Battalion). Painting by Lance Cattermole, 1937.jpg" Original painting was in the Regiment's possession until 1971, when destroyed in fire. The file posted is a copy.

I hope my response is satisfactory. If not, then please advise. Beloochee (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's great- I don't want to ave to see the images deleted either. However, for legal and moral reasons, we'll want to verify that in fact you are the archivist with the regiment (we've had people lie about such things before). All that we'll ask is that you can go through the process details at {{di-no permission-notice}}. I'm going to respond to some of your points above for each file:

Licensing belonging to the regiment Y

• 2. File:Lt Col MK Durrani, GC, 1st Bahawalpur Infantry.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 11. File:N2. Maj Gen AO Mitha, HJ, SPk, SQA.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - licensing belong to the regiment

Artistic works with unsure licensing ? - can you tell me who painted these items, or to whom the rights were transfered (i.e., does the regiment own the copyright now? Per {{tl}PD-Pakistan}}, non-photographic artwork goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. If the author is unknown, then it's 50 years after publication (see definition below)

• 3. File:Sep Kamal Ram, VC, 3-8 Punjab.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 4. File:Action by Sepoy Bhandari Ram, VC.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Y Item published in 1945, unknown artist, public domain
• 7. File:Officer 15th Lancers 1937.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 10. File:R1. Lt Gen Habibullah Khan, SPk.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 12. File:N1. Maj Gen Eftikhar Khan, HJ & Bar, SPk, SQA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 13. File:SM Lal Khan, 1-8th Punjab 1937 full2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 14. File:Officer, 1st Bahawalpur Infantry (Sadiq Battalion). Painting by Lance Cattermole, 1937.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Photographs under 50 years old with unsure licensing ? - does your position give you the authority to release these images' copyright?

• 8. File:Maj Gen Abrar receiving HJ from C in C 1965 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Photographs over 50 years old with unsure licensing ? - does your position give you the authority to release these images' copyright? Were these items ever published or have they always only been in the archive? Publication is different from creation: publication is generally defined as making multiple copies available to the public... many items are not publicized even if they're created. Examples of publication would include leaflets, newsletters to a large number of people, use in a newspaper, etc.

• 5. File:Sepoy Bhandari Ram, VC, 16-10 Baluch.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 9. File:Lt Gen HR Briggs, CB, DSO & Bar, Colonel of 2-10 Baluch 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Official government works? - does your position give you the authority to release this image's copyright?

• 1. File:Gen Ashfaque.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 6. File:Gen Yahya Khan 1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the meantime, if you want to start with the process listed at {{Di-no permission-notice}} (i.e., sending a private email which most of us won't be able to see) of verifying your identity, that will definitely help us along the way. That way we can tag the images with {{OTRS pending}} so they aren't deleted after just a week.

Thanks for your contributions and patience as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, thank you for your reply. This whole thing is way too complicated for me. But I will try to soldier on a bit longer:

• Artistic works with unsure licensing:
• Item 3 painted by an unknown Pakistani artist in the 1950s. Work commissioned by the Regiment.
• Item 4 painted by an unknown artist. The work published in a WWII British Indian Army pamphlet around 1945.
• Item 7 painted by the late British artist CP Chater. Date of death unknown.
• Item 10 & 12 painted by the late British Pakistani artist Hal Bevan Petman, who died in the 1970s. Works commissioned by the Regiment.
• Item 13 & 14 painted by the late British artist Lance Cattermole in 1937 on King George VI’s coronation as part of a series on the British Indian Army. The paintings were printed on playing cards in 1937. Original paintings were presented by the artist to the respective units.
• Photographs over 50 years old with unsure licensing:
• Items 5 & 9 are from 1945 & 1943 respectively. I have the original photographs. Item 5 has been published in the Regimental History. Item 9 has not been published before.
• Photographs under 50 years old with unsure licensing & Official government works:
• Items 1, 6 & 8 are official government works already in public domain.
• The procedure listed in "Di-no permission-notice" is too complicated and confusing for me. What I can do is provide you with my name and the Regiment’s postal address for confirmation of my status as the Regimental Historian and my authority to release these works in the public domain. Regards, Beloochee (talk) 6:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK; I'm going to have to look into the work for hire laws in Pakistan (as you can see, this does indeed get complicated!). In any case, I don't live in Pakistan, so that other solution will be more difficult. Do you have an email address associated with your regiment? We can work something out, it just might take a bit of patience on both of our parts. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, why are you saying that governmental works from Pakistan are automatically public domain? I've never heard that for Pakistan before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Rifat Nadeem Ahmad (Retired). The Regiment's email address is, <removed for now, for privacy reasons>. Before beginning your message, write, "Attention: Lt Col Abdul Samad, Regimental Affairs Officer." I am not suggesting that all Pakistani governmental works are automatically in public domain. But these three photographs are of historically important people and have been published on numerous occasions in newspapers, magazines etc. Beloochee (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help - I sure I do appreciate it . I'll be looking into it! Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, you have not removed the "puf" tags from the images. Beloochee (talk) 0:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Sorry about that; I didn't realize so much time had passed already. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Beloochee (talk) 9:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you yet, I'm just busy with my other obligations. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Irony?

Unresolved

 – He has redacted on his own, a very nice gesture. Thank you :> Doc talk 22:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A while back you deleted an "enemies list" from LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs)'s page, and I was involved in that incident. The editor demanding it PrBeacon (talk · contribs) is rather hypocritically using his own talk page to smear and bait editors (obviously myself included), giving little "updates" and renaming threads (again). After this exchange, he reverts his claim of harassment and archives. He then comes back eight days later with more insults and accusations. I ignore it. He "updates" about B (talk · contribs) three days after this and the next day[1]. Then he comes back at me yet again,[2] and I let him know I'm aware of what he's doing.[3] Long story short, he's back at it again today, smearing me and yet another editor with his "updates".[4][5]

The reason I'm bothering you with this is as I stated at the start. I don't appreciate this editor's use of his talk page as a soapbox and a borderline attack page. Per the WP:UP#POLEMIC guideline it doesn't belong there. He screeched about removing that stupid list, and yet he is doing something that is arguably worse. Most editors don't use their talk pages this way: it's disruptive and fosters unnecessary conflict. He is more than welcome to file a report at AN/I or any other board if he feels he is being "hounded" by me - but the claims are completely frivolous. I am familiar with this editor's approach and it is less than ideal for working collaboratively with others. These talk page antics are not what talk pages are for, and re-naming threads like this is just wrong. Ironic, isn't it?

So... is what's good for the goose good for the gander? Or since the goose is cooked does the gander get to honk away about anything? Thank you for your consideration - I know it's a touchy subject. Doc talk 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take alook at it and let you know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, after looking at it, I don't see anything particularly worse that he's doing than the accusations you were making. Frankly I'd just suggest you stay off his page unless vital. This is more of the arguing about arguing about arguing that made my head pop when it involved LAEC. Can you explain to me what exactly in those statements is so bad? Again, I do notice you made several accusations of your own on the page, so what about the statements is bad that doesn't also apply to your conduct? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My last comment on Feb 9th was intended to be just that: the end of the issue. At least I thought it was the end of it. When he resurrected it needlessly and continues to bring it up without any provocation, it's a problem that doesn't need to be revisited. So maybe it's not the statements themselves but the... "timing". I do stay off his page - yet he keeps posting garbage about me. Don't take the bait, is that what you're saying? Duly noted. Well when you chum for sharks, don't be surprised when sharks swim around the boat. Let him keep his little attack page. Thanks for your time... Doc talk 06:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've answered my question, so I cannot help you further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the statements it's the protracted baiting. It's the "retitling" of threads on his talk page. It's the "updates". Does my conduct show a similar penchant for doing this? It does not. His smearing crap should be erased under the policies and guidelines already in place - but you'll not see me "whinging" about it. So: it's not the statements but rather the temporal placement of them. I'm not sure what question I've left unanswered, but since justice is blind, I figured if an old "enemies list" should be erased then a regularly updated one should at least be discouraged. Mea culpa. Fini... Doc talk 07:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Doc, you're preaching at me about how unfair it is, when I don't even understand the issue at hand. Can you put together a very concise explanation, with as many diffs as possible? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this thread has the most relevant diffs for this recent issue. I'm not looking for a block, I'm looking for the same rules that apply to us all to apply to PrBeacon. Don't use your talk page to disparage other editors. Calling me "Doc do-little" (Ouch!), calling me a "self-appointed watchdog" (Oooch!) and then brings up "continued hounding" - these all happened well after our recent disagreement (almost a month ago), and there was no need whatsoever to add these things except to "bait" or "instigate".

What I am asking for really is for his page to be restored to the original state before the added jibes, and for him to be reminded that talk pages are not for smearing other editors. If I retitled the talkback message you left on my page as "TB Message From Useless Admin Layabout", I doubt it would go over too well (not that I would ever do that ;>) I can give you a flurry of diffs and even more brutally concise arguments, but I'm not sure what's left to explain. If corrected on what is appropriate to add to one's talk page and have the "pointy" bits removed, all would be peachy-keen. I'm not overly confident it will happen, but that's okay. To be perfectly honest, this is not likely an editor we're going to see much of outside their chosen realm, so I'm really not worried about it. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look at this ASAP. Sorry for taking a few days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey - take your time. I've got skin as thick as an elephant's, so believe me it's not the smears against me that are irritating. It's the double standard he's enjoying that's my issue, when he made such a stink about the "list". As I surmised, there hasn't been much activity from the account recently. Not a biggie, just wanted to bring this subject to your attention. Thanks :> Doc talk 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All the while claiming 'thick skin' and whatever shark-like qualities he has apportioned himself, Doc continues to whine here about what he sees as a double standard. Yet he's comparing my userspace to article talkpages and notice boards as if they have the same standards of public discourse. They don't. Perhaps he's spent too much time stalking users to know the difference anymore. I don't see any policy or guideline against how I frame the disputes and updates on my usertalkpage. I've asked him several times to stay off there with his nonsense -- the first two times he pretended not to see my requests. And yes it is hounding. His very first interaction with me was at ANI where he accused me of socking with Dylan. He justifies his own poor behavior because, he thinks, it is necessary in his vigilante role. I'm sick of it. And I may just go ahead and report his pattern of ill-conceived accusations and general hounding, so it's appropriate for me to use my own talkspace in preparing such a report. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your user space is owned not by you, but by the WMF. User pages have the same standards as far as content that is appropriate. You self-reverted: why are you even making a further issue out of this? File a report against me if you feel that is necessary, but make sure it's a very good one. Doc talk 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that a threat? I don't think admins look lightly upon threats, whatever else they might think of your quasi-authoritative tendencies. And when did I say that my userspace is owned by me? There you go again putting words into the mouth of your ideological opponent in order to make/strengthen a weak argument. The term "my userspace" refers to the talkpage associated with my userspace. Anything else you're reading into. And misinterpreting policy while you're at. Lastly, I didn't self-revert, and now that another user does not see the problem with how I provide these disputes with context, I'm going to restore it. YOU are the one making more of this than it should be. Are you saying I should not have a chance to respond to the abundance of false allegations above? -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're digging a hole. Quickly. I've seen this many times before. File the report: note that by "hounding" it would probably involve me going to some of your favorite haunts. Good luck... Doc talk 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And you DID self-revert.[6][7] Unless that wasn't you, which would mean your account could be compromised. That wouldn't be a "good" thing. Doc talk 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The only hole is in your logic. I'm defending my actions against your distorted version. You didn't take the hints above from Magog that your quibbles are more time-wasting bickering, just like another admin said at Gwen Gale's page. You harp on the idea of 'self-revert' like it even matters, but you're still wrong. There was no revert. It's called a rewrite. You chose to see it (incorrectly) as 'redacted.' Why don't you stop complaining about it here. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File the report. Please? Doc talk 04:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PrBeacon: Doc is right. You vehemently opposed allowing LAEC to put on his user talk page something which (essentially) said he didn't like your editing style. Now you've put something in your user space, doing the same thing. Doc's request, while yes a bit whiny, frankly pales in comparison to your statement above... accusing him of being whiny. This is the same type of fights that LAEC had: fighting about fighting, like two kids. From what I've seen, PrBeacon, I'm willing to bet that if you just laid off, the disputes would have been far less severe, just like they did with LAEC. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. User:Doc9871 is not right. He's being petty and vindictive. I still don't see how my characterizations even come close to being the same as an "anti-LAEC" list. In fact, LAEC's views about me and other editors still remain on his talkpage. I don't see Doc mentioning that. And his 'request' above had to be clarified 4 or 5 times after your initial response, "I don't see anything particularly worse that he's doing than the accusations you were making." Add to that the fact that you admitted on LAEC's page, you are not neutral in that case or, by extension, this one -- anyone less involved might see that Doc is in fact the one being hypocritical here, after his ranting about at Gwen Gale's talk page. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

3 issues here:

1. You're right, you weren't any more petty than he was (at least from the diffs I saw), although by your own standard, this is a pretty low bar to set for yourself.
2. I don't remember ever saying anything about being non-neutral on LAEC's page.
3. Bluntly, you sound rather whiny. Please realize that you're accusing another editor of being petty and vindictive, which is ironically a personal attack. There are more polite ways to say this kind of thing. Take a step back here: if you need to complain about Doc's actions from here on, my recommendation is that you do so in a calm and neutral tone. Otherwise we end up with more of this cycle of you being rude, and him getting offended at your rudeness, and you getting offended at his offense, etc. until we all we get is arguing about arguing, which is distracting to the entire community, and makes our collective eyeballs pop out and roll on the ground in misery at what they've been forced to read.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to keep this thread going, but you've raised more questions that deserve answers. At the ANI thread on LAEC's outing, you said "I've done a low-key sponsorship of him" [8] -- at his talkpage you said, "I may or may not be 'neutral' anymore..." [9]. As for the other two points, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Though I don't see how using a phrase like 'rather whiny' is any better than 'petty' on the spectrum of personal attacks -- especially as I am here to defend myself against Doc's continued allegations and harassment. I actually agree with your earlier point about stepping away... If Doc hadn't come to my page with his self-righteous accusations, or here with his complaint repeated several times when he didn't get the response he wanted, then the section on my talkpage would have been diluted by time and rewrites until it was no longer an issue. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for chiming in, but I've been watching this conversation for a while now, and I feel a great urge to say something.

PrBeacon, let's do a hypothetical situation here. Let's assume that you are being whiny. How would you rather people inform you that you are being such? Again, hypothetical situation.

Or even better yet, let's assume that in your interactions with other editors, someone you are interacting with becomes whiny. How would you respond to that situation? Again, this is a hypothetical situation, so please don't make references to things that are happening right now.

Hope everyone's having a great day! Cheers! – Ajl^talk 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, I do remember that now: I would consider myself involved with LAEC, but only to the extent I was trying to help him from stop being unnecessarily combative and to focus on content (not much unlike the conversation you and I are having right now). The only interaction I've had with you is that you don't like LAEC, or something to the effect. Given that he was banned, I think there are enough people feeling the same as you, that there's no reason for me to hold a vendetta or anything silly, as if I was that involved anyway. Quite frankly, I just wasn't involved enough in the issue, other than to know you two really don't like each other much.

Anyway, I meant to say "whiny" only in a purely constructive way; you'll notice I only did it once in the entire paragraph, and the rest was explaining how to avoid this problem in the future. By no means did I mean to offend, you; if I did, then I apologize.

The criticisms that I see you've made about Doc, however, don't come across to me as constructive, true as they may or may not be. Look through this entire thread since you entered to try finding words that are insulting or sarcastic but don't really assist much in understanding. I will go through each one that I see:

• shark-like qualities- PrBeacon
• continues to whine- PrBeacon
• [p]erhaps he's spent too much time stalking users to know the difference- PrBeacon
• he pretended not to see my requests - WP:ABF, PrBeacon
• your quasi-authoritative tendencies- PrBeacon
• There you go again- PrBeacon
• your distorted version- PrBeacon
• ranting- PrBeacon
• self-righteous- PrBeacon
• repeated several times - seems like an unnecessary dig mid-sentence, PrBeacon

Now Doc was not perfect either:

• favorite haunts - Doc
• [u]nless that wasn't you, which would mean your account could be compromised - a sarcastic statement which he doesn't believe, Doc
• There are more above where you chimed in, which I'll leave out because he was partly trying to describe the situation to me, an editor not familiar with the situation. Yes, there were issues with this, but it's different than speaking directly to someone. Moreover, right now, I'm addressing you, PrBeacon, not Doc. Doc has let the issue go on his end, although I'll be happy to give him advice too should he return. As we say at unblock requests, we don't particularly care what the other side did; we're addressing what you did, because if you're not innocent, then you share in the guilt (yes, that statement is a tautology).

I once read a book that talked about the simple art of getting along with other people. It was disgustingly simple (e.g., "don't pick your nose in public", "don't interrupt other people", "don't monopolize the conversation", "don't always talk about yourself"), and yet surprisingly informative. Additionally, as someone who took around 20000 calls from customers in a call center, about 3000 of whom were mad (and 1000 of whom were really mad), I think I have some experience in the issue.

The one things the book pointed out, and I agree 100%, is that in a debate, it's important to watch your phrasing. Only refer to the other person's misdeed when absolutely necessary, and do so without directly attributing the action to the person, thus making it easier for him/her to see it objectively. To be clear, I think it's rarely necessary to refer to the other person's misdeeds on Wikipedia when addressing another person directly, or when addressing a third party in such a way that the second party will hear it.

At work, for example, I wouldn't say "you obviously rebooted your computer wrong because you're inept", I would say "this is how you reboot your computer." Or "the account is overdrawn" rather than "you overdrew your account." You would be shocked what taking small steps like this, as well as assuming that the other person is acting in just as much good faith as you, will do for you. Besides, it's policy, and it's almost always true (I rarely see trolling heavily enough in situations like this to make a difference). Also, making unnecessary digs on the other person is obviously completely out. It gives you the satisfaction of pissing the other person off, but is 100% counterproductive to fixing the situation.

I hope this long explanation is helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My main points are:

1) I am certainly no angel and am subject to reacting (sometimes inappropriately) when attacked.

2) Whether my request is "whiny" or not, it is a direct response to the continuation of this issue when I thought it was over with "I expect this to be the end of this particular matter. You go your way and I'll go mine, and hopefully if we meet again it will be under more pleasant circumstances." back in early February.[10]

3) Per WP:UP#POLEMIC if editors are allowed to disparage and label others on their user pages it makes for a poisonous atmosphere indeed.

I shouldn't have butted in at Gwen's page and I acknowledge that: I am sorry for doing it, believe me. I don't much care what PrBeacon speculates as to my motives as an editor on this project, but "harassment from self-appointed wiki cop Doc do-little", etc. is against policy... and yet the attacks remain. I know that I don't do that on my talk page because even if I wanted to (which I do not), is not supposed to be permitted by policy. Doc talk 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done I have changed the section name. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :> I will uphold my promise (and your good advice) to stay off his talk page and not interfere with his editing. Cheers! Doc talk 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it . Now here's hoping Prbeacon has no urges to get upset over it and climb the Reichstag over this very unimportant issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If I'd ever thought that Doc was attempting to be constructive then Yes I could respond in kind. While I appreciate your efforts at mediating, the list above is misleadingly lopsided. I don't see how his choice of words is any closer to his "ideal for working collaboratively with others"...

• hypocritically using his own talk - Doc9871
• smear and bait editors - Doc9871
• smearing me - Doc9871
• screeched - Doc9871
• he keeps posting garbage - Doc9871
• chum for sharks - Doc9871
• protracted baiting - Doc9871
• little "updates" - Doc9871
• His smearing crap - Doc9871
• "whinging" - Doc9871
• Useless Admin Layabout - Doc9871
• smears against me - Doc9871
• he made such a stink - Doc9871

And the fact that you omitted these examples "because he was partly trying to describe the situation" speaks to the bias I've mentioned. I know I'm not the only one who thinks his unwanted 'advice' is distracting and often counterproductive. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you always have the option of asking him to stay off your page or removing his comments. In fact, he's wisely listened to my advice, and decided to do so. I suggest you only interact with him on a need-to basis on the talk pages of articles you both edit. Also, both of you should not ever comment on the comments of each other, ever - more arguing about arguing. Finally, two wrongs don't make a right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New message

You have new messages

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Ali55te's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template:Talkback

In this edit you replaced FULLPAGENAMEE with FULLPAGENAME. However, the extra E is often needed for use in url-encoding so that the fullurl: expression works properly, adding the extra underscore in User_talk:Foo. Can you please explain to me why it would be beneficial to remove it? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you plan to do any more work with the talkback template, could you please also take a look at Template_talk:Talkback#No_username_parameter? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The fullurl parameter properly handles unencoded URLs. {{fullurl:User talk:Foo}} evaluates to: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Foo. And if I'm not mistaken, the fullurl interacts poorly with the EE variant; at least urlencode does (cf. [11]). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Maps

You mentioned in your maps FAQ using a C++ program to plot the points. Is this publicly available software or something you created? If it's the former, can you name it. If it's the latter, consider this another request to distribute it Cains (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a class that I created on my own, and it is extremely ugly. If you'd like access to it anyway, feel free to email me (make sure you've registered your email address, and click "email this user" in the toolbox to the left). Ugly as it is, I would have to at least clean it up some before providing it to you, so it might take a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Transferring NASA/QuakeSim images over to Commons

Re: [12] and [13] don't you think it would have been better to retain some of the commentary I've added later into the file description pages, like [14]: "Used for QuakeSim"? It would look kind of odd to see most of the images moved there to appear orphaned when they first came here and "Image from one of our NASA website" sounds rather ambiguous. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, although the wording should really be changed. Commons doesn't need to know which page an image is used for, as long as it's clearly encyclopedic, but it should know the image's description. If you're worried it will be deleted (which is unlikely), I suppose you could put a note there or on the talk page.

As for the source, Image from one of our NASA website is not only bad grammar, but it is confusing and incomplete (who are "we" for "our" website?; what is the URL?). In essence, it tells us nothing about where the image came from. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Greetings! I would like to ask you whether it is possible to cut part of a commons picture? That is the picture and I would like to cut the face of the right-most person, Ivan Sratsimir so that I can use it in the infobox of the article and in the list of Bulgarian monarchs. My other question is whether I can use that image as "fair use rationale" for the same purpose - the monarch's infobox and the list of Bulgarian monarchs? Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, you may legally make a derivative of any image you see on commons, including cutting out of another part of an image (with only rare exceptions: see commons:COM:DM for an in-depth explanation). I recommend the use of this page to upload the file.

2. No, you could not use that second image. In fact, that image is probably a "replaceable fair use" anyway - see WP:NFCC#1 - meaning someone could create a free equivalent (all a person would have to do is get the coin, then take a picture of it). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answers. So, as far as I understand, in general images of coins cannot be uploaded if found in the Internet and coins with the license as the one I had in mind should not be used in other articles... --Gligan (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You can upload some images you've found of coins on the internet; mostly these are images from the US mint (per {{PD-USGov-money}}). If you upload a "free" picture of a coin, it must either be so old that it is not copyrightable, or it must pass the requirements of the list at commons:COM:MONEY. Magog the Ogre (talk)

You have my gratitude. Have a nice time :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback Notice

You have new messages

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Ali55te's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My file.

I need it returned to it's original form.I dont want to know how it was uploaded by anybody on wikipedia.Earlymen message me! 09:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Magog the Ogre please replace my file. Earlymen message me! 09:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've worked with tens of thousands of files; which file are you referring to? Also, your signature has an error in it where it doesn't close the bold text (see [15]) Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)