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 John Riemann Soong (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 15 December 2011 (→‎please undelete File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

-----> FAQ: My Maps <-----
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User:Magog the Ogre/to-do

Talkback - Djmaschek

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Djmaschek's talk page.
Message added 04:11, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.[reply]

Talkback - Brandon5485

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Brandon5485's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

—Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 23 November 2011‎ (UTC).

Bucket list

I do hope you don't kick the Wikipedia bucket, as you suggested at User talk:George Ho. Maybe you just need a break...it gets to all of us at sometime or another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought about it a lot, and I changed my mind. Sort of. Maybe. Not quite. Thanks though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you take it easy now. Nil carborundum, as my old dad used to say. Don't let the b-gg-rs grind you down. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; seriously. Very very well put. (Also, didn't know that word you bowdlerized was a curse word... not a common word in my part of the world) Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative "cartoon-ish" works

What is your opinion of files such as File:Vyloppilli.jpg when used in biographical articles? Someone has gone to a lot of trouble (and demonstrated a lot of talent) in producing these things for the Malayalam WP & other India-related WPs ... but they do not sit right with me. The depictions could be of anyone, and it begs the question of sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends; if you can find an image it's clearly based on, then it should be deleted. But if it's based only on what the original drawer knows of the appearance of the individual, then it's OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is pretty obviously based on this, although it looks likely that site is also misusing the image. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a pity. Yeah that has to go; I'd nominate it for deletion. You might consider giving the uploader advance notice though at ml:User talk:Sreedharantp and asking for him to drawn one that isn't a derivative, but only based on what he knows of the subject's appearance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try that approach. I did attempt to work my way through the en-WP/ml-WP/Commons system, which appeared to involved bots, and I got hopelessly confused. Not helped by the fact that I have zero knowledge of Malayalam. I'll try to find a Malayalam contributor who can convey the message. I have the feeling that the contributor has done a lot of this type of thing but Gibberish is my only other language & so it is awkward to track. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to recommend try posting at ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:Embassy, which is for international speakers, but no one seems to check it.. Instead you might consider asking at commons:User talk:Praveenp; he seems to be multilingual. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe one of the editors at Wikipedia:Local Embassy#മലയാളം (ml). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note directly for the uploader, in English and with apologies for that. Not that the apologies will convey anything if the uploader is unable to translate. I linked to this discussion. Will wait a couple of days and then, yes, follow through with your suggestion if there is no development. Your comments are, as always, appreciated. I find this sort of stuff a bit of a nightmare and sometimes feel that it would be easier just not to get involved! Images are awkward enough but when my monoglottism to the mix, well ... - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have had second thoughts and have now left a note on the talk page for commons:User talk:Praveenp. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can read, write and converse in Malayalam. Can I be of any help? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Sreejith K, who has now followed through & made enquiries in Malayalam. We shall see what develops. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great! Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1974 Iceland 1100 year coin (reverse).jpg

I received a notice that the above image was up for speedy deletion, but unfortunately I did not see the notice until after the image had already been deleted. I am still learning more about copyright laws myself, but it is my opinion that within the context of this image's usage on Wikipedia, this image constitutes fair use. Do you think it would be appropriate to undelete this image under a license similar to the one applied to the image File:450 Years of the Polish Postal Service coin.png? Specifically, since the image on the Icelandic coin is itself the subject of commentary discussed in the article Icelandic heraldry, I believe a fair use rationale would apply. It may also be noted that this is a commemorative medallion with no value as currency, not a coin intended for circulation, so it is not "money", as pertains to Icelandic law, though the design may still fall under copyright protection. The digitized image was my own work, though a similar image of the same commemorative issue exists on the internet here if that is of any help. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YesY Fixed - undeleted for fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's it's been undeleted, I've taken another look and the coin is being used to demonstrate the concept of the Landvættir - wouldn't it be possible to find a public domain image to do so? Kelly hi! 05:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but the sentence in question says "the modern coinage of Iceland..."; I'm not sure there is any free equivalent. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, Magog. I might add that yes, in my original rationale for digitizing and uploading the image, it was to illustrate the use of Iceland's national heraldry in numismatic applications. The Landvættir also frequently appear in the actual circulating currency of Iceland, but since this is a particularly striking example, which I happen to have on hand, and since there is no concern of counterfeiting for currency value, I thought this would be a good choice to show how elements of Icelandic national heraldry appear in coins (circulated and commemorative). Thank you both for your thoughtful suggestions, and for your assistance. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry I missed your response yesterday. Anyway, Wikipedia's policies for fair use stipulate that there can be no free equivalent that would convey the same meaning, nor could one likely be created by a user (Wikipedia's policies are guided both by real-world US laws and foundation policies meant to avoid any type of lawsuits). Kelly was simply wondering if there are any out of copyright coins we could photograph. In practice, that probably means any coins whose design was by an agency (not a person) that were publicly released before 1926 (for English Wikipedia) or 1941 (for Commons, although they should be using the 1926 standard but aren't). There are a few other possibilities that are simply too complicated to worry about at this point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The eleventh commandment

Why did you rush to undo what I was doing before I even finished?

I'm planning to make "the eleventh commandment" a default page of the phrase itself and move the book article to a dedicated page. Just as the "apple" page is about the fruit and not the computer firm. And there is no controversy or dispute among multiples of people here. There are no people claiming that the centuries old English phrase "the eleventh commandment" is less applicable than the book or that the phrase is mostly used to refer to the book. Therefore it would be a waste of time to propose a move and all that jass and the rules as stipulated in the "movign a page" WP instruction link shows it is perfectly OK to move such uncontroversial stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get on your nerves or just appear like I'm blindly reverting (I'm not). Nevertheless, in order to satisfy copyright issues (see {{c&pmove}}), please make sure to go through the proper process. If you are doing an uncontroversial move for which you (which you are incapable of doing because you can't delete the old page), there is a non-controversial section at WP:RM. I'd be glad to help you fill it out... I'm just too unknowledgeable in the area to be able to do so myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it and it worked (you may check it out for yourself and see if I didn't succeed or made some sort of error while doing it) Loginnigol (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not do it right at all, but I've undone your moves and moved the pages properly so it is now done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I protected it since at the time we were told license templates should not be freely modifiable, but if you feel it should go, don't hesitate to nominate it. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radar-faisceaux.PNG

Hi,

I'm the author of this image. It is now an orphan, as a bot notified me, because of the svg image that has been done of it on Commons which is of much better quality. Since it is no longer needed, I have put the NowCommons but you refused to delete it because it is not the same format. What should I do now ?

Pierre cb (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it now; sorry, didn't realize you were the uploader and author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

Dear Magog, I trust your neutrality that is why I ask you for your advice and opinion. I hope you find some time. User:Darkness Shines and me agreed on a version of including the Pakistani ISI's support to the Taliban 1995-2001 in the lead of the Taliban article.[1] There were multiple reliable sources provided for this: [2]. Unfortunately, the editor User: TopGun has made it his job to try to block any such content being added. Another editor User:TParis has shared TopGun's position several times in the past and today and has issued statements such as "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no." although anyone familiar with the issue knows it is indeed very important (as shown in the sources). We have a 2-2 situation and it is not moving forward. Could you please take a look at the issue or know of any other administrator with expertise in this issue? Would be very much appreciated. JCAla (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very tricky issue. But let's see what I can observe. I see a few problems problems that TP is having so far:
  • The lede is already too long, so it should be in the rest of the article.
  • He seems to have an issue with the term "militarily."
Now, I will give you my opinion, and it is only a matter of my personal opinion as an editor, not an administrator or a subject expert:
  • For the first issue, I'm not very impressed with argument, because Al-Qaeda's support is mentioned. IMO if there is time to mention AQ's support, Pakistan's support probably should be mentioned in one sentence. I'm assuming there were no other major military supporters. I also have not read his arguments terribly closely (see below) so I might have missed something.
  • I don't understand the issue with the term "militarily." In all honesty, I probably could if I tried hard enough, but the talk page is pretty WP:TL;DR right now. Can you summarize it for me?
Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. First, yes, there were no other major military contributors to the Taliban. And the Pakistani military support to the Taliban was imperative for the Taliban to rise to and stay in power as described by the provided reliable sources. So, a sentence in the lead should be clearly given. The term "militarily" is clearly used in the sources, too. A short summary of the events:

I added Pakistan's support 1995-2001 to the lead and backed it up with reliable sources (George Washington University, Human Rights Watch, etc.). TopGun removed it. TP (who has backed up TopGun's pov in the past also) came to start the discussion and said he thought it wasn't even worthwhile mentioning. At this point Darkness Shines explained to TP that it was indeed a very important issue to mention and agreed on my formulation which he/she said was concise and according to what the sources say. TP then agreed to add the content (although not in the form proposed). But with and after frequent unconstructive interventions by TopGun (who at one time also wanted to include the Soviet era support of the ISI to the mujahideen - although totally out of scope of the article -, then wanted to include "other nations" - which are not in the sources - and then another time claimed everything was too long) then TP tried to make the majority position as described in the sources the position of "several" and is intent on not including "militarily" which he says is not neutral (although it is what the sources are explicitly stating). I find it very hard to argue with editors who simply try to block everything and are not open to logical arguments. That is why I asked for your advice.JCAla (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are always two sides to a story; it's never as simple as just "frequent unconstructive interventions." The description you've given me of TG/TP sounds too one-sided to me and uncharacteristic of good faith editors; can you give me their stated motivations for not wanting the content? If not, I can go get that information directly from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Excerpts of some of the most outstanding discussion points below (you can of course ask them yourself also) - hope it's not too long:

Darkness Shines: "That ISI support needs expanding upon, you need look at the vast amount of sources which discuss the alliance between these groups, to not mention it in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE in my opinion."

Me: "Suggestion: "From 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power as well as in their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Among a variety of international sources Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports i. e. state that senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials were planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals were providing direct combat support. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.""

TopGun: "Any addition made to the lead should not exceed 3 to 4 lines and in case the consensus is to add the support of ISI (read Pakistan) in lead, then the support of other nations and their Intelligence should also be added in a similar way to the sentence including CIA (read United States) and any other notable. Also, a point to be noted is that the lead addition should rather focus the whole time span before 2001 which includes soviet invasion era and the groups that were once Mujahideen where ever notable."

Me: "I disagree. The Taliban are a distinct group which first made an appearance in Afghanistan in 1994. This article is not about the Soviet era and the mujahideen. The mujahideen and Soviet era are a completely different issue which the article does not cover and has not relevance at all for the lead. There were former anti-Soviet mujahideen in both the Taliban and the anti-Taliban faction. Further, the provided reliable sources do not mention the United States, which officially did not recognize the Taliban regime, as providing direct support to the Taliban. The only other country which could be mentioned is Saudi Arabia who is described by one source as being a major financial contributor to the Taliban until 1998."

TP: "I think we're close to coming to an agreement here. The only problem I have with JCAla's suggestion is that it gives too much detail for a "summary". I suggest the following:

According to several international sources such as Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.

This is much closer to giving due weight that meets both WP:UNDUE and also WP:LEAD. The mention in the lead should be proportional to the body of the article."

TopGun: "JCAla's details are clearly deliberate introduction of UNDUE and POV. ... The denial by Pakistan itself is enough to reduce the content related to it in the lead. Although I agree with your suggestion, but I think it can be made even more shorter to put lesser burden on the lead and to give proper weightage. For example:

"Several sources claim Pakistan and other (mentioned) nations' support to Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001 which is refuted by Pakistan." "

TP: "You're right, that is better. Sources can be listed in the body. For grammatical fixes, I suggest:

"Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan.""

Me: "Your last suggestion is clearly violating WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY. 1) It puts equal weight on the majority position and the minority position and it does not identify the majority view. It thus does not represent what is in the reliable sources. "Several sources" and "claim" does not represent appropriately that this is the majority view. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. 2) The "other nations" are not in the sources provided below. No other country (other than Pakistan) provided direct military support to the Taliban. Including "other nations" suggests to the reader that Pakistan and other nations were providing an equal amount of support when this is nowhere to be found in the sources. 3) "Refuted" implies that Pakistan has provided evidence for its stance, but it just has denied. 4) Also, I would like someone's else input on whether, given the amount and reliability of the sources, it is necessary to give in-text attribution. I suggest a mix of TP's and my version:

"From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban."

TopGun: "I disagree with you on that. The sentence never mentioned about military support ..."

TP: You're putting too much in the lead. The details will be explained in the body of the article. It needs to be a summary, not a stand alone description of the support. I'm still set on my last proposal, your's don't fit with WP:LEAD.

Me: "Mine fits perfectly with WP:LEAD and WP:VERIFY. The only difference between my and your last version is that you dropped the "militarily" and did not present appropriately that this is the majority position of a variety of sources. So the difference between my and your version is what ... 8 words ... 8 words which make the statement more in line with the reliable sources."

Darkness Shines: "Support for JCla version as it is concise and aligned with what majority sources say on the matter"

TP: ""Militarily" is the point of view of the sources. We are giving almost zero weight to the opposite point of view, instead saying simply that "Pakistan has denied providing support". We are running into a problem where the article lead is already too long and has to be cut. When in the context of the discussed sentence, you are right that giving more weight to Pakistan's denial is WP:UNDUE, however, in the context of the entire article it is also WP:UNDUE to give so much space in the lead to this particular issue. ..."

Me: ""Militarily" is the majority position not pov. We need to represent what the reliable sources and the majority position say correctly. Pakistan's support is important for 5 out of 5 (excluding etymology) main sections of the article. More than half of the history section deals with 1994-2001. The ideology, governance and economy also all stand in connection to Pakistani support - not to mention the international relations section. I restructured the lead according to the timeline. Now we have 4 paragraphs. And as you can see one is suspiciously lacking information."

TP: "I don't agree that "Militarily" is neutral. Further, I think that it can and will be sufficiently discussed in the body of the article not to warrant inclusion in the lead."

Me: "The United Nations say "military assistance", Human Rights Watch says "planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and directly providing combat support". ... my last suggestion for the 1995-2001 period :

"According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan denied providing support to the Taliban."

JCAla (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading that excerpt, I now think my point of view is actually closer to TP and TG. I had thought they don't want the phrase in the lede at all; instead, it looks like they are willing to have one sentence about it, which I think is appropriate. I will bring further discussion of the wording itself to the talk page to avoid cross-posting; you can feel free to continue any discussion over the nature of the disagreement here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, notice, that I also agreed to only one sentence for the majority view. I will see what you have to say about the wording. I think the following sentence, "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denied." would be appropriate. JCAla (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magog, can you please continue keeping an eye on this issue? Now, you will see him disputing sourced content of the article body. You will see with time, and I can tell you already now, that this is a similar case (with regards to agenda) as it was with another user. And I don't say that out of pov difference. JCAla (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are accusing me of socking, then I strongly encourage you to go to WP:SPI. I have no agenda and I've never touched this article or any terrorist related article before (that I recall).--v/r - TP 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to you. JCAla (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suggest exactly the same! If you have no evidence for it, you should know what it constitutes. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JCAla

Hi, being a neutral but aware admin from the disputed you helped resolve you might find it easier than other admins to review/help review this case. JCAla has reported me for a matter that does not involve him for a non existing editwar here. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably less than optimal for him to report you, as it comes across as a vendetta. But he's right you shouldn't edit war. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got handled. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate it if you would correct JCAla's behavior. Since you have disappeared from Talk:Taliban, they have turned to making personal accusations against me. I'm refusing to participate anymore unless this is corrected and that includes WP:MEDCAB. I would be willing to discuss the matter on MEDCAB if JCAla sticks to the issue at hand rather than trying to smear his opponents. Please see: my last message on the talk page.--v/r - TP 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not handle this yourself instead of you all flooding Magog's talk now, just because I once asked him for his neutral input? Your contrib desciption "I am a sock?" in itself constitutes a smear against me since I never called you "a sock" of anyone. I raised valid points which you refuse to answer. So, I am over with this, so should you be. None forces you to participate in the discussion. I am sorry if any of what I said has offended you personally, that was not my intention. JCAla (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@TP: as I stated above with JCAla, this becomes WP:TLDR for me (i.e., it's a drain on me to read the history). Could you summarize the problems here? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is also going to be a little WP:TLDR, but here it goes:

I first joined this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. I provided an outside view of the issue about whether or not Pakistan should be included in the infobox as an ally of the Taliban. Long story short, the closer agreed with my position that only facts go in the infobox and the issue could be discussed in the body of the article and summarized in the lead.

I had assumed this settled in the matter until I noticed that both JCAla and TopGun were edit warring on the article Taliban over the lead and they were quoting me as rationale for their warring. They were both blocked (not by me although I would've been willing at this point; I still considered myself uninvolved).

I opened a discussion on the talk page about what they were warring over and left them both messages on their talk page inviting them to discuss the lead. While they were both blocked, User:Darkness Shines offered an opinion that made sense to me so I said we should write it in the context of Pakistan supporting the Taliban mostly prior to 2001. Several of us offered possible prose to use but a disagreement began over the use of the word "militarily" as well as listing the sources rather than saying "several sources" or "multiple sources".

Up to this point is all fine and dandy, this is how we develop consensus and discuss matters. I had disappeared from the conversation from 7 Dec to 11 Dec at which point you had become involved. When I returned, I said I "I support Magog's proposal and I'm also willing to continue the discussion with JCAla on the use of 'militarily'". You had said the decision was temporary and I wanted to express my support of the temporary proposal and my willingness to continue discussion instead of disappearing and claiming "We won".

This is where the problem started. JCAla began making personal remarks about me "Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did" and also about TopGun "Sidenote: TopGun, are you not busy with your other hundreds of agenda-motivated discussions?" all in the same edit. I explained I was taking a neutral point of view and that your own proposal isn't all that different from mine in this edit. Then JCAla uses the above discussion between Darkness Shines as I as an example of me being forced, coerced, or otherwise had my arm bent to agree with Darkness Shines here. I explained that Darkness Shines made a valid point that I agreed with and that was why I changed my position; I was not forced. That is in this edit. JCAla continues here to accuse me of bad faith by saying that I only relented because my position was untenable.

I then explained to JCAla that, just like you, I was an uninvolved neutral administrator who decided to try to help out. That I disagreed with him didn't mean I was his opponent. I also suggested that JCAla allow the conversation to return to discussing the issue. The final straw for me was JCAla again questioning my motives. At this point, unless JCAla quits targetting people personally when he disagrees with them, I will not participate. I have seen JCAla's attempt to start a new discussion on this matter and get back to content, but I have no reason to believe the personal comments arn't going to continue until someone they trust, like you, tells them to knock it off.

Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a small point here that TP told JCAla that on a personal, off wiki, level his views were exactly as those of him at WP:NPOVN#Taliban. I think this was the most neutral act I've seen, weighing everything even when your personal views are not that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the input TP. Can you tell me is TopGun also having behavioral problems in your point of view? Because, from a quick glance, my gut instincts tell me that TG might carry some guilt as well for handling the issue poorly. I don't ask because I want to shame TopGun as much as I want to be even-handed and keep the situation under cool. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want to 'shame me' without even yet knowing if I made any personal attacks? I'll request to be quoted (in context - unlike JCAla's quotes below) if any are alleged against me. I think I took a firm stand but I didn't make personal attacks or crossed civility though I was repeatedly provoked. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since TP is talking about me, I feel the need to correct some things he claimed.

First of all, the "all fine and dandy" preceding discussion about the infobox rather was interesting for the observation of the behaviour shown by TP, TopGun and Nightw. After Darkness Shines and The Last Angry Men had agreed with me, they became tired of repeating their points over and over again, so I remained to continue the discussion at which point it became very funny. Nightw claimed: "You clearly have no concept of how this project works. There appears to be competency issues here."[3] When I posed the following question to TP, "I have a question, as a majority of reliable sources - the mainstream sources - refer to the Taliban as "proxy", "asset", "instrument" and "supported", "armed" and "trained" by Pakistan. Do we just ignore it, because the specific term "alliance" was not used [in many of them]?". TP replied with an attitude I consider unworthy of a neutral editor, stating: "Yes, yes we do. [...] Fall out...big emphasis on that please."[4] He also wrote "very constructive" things such as:

  • "The Pakistan and Taliban are in a full alliance, have been for years, share drinks at the pub on the weekends. ..."[5]
  • "On Wikipedia, we write what the sources say. Do you get it now?"[6]
  • "If you are not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia in this way, you're in the wrong spot. If you lack the ability to compartmentalize your opinions then you'll continue to have trouble contributing."[7]
  • "Once you understand that, it will make the rest easier for you and everyone."[8]

On Mr Innocence's talkpage I had the pleasure of reading his "very neutral" remark to above mentioned Nightw:

  • "Sorry about the edit conflicts. I kept having 1 more thing to say and I guess it ended up being three more things. It appears this is a case of WP:IDHT."[9]

Unsurprisingly, I was not shocked when TP started the new discussion (he named "Should the lead contain mention of ISI support of the Taliban") by claiming this as being representative of the sources: "Reports by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations suggest that the Taliban may have received support from the Pakistani intelligence service, which Pakistan strongly denies." Note that all the sources do not "suggest" nor do they say "maybe", that state as a matter of fact. But generally he held the opinion, "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents."[10] Note that one section in the table of contents reads: "Pakistani military interference".

Now, when TP returned to the discussion I asked him, "what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?), I'd be glad to discuss the term. But unfortunately, a look at the previous discussion, shows how existence and explicit content of a majority of reliable sources is simply being ignored alltogether. So, if for you the sources provided below are still not enough to prove that the majority accuses Pakistan of "military support", then I see no way how this discussion between us three could go any forward and I'd rather hear the opinion of other, neutral, people." This way I tried to explain, that it did not make sense for us to repeat our positions over and over again and that if he had not changed his opinion (which because of above) I did not perceive as being neutral, I'd rather hear the input of others. Then I tried to explain to him what I perceive as being the difference between your, Magog, input and his.

"First, you started this discussion with this interesting position: "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents." [...] Do you think this (your initial position) was at all - even in the slightest way - correct? If you do, do you really think you got enough expertise with regards to Afghanistan issues? Second, this was your "neutral" version you simply adapted from TopGun immediately after he had thrown it into the discussion: "Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan." Is it your sense of things that "several" describes a majority position? Did you make sure that the "other nations" are in the sources? (Because as I already told you above, they are not.) Is the term "refuted" (nowhere to be found in any source) an equivalent of "denied" to you? How come you so easily agreed on a non-verifiable version of TG but continued to battle with me over single terms which meet WP:VERIFY for days? I am not interested to "stalk your contribs". The above is enough to show a good sense of humor describing you as a "dream-combo". Don't take that too seriously. Now compare that to Magog's inputs. First Magog searched for similar controversies and found as an example the wording from nuclear weapon's lede regarding Israel. [...]"

I don't think these constitute personal attacks as I explained to him not to take the "dream-combo" too seriously and I consider the rest valid questions. But instead of addressing my valid points, TP felt offended and evaded any constructive answer. At that point I told him three times that I was not going to continue this discussion, since he didn't even try do understand what I was saying, it made no sense to discuss any further. But he remained aggrieved, at which point I even told him that I was sorry if he felt offended personally and that this wasn't my intention. Now, TP is flooding other people's talk page because obviously he doesn't want to deal with it himself. But statements such as the one above "I wanted to express my support of the temporary proposal and my willingness to continue discussion instead of disappearing and claiming "We won"" just indicate what I said. First, the dispute was about 1) widely and 2) military. Widely now is in the sentence, militarily not. How did "you win"? And second his use of this very formualion in itself is interesting.

This statement by TP I also find rather interesting: "and firmly oppose your proposal until you retract your allegations that I am unwilling to compromise."[11] First, I did not allege TP was unwilling to compromise, I questioned his neutrality. Second, personal dispute is no criteria for "firmly oppos"ing content. Then TP claimed, "My accuser cannot point to an instance in this conversation where he himself has compromised on an issue but demands so of others."[12] Big ? Didn't I just compromise on the temporary version? Last but not least, this interesting statement, "I strongly suggest TopGun also strike from this discussion any further until JCAla acknowledges that ..."[13] speaks volumes for itself. JCAla (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog - I don't really think I need to offer a rebuttle here, the diffs JCAla provided speak for themselves. As far as TopGun's conduct, the warring wasn't impressive. TopGun hasn't been perfect, for example "I'll like to start by pointing out non neutrality of the above editor" (excuse me if I don't leave a diff, it's on the WP:NPOVN right now. Although I'd be a bad judge of TopGun's behavior as their comments havent been directed at me.--v/r - TP 20:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that comment, it wasn't meant to judge JCAla, infact I wanted to point out that he was an involved party rather than a neutral editor joining in from NPOVN. My bad if it can be interpreted otherwise. Hope this is a reasonable explanation. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick commons question

Hi Magog, how are you, hope all is going well. I just needed to ask you, do you have your Commons talk page set up to receive email notification of new messages? The reason being, I keep my enwp and commons editing separate as much as possible, and I have some questions in relation to a certain thing that I would like to ask you, but would prefer to keep it on Commons if possible. I will leave a message on your Commons talk page anyway so you know what it is about -- like you don't know already lol.. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just leave Commons discussion on Commons; it's easier that way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please undelete

This was an image of my own work, uploaded under a free license that you deleted. I am trying to find my missing images (that were moved to Commons and deleted on this project without anyone ever notifying me -- and now I can't find them because they won't show up in logs) and I believe this image that you deleted was not a duplicate, contrary to your claim when you deleted my image. Even if it was a duplicate, I desire to keep a local copy here, not on Commons. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&oldid=465936051"