Jump to content

User talk:Magog the Ogre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magul (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 25 December 2010 (→‎Maps od regions of development in Romania: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Block summary

Thanks for the block, but I'd appreciate it if you fixed the summary to something other than "Both blocked", since I (the reporter) was not the other edit warring party and was not blocked. Jpatokal (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Unfortunately I have to go to bed, which is hard to do when you block two ex-administrators (!). I was definitely lenient with Pmanderson (I wonder if it should have been more than 12 hours?). In any case, I can't guess myself to death. If any admins see this note while I sleep, and want to undo anything that was done: I recommend getting consensus from another admin first, but by all means proceed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" isn't just getting one of your mates to agree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they're ex-admins for a reason... Jpatokal (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they weren't both ex-admins. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re rollback concerns

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

Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, I'd really appreciate your considering the background of the revert in question as described on my talk page and providing further feedback based on the circumstances of the Huggle-assisted revert you questioned. I am confident that I am complying with Wikipedia guidelines on the use of rollback, but I would appreciate your comments on this particular edit. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting there, I'm just slow. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wooblz!

You recently blocked Wooblz! (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. He has now returned in a less than subtle manner as Thornofhate (talk · contribs). Rehevkor ✉ 22:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to inform you of the same thing. I posted a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wooblz!, but you may want to just pre-empt it by taking immediate action. Your call. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Quick Question

I have another question for you. I hope you don't mind me asking, since it really isn't a question about anything you have or haven't done. I am just trying to learn from you, since I know you know what you’re doing alot better then I do.

I noticed a heated debate about the use of this image: File:Garment.jpg. The debate isn't why I'm taking to you. The debate got me thinking of the copyright status of the image, and I got confused after reading the "nominated for deletion" decisions for that image. I again realize I'm missing some information about copyright. So I re-read Commons:COM:CB and Commons:De minimis, but I'm still a bit confused.

I know that I can't take a photo of a coke bottle or a painting and claim copyright ownership. I know I can take a photo of clothing as long as it dose "not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface".

Anyway, I know that this clothing is post 1970s LDS garments, since these are the new style LDS garments. A great deal of unrelated literature is based on the changes made to LDS garments in the resent past, so I know these are the "NEW" garments. I know that you can only buy these when you have a valid LDS temple recommend. I know you cannot make them yourself without approval and I can’t go and open a local garment making store. Therefore I know there must be some legal reason why all these are true, but I don't know what it is or how it applies. I also know that the use of this image is the garment itself, and so I believe Commons:De minimis doesn’t apply.

Anyway, my question what give Mr. Packham (the image creator) the ability to create this image? I notice the two deletions "kept", so I know he dose have the right, but I don't understand why I can't take a photo of a coke can or art and claim copyright but I can take a photo of these garments when legally I can’t make the clothing myself. After all the LDS church must have some kind of exclusive right to the use of the garment or they couldn’t have had the e-bay listings selling them removed due to copyright claims.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, from my limited experience, it's easy to bully eBay customers. I had a classmate in college who had Eddie Bauer threaten to sue her for copyright or trademark violation (I can't remember which) simply for using the word "EB" in her online listing (by which standard, you'll note that I've broken their "trademark" simply by typing this sentence). Frankly, I doubt their legal standing: but with their big lawyers vs. the small guy, they can threaten about anything they want (cf. a similar situation [1]). If I had a company threaten to sue me for tens of thousands of dollars, I'd probably take it down too: no matter how frivolous.
And now to the reason we don't allow someone to copyright a piece of clothing: it lacks enough originality to constitute a creative piece of artwork. The LDS might be able to claim a patent on it as a unique piece of technology (as long as they've cleared it with the Patent Office), but they cannot claim it violates a form of artistic intellectual property. Of course the real reason they don't like these going public is they a) believe very intensely that only their believers should wear such garments, and/or b) seem to be very secretive about it. I'm not terribly familiar with LDS theology (I've had no LDS friends since high school), so I don't know which; but their secretive zeal seems to rival even the Church of Scientology. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to e-mail you instead of posting here. I don't think I can expain what I mean in this setting.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Magog the Ogre. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg

The proper thing to do is to contact me before deletion if you have a question. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you weren't notified. How can I help you with this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAtruthwatcher

Is back to his old tricks again. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any bad behavior yet. He is inserting his contention on the page, but try to bring to the discussion page while avoiding edit warring yourself. Also, check out the essay I wrote: WP:DV for an appropriate definition of vandalism. Let me know if the behavior continues to be problematic. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well now he's using another account. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_(New_York)&action=history 24.239.153.58 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have edit warred with him. If I had not protected that page right now, I would be blocking you for violation of the three revert rule. Nevertheless, he's banned now, and the page is protected for a good long time. Let me know if it ever becomes a problem again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacment of Evolution tasks with Evolution tasks2

This edit [2] appears to be an error. The file File:Evolution-tasks.png is not the same as File:Evolution-tasks2.png, and in any case is already a Commons file so does not appear to need replacing. There are several thousand similar edits in the bots log around 28th November. SpinningSpark 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was an image on en.wikipedia which I deleted on 11-28 [3] which was equivalent to the commons image Evolution-tasks2.png. The file you're seeing now is a commons image different from the one that was local at that time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I see it now. SpinningSpark 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello, please tell me how will i come to Know the articles created by me. Is there any list saved any where?? I am just trying to accumulate the number of articles created by me in a list for my records. - Humaliwalay (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a tool that will do it quickly for you, but I don't know what that is; you an ask at the help desk. The only other way I know how to do it is to click on Special:Mycontributions, click on the highest available number to show at one time (in your case, 2000 suffices), and do a text search in your browser for "hist) N" (including the trailing space, excluding the quotations). This will include pages of all types and redirects as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the prompt assistance. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement

At the same time you responded to the AN3 request with a block, I fully protected the Tea Party movement for three days. In this situation, it's not a big deal if the two run concurrently, but perhaps one or the other should be removed. I'm indifferent. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on probation, one which I imposed at the suggestion of the community: see Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea Party movement. It seems a bit extreme to protect it for such a storm in a teacup (i.e., tiny edit war), IMO. That said, as Kelly wrote at AN3, there are some problem editors on that page, and I don't quite know what to do about it. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm indifferent; you seem to be more familiar with the history of the article. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmk. I think this one just might have to head to arbitration eventually. I lack the power to arbitrarily (no pun intended) pick out who I think is edit warring and who not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be under control now. Dylan Flaherty 03:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPG caps

I noticed that you worked on a pic of mine (File:BishopTuff.jpg) taken of the Bishop Tuff. Was the main thing the commons, and/or was the capital ".JPG" in the fine name a problem? I only bring it up because almost all of my pics (User:Qfl247/pics) have caps in the extension name, and some work may need to be done to my collection... QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's just a commons thing; what happened is someone transferred your image to commons, and when they did so, they removed the capitals from the filename (commons does that by default now when possible). Because Wikipedia and commons have case sensitive file names, I had to instruct the bot to change the name for all the transclusions of your image, or it wouldn't have appeared after I deleted the copy on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yodsaenklai.jpg

here's the copy of the email.

From: payap

To: Marty Rockatasnaky

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:40 am

Subject: Re: Yosaenklai

Quote message Hi marty,

you can use any photo you like. Al pix are made by me and you can use them.

gr

chris



Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marty. We'll need you to send any messages you have to OTRS, as the message indicates on your talk page. That message you have there is probably not enough for us to work with it, but you can work that out with OTRS in your communication. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your block of Quantumor

He's now added block evasion and sockpuppetry to his repertoire.

Special:Contributions/Quantum or not

(Hohum @) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantumor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had started an SPI, but it was closed. Did I do it wrong? (Hohum @) 23:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not (depends on how you look at it). Probably shouldn't have been closed so quickly, but neither did you specify why you were filing the case (e.g., to go after the sockmaster, see if there are other socks, etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik

Quit it. If you need to squabble, take it to the appropriate talk page. And for that matter, I note that every single one of you has had blocks in the past for edit warring - none of you is innocent. I've been here for years, and how many blocks do I have for edit warring? None. How close have I been to getting blocked? Not close at all. Do you think I don't feel very strongly about many subjects? It's really not that hard, guys, really. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It's this simple: you don't edit war or even break WP:BRD, and you let the other guy hang himself with his own rope.

I suggest you all read up on Wikipedia:Write for the enemy and WP:DR, and put them both into practice. Because FYI you're all showing a lack of competence in the very basic skill of agreeing over some simple wording. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartinael (talk · contribs)

As soon as his block expired he immediately engaged in another edit-war at Afghanistan and Languages of Afghanistan. I think he again violated the 3rr here.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block was a thing I risked yesterday. I would have prefered if Magog actually looked at the discussions and not just the history. I didn't want to get the other user blocked, I just wanted him addressed. I would also like to get you addressed to step back and look at the edits. Other than that, Lagoo, go report me. Chartinael (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoo sab

Hey. Just so you know, I left a question for you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a question: since User:Lagoo sab is accusing almost all other users of "vandalism", I want to know if this edit by him/her is OK? I added a source from the Gulf/2000 Project of Columbia University to the article (before, I had explained my concerns regarding this and other sources on Talk:Afghanistan), but Lagoo sab immediately removed it, saying that "maps are not allowed as sources". This is quite interesting, because he himself adds all kinds of (googled) sources to the article, as long as they suit his POV. This one, despite being published by a major US university, is immediately removed because it does not support his POV. Tajik (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing that question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where they are experts at determining what is proper. Generally in a dispute I try to avoid taking a position on a revision unless necessary. In this case, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am looking for that Email, but can't find it currently (I received it 2 years go). I also had nothing to do with the admins who were involved in that arb com. And I have not violated any rules in the past 2 years. As for the current situation: in the past 2 days, I have not been "edit warring" in any article. You can check my history. Most of my edits were on talk- or project pages. And even when I edited articles, I had only 2RRs, never 3RRs. But feel free to ask around. You can ask User:Khoikhoi or User:Kingturtle who were partially involved back then. Tajik (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoo sab II

Sorry to bother you again, but this kind and this kind of behavior is very unhelpful. We are all trying to have a discussion in order to reach a consensus. In fact, on WP:RSN he was told by other users that he is pushing for POV, that he is source picking, and that he should stop that. Here, he told everyone that he is taking a break. But now he has once again deleted reliable sources and restored his own cherry picked sources. He could have tagged the section instead, but no, he is ignoring the current discussions, he is ignoring the warnings, and he is ignoring his own message. I will not revert him, but his behavior is really tiring and unhelpful. I do not want to take this to WP:ANI. There are so many discussions going on about him right now. There is no need to open yet another front. Your help is very appreciated. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected all four pages around the locus of this dispute. Use dispute resolution, guys. Whether this means getting a mediator or opening an RFC. I find it incomprehensible that you are all incapable of discussing this with one another without spreading the argument onto four million different talk pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second! Everyone else is discussing, except for Lagoo sab. None of his recent edits has been reverted by anyone. But he keeps reverting to his POV versions. He is even insulting other users or respected scholars, such as Mehrdad Izady, only because they do not back up his POV. And now, all articles have been protected in either partially falsified versions (for example Pashto language) or his POV version. He is absolutely not interested in a discussion or in a consensus. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Tajik (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you opened an RFC? Have you started mediation? Have you never reverted beyond WP:BRD? With all due respect, I work the edit warring noticeboard, so I'm quite familiar with situations like these. And one thing I hear all the time is "the other party isn't talking but I am", and only rarely is that true. Have you proposed any halfway solutions or other ways to work around it while Lagoo sab hasn't? Frankly, Tajik, you're in blatant violation of your parole; you're damned lucky I didn't block you. What I will do for you: I will tag any pages with any NPOV or other tags that you ask me to during the dispute, within reason.
I apologize for being so rude about this, Tajik, but I'm really really becoming sick of it. You guys almost got HJ Mitchell to block you, and he hasn't dealt with this 1/5th of what I have. None of you are handling this dispute like educated adults who know how to compromise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the case to WP:RS, as you had suggested. But there, he is ignoring and even insulting respected scholars, while at the same time reverting articles to his POV version. He is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab right now, and, of course, on your talkpage. You can go through my edit history: I did not revert him, in fact, most of my edits recently have been on talkpages (mostly related to Lagoo sab) and the very few edits were either unrelated to him or they were minor edits or tagging of articles. And as for the parole: first of all, I am not aware that I have violated it. But if so, I apologize. As you have noticed, since you came up with that parole again, I have not reverted any article, and I won't revert any article until the matter is solved. Secondly, I have not violated any other rule: neither 3RR nor anything else. A discussion is only possible if the opposite site is also interested. But so far, Lagoo sab has not shown any sign indicating that he is interested. Basically, he is opposed to everybody else. And that is extremely tiring and frustrating ... Tajik (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is frustrating, getting the the wrong version protected is always frustrating as well. If he is opposed to everything else, then you can start a dispute resolution and the consensus will come out. And for that matter, you admitted not 24 hours ago a few sections up that you had "2RR" on an article, which is a blatant violation of your parole. Please don't be dense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above: I was not aware that I am violating a parole, because I was (and still am) convinced that the parole has ended. I was banned because of an unjustified accusation (i.e. that I had a sockpuppet to evade an ArbCom; the claim was proved wrong - 1 years later!). When I was unblocked, I agreed to a 1RR. Since then, I did not have any problems with the community or with administrators. You can check my history. That was 2 years ago. But I repeat myself: if I have violated the parole with the 2RRs recently because of my wrong assumption, then I apologize! But calling this a "blatant violation" of the parole is unfair, and you know that! Tajik (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then find for me the clause which invalidates your parole after one year. A private communication with an administrator, nothing on-wiki? Cmon, you have to do better than that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're last sentence is WP:ABF, but anyway ... Just for your information: I had a lot of "private communication" with admins. That was the reason why I was unblocked again. As you can see here, no blocks were documented (because there were none), and the arbitration page has not been edited since September 13th 2008. Tajik (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Magog, but you yourself have stated that you prefer blocking editors in stead of protecting pages. Now I am surely surprised to see you have protected the pages in question but did not block Lagoo Sab. I find this extremely odd considering that i.e. in regards to the Gulf Project source he has been told off by quite a few other editors. Nevertheless you let him roam but keep going after Tajik. I am furthermore suprised as you are a fairly recent editor on WP and a very recent Administrator. Maybe you ought to look for assistance from an Admin who has got some more time as an an admin. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Tajik - OK, that's fine. But if I can't see active documentation of a reversal of your probation, I have to assume it's still outstanding. Surely you can understand why.
@Chartinael - If you disagree with a decision of mine, you may feel free to ask for a second opinion on ANI or from another admin. I know several editors told Lagoo Sab to quit it, but I also know several editors have told Tajik and you that your edits had NPOV problems. I'm trying really hard here to be fair. If I was unfair, I'd just lock the page and walk away, or worse, just block all of you. But I'm not, I don't think. Believe me, if LS stays out of line, I will block him. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@all (addendum) - I apologize if I'm been short but it's very difficult for me to make heads or tails of this whole argument. Especially with the tendency of all the editors in this dispute to spread the argument out over so many pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
magog, thank you for clarifying your position. Please note that we appeared on mitchell's page after LS accused us of sockpuppetry. Do you really think we enjoy having to take discussions everywhere? Just look where LS took the cia factbook thing and the ethnologue figures. Regarding your armin abilities- I see no need to take it any further. Usually I address issues directly. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre, what do you mean by several editors telling me to quit it? It is they who want to continue on and on with this non-ending dispute over the percentage of languages in Afghanistan. Why can't they just accept the results of all the reliable sources and end this meaningless discussion? That is what I want and that is the policy of Wikipedia. I'm not here playing any kind of games, but every page starts with my ID name and I find this very inappropriate. Not that it's my concern, I just wanted to point out that Tajik was blocked 3 separate times after his Arb was lifted[10] (Sept. 2009, May 2010 and Nov. 2010), and according to this, he has used sockpuppets to evade Arb.--Lagoo sab (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LS, asking for my ban and repeating baseless accusation that were proven wrong 2 years ago (i.e. the wrong accusation of me having sockpuppets) is not going to change the fact that almost everyone agrees that your edits are POV, OR, and against all rules of Wikipedia. Can you name even a single contributer who is supporting your POV?! You should keep that in mind, especially because you are currently facing a serious sockpuppet-investigation yourself. Tajik (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[11]?!? This is just taunting. Please don't do this. It would even be nice to simply revert yourself here. Just because he's been behaving badly doesn't mean there's need to dance on his grave after he's been banned. --Jayron32 21:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you look in User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 6, you'll see I had quite a bit of discussion with him. Frankly I'm convinced there's no way he's gonna get the point that his edits aren't wanted as is unless we're in his face. But if you say so, I'll remove it, sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: rarely I'm willing to be a dick if I think it will be helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation

Thanks for the invitation to the discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. I'm commenting here, rather than there, because I don't have a lot to add at this time, but wanted to acknowledge that I've seen it and will follow it. Yes, I have been trying to address some of the backlog, but as a new admin, I decided to start with what seemed like the easier situation - files with the same name. If I understand correctly (and I hope I do and you'll correct me if I'm wrong), when the files have the same name, I don't have to worry about delinking, as the software first looks for File:foo on en.WP, and if it doesn't find it there, looks to Commons. If the files have different names, more work is needed.

I've also noticed that the work I'm doing is incredibly tedious, yet I don't see an easy way to automate it. I go through a few dozen with no incident, then run across one that has a questionable tag, and have to report it to PUF. That said, it occurs to me that part of the routine could be semi-automated. I'll try to think though what could be done, and come back with more thoughts at some later time.--SPhilbrickT 15:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps od regions of development in Romania

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&oldid=404195210"