User talk:Magog the Ogre

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

User:Magog the Ogre/to-do

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for review and arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JCAla (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The user has requested a case at Wikipedia:RFARB#Block review and Afghanistan, India and Pakistan disputes.

In my opinion, this issue may not be ripe for arbitration. Some of the participants appear confused about policy. An RFC/U could be one way of addressing the problem. Arbcom is busy, and their time is precious. At User talk:AGK#Outline vs. proposed decision arbitrator AGK states 'we have several large, difficult cases open at once'. One alternative to arbitration is to ask for bans or blocks at ANI. The volume of data is such that a single ANI thread might not be able to converge on a solution in a reasonable time. So an RFC/U, even though tedious, might be one way to organize it. Let me know if you have any ideas of what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. While I was love if ArbCom would take the case, I understand they don't have 16 hours per day to work on everything. When (if) the request fails, I will recommend an RFC/U for everyone involved. I may sign it for users on both sides. I don't think an RFC/U on me will get real far; JCAla might do better asking for a second opinion at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

JCAla has mentioned you as being 'harassed' by me... I think you should clarify that in your own statement since you've not once mentioned something like that to me (other than at most a one time talk page flood discussion initiated by some one else). I don't think he mentioned at all in his statement that he first agreed to your conditions on the article talk which actually required the cases to go through you. If the Arbcom request fails, you're right about him asking for revision of his block at ANI. But I don't see how RFC/U will fit on any user (other than Darkness Shines) since they don't have behavior or editing problems as such rather content disputes (given that JCAla refrained after the Talk:Taliban agreement). For me, I have already faced blocks for my previous editwar issues and have not repeated them (can't speak for JCAla). --lTopGunl (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Magog, I posted a quote and a diff of your statement to help the arbitrators move things along. I think some of them may have been waiting for you to comment. What you said seems clear enough, and they should be able to dispose of the matter now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Which I removed. If you wish to make a statement, I encourage you to do so yourself. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're a real hostile fellow. You should leave a comment on my talk page if there is an issue, not revert me like some vandal. I think it would be best for you to resign as arbitration clerk if you need to lord your powers over other editors so much. It's very unimpressive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'you' meant Magog, which unfortunately I didn't make very clear either in my language or my indenting, so apologies for that. As I said in my edit summary when removing the initial post, I suggested that either or both of you comment, which Jehochman has done. I encourage you Magog do so as well. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but in the future please don't remove my posts (nor anybody else's if they are acting in good faith) under normal circumstances. Please just ask me to fix anything that needs fixing, by leaving a message on my talk page. If you ask somebody to fix something and they do it, the matter is resolved without confrontation. Deleting a post is a very confrontational action. I didn't see a message on my talk page, and when I saw your comment here it made me feel like my input was completely unwelcome, when in fact all I needed to do was change the heading. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that the arbitration has been declined by some ArbCom members - not yet fully but nevertheless -, I ask you to understand that I consider there to be a huge problem with how you have handled this issue recently (just like you consider there to be a problem with my editing). Other administrator do see through TopGun's behavior [1][2], but you don't seem to see it and worse even acted upon his indirect requests. With all due respect, I ask you to voluntarily step aside with regards to disputes between TopGun and me. If you are right, and I am the disruptive editor, surely, administrators at ANI will notice, don't you think? If TopGun is the disruptive editor they will also notice. I am always open to your advise, but ask you to take a step back from taking any actions and maybe with some time you might see the whole situation in a different light. Can you agree to this request? JCAla (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not agree to that. I will agree to try to handle things in an unbiased manner in light of all evidence, and not rush to judgment that someone is acting improperly. I also agree that you are free to make reports about TG's editing on any noticeboard or on any administrator talk page. I will agree that any administrative action I take against any particular side will be subject to a second opinion by another administrator; that means if I block you in the future, for example, I will make a clear notice on your talk page that any administrator is free to reverse the block without asking for my permission or waiting for further administrator comment. Or I will ask for a second opinion in IRC first (sorry, I realize it's not a public log, but if I have another admin there agree it's a good block, I will only act on it if that admin lets me tell you who they are). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

When TopGun comes to you in such a regular manner with his reports and conspiracies, you should tell him, "go to the wikipedia noticeboards with that, because they have been made for these kind of things". We two are involved in a conduct dispute here, and it is not appropriate for you to take actions against me. You know very well that a normal administrator will be very hesitant to reverse the decision of another administrator. So, once again, if you are right, there is no need for you to take actions since others would surely notice. You should show some splendor and good faith and take this step voluntarily. JCAla (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I have not been in a content dispute with you. I already told you that about 10 times but you never listen, so I'm not going to repeat why. Go back in the history and read it. Anyway, as for blocks, they will not be hesitant if I come right out and say "any administrator who reviews this may undo my action." Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I said "conduct dispute". JCAla (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A "conduct dispute" is not sufficient reason for me to recuse myself from the issue. By that standard, anyone who has ever brought up a problem with your conduct or blocked you cannot block you in the future. I'm reserving the right here, JCAla, but I really hope not to have to use it. If, instead of consistently complaining about the evil intentions and actions of other editors and going to the noticeboards, you just stopped and actually discussed the issue, there would be no further problems with you. All you're ever doing is arguing about arguing. I would recommend a voluntary self-ban from the Wikipedia namespace and from the talk page of any administrator or opponent in your disputes. By golly, you just might find you actually get somewhere by doing that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, by that definition only the one whose actions I have distinctly questioned (even requesting arbitration on) should not act in cases concerning me and leave this to others. And again, what you say I supposedly do, I never did. I reported TopGun two times for edit warring, wrote a comment to you on ANI and requested arbitration. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not the one consistently "complaining about the evil intentions ... of other editors and going to the noticeboards." Read this.And this. This is not me. I am tired of you mixing everything up. For the other point, you know full well, that any normal administrator will be hesitant to revise the decision of another, whatever you say about being fine with it. But if you consider yourself indispensable in this case, fine. We will see if this pattern of unbalanced decisions continues. I have kindly asked you to volutarily honor my request, now it depends on you. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your block of Darkness Shines on his talk, since these kinds of actions I requested arbitration on and you even cited me in your reasons on his talk. JCAla (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jose Alfredo 12JAMB.jpg

Magog, the image referenced above was uploaded by me over 4 years ago from a copy in my files(with no caption) of the original print-I assume that it was a publicity shot taken in the 1960s. I do not know the photographers name, nor the recording company, though I suspect that it was CBS. I'm afraid I didn't have a thorough knowledge of the use of unattributed photos at the time. I believe that, under the circumstances, it should be deleted. Another user asked me about its use this AM, and this (I had considered deletion before, but I am prone to senior moments) spurred my memory. What say you? If you would please leave a note on my talk page I would appreciate it.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've outright deleted it, as the GFDL licensing message is clearly incorrect. It would have to be one of two things: either copyrighted (it was first published in Mexico), or if it was first published in the US (or published there within 30 days of publication abroad), then it is public domain in the US only. If you think there is any chance for the latter, then let me know, otherwise, it is probable copyright infringement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog.--Lyricmac (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could...

Hello,

You deleted File:XYCoordinates.gif, as I asked. Thank you. On Commons, the text is badly rendered. If you could send me, by mail, the wikitext of the file just before you deleted it, it would help me a lot to correct the errors there.

Just in case you have doubts on me, I am very active on the French Wikipedia (see fr:Special:Contributions/Cantons-de-l'Est).

Thank you !

Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:WestwoodJr-1-.jpg

Hello, I'm a little confused on what liscensing I should use for File:WestwoodJr-1-.jpg. The image is mine and belongs 100% to me, however I let another site use it awhile back (the site mentioned in the source on the page). So what liscening would be appropriate for the image if I own it yet have allowed another website to use it? ---StevenBjerke 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you took the image, then it should be OK. For my reference, do you have any proof of it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof that I own the image? Well, I asked the website yesterday to remove the image and they did, so that means the only place the image exists on right now is Wikipedia. ---StevenBjerke 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. . You don't have to make them take it down to prove it; if you're still in good standing (i.e., not becoming a pest) with the website, maybe you could have them put up a caption when the mouse hovers over the image which says something like "created by Bjerke". Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool Collegiate School page - Len Horridge photographs fail to display on iPad

The three photographs below by Len Horridge which accompany the page Liverpool Collegiate School are no longer showing up on an iPad, though they did so originally. I've tried unsuccessfully to upload a newer, optimised, smaller file size version of the first one. The picture seems to be have been 'moved to Wikimedia Commons from en.wikipedia using a bot script'. I'd like to re-upload these three files again and hopefully make them display on iPad, how best to do this? Collegiate_after_cleaning_1973.jpg Collegiate_hall_as_walled_garden.jpg Collegiate_hall_firedamaged.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Bates (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's working just fine for me when I look at the mobile version of the page [3]. Sometimes the mobile version of Wikipedia is slower to update for me as well (I don't know why). Try clearing the cache on your browser and reloading the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Magog, but the cleared cache on the iPad browser didn't help. The issue only affects the three images that were transferred to Wikimedia Commons, these are still failing to show up on the article page on an iPad. However, they DO show up when viewed on an iPhone which is most perplexing. I'd guess this is a technical issue, can you point me to someone at Wiki who can investigate this strangeness? Keithbates51 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; WP:VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Still?

Do I have to get all my edits approved from Darkness Shines before making them? This is obvious hounding where I reverted a vandalizing IP and made some edits [4]. There have been previous instances of him tagging articles I edit for deletion (including a former FA Muhammad Iqbal for CSD) which was speedily deleted by Fastily and later restored by Moonriddengirl and other (many) areas where I can provide evidence for that he has entered to hound me and is disputing my edits everywhere. I can file a report at ANI if you want but as I said I'd ask you before taking this further as my report might be taken as a bad faith report due to the loads of WP:SOUP. I do understand if you will want to recuse yourself at this point but an advice will still be appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that is not entirely accurate is it? Magog, I should like to report another instance of sockpuppetry btw.[5] It does astonish myself that whenever TG gets into an edit war IP editors always come charging to his rescue. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edits when IPs were already warring over it. Be careful before making that allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not[6] Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TG: yes, I've noticed before that I think he hounds your edits. But hounding in an of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (e.g., if you're introducing poor content). But if he's being a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass or giving you more scrutiny than he would someone else who made the same edits, then it is a problem. In this case, it initially seems like a legitimate case of BRD (without looking at the changes further). If you have more information, please compile it. I might even sign an RFC/U, as long as you keep it to things that can be proven (i.e., not IP sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry).

Anyway, DS: you accuse TG of sockpuppetry when there is also an IP making edits on your behalf. Are you seriously unable to step outside the situation and realize that I have no way of knowing if the edits for the IP are editing on your behalf anymore than the edits for the other IP are editing on TG's behalf? If you say "but in this case isn't wasn't me", don't you realize you're doing the exact same thing you sneer at TG for doing (claiming the IP wasn't you)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I have enough evidence for him following my edits and disputing them at as many places as he can. You are right, and I told him I don't object to the issues themselves being addressed but he's the one doing it all over wikipedia at a faster pace than it can be resolved. I'm certain that he is doing it because the edits are made by me, what would you recommend? Ok, I'm adding it here for you to see and recommend if it is enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope I don't cause another edit conflict. But you are right, the issue becomes very SOUPy. The right course of action might only be an RFC/U. I say that because by the time you post all the information on my page, you've probably got enough information to file the RFC/U. You might ask TParis, an administrator with whom you agree on things, if he sees things in the same light as you. He seems to be very level-headed and would probably tell you straight-forward if he thinks you're in the wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) but no problem... I want to know before hand if it actually is enough for your suggestion. I guess TP's watching this page but I'll ask him to respond too, he's been pretty fair.

Evidence to check

1. [7] You've seen this and recognized it has a hounding revert.. there was no way he got there by himself.
2. [8] Got here through my contributions list; the stub was only edited by a few users before. On a BRD revert (with a good explanation he couldn't object to - he then tagged the article for deletion - well known story ahead).
3. [9] I'm one of the starting users of this article, definitely accessed from my contributions and the dispute spilled over his BLP, now at DRN at length wasting time I could use to edit articles.
4. [10] Got in to make some edits here and there where I was having a dispute (and an old editwar) with a really rude IP editor who was reverting 3-4 users. then posted on the IP's talk to ask him if there was anything he needed to be edited so that he could do that on his behalf [11].
5. [12] Tagged a former FA for CSD just after I edited it and this turned out to be a bad tag (the article actually got deleted and then restored [13]). This one was ridiculous as the criteria he gave for CSD (12) was incorrect since even in case of violation all 3000 revisions of the article would not be copy vio.
6. [14] Very obvious: added a POV tag to the main country article on which I'm working with a few users to get it to FA and just had a peer review. The version was of right after the peer review. Then started inviting conflicts on the talk page - strongly rebutted by many users there.
7. [15] Came here to edit and started massive disputes (still on) after I reverted a confirmed sockmaster whose sock was blocked but was given a chance to discuss his dispute instead of a block. I really really tried to help him resolve here (all on talk page) but no use.
8. [16]
9. [17] An old editwar but I quit the dispute and left the sources on talk page since he didn't let me add a word to the two line section for which I had sourced info.
10. [18] Very obvious: and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk even when two editor told him he was wrong. Continued to add verification failed tags to verified sources.
11. [19] An RFC !vote (rather vote); something like "whatever JCAla says".
12. [20] I simply restored an unexplained removal by a vandal who first blanked and then CSD'd the article as "hoax"... nevertheless DS comes to revert and to talk page to discuss my habits.

Now all these might not be bad edits by him but they all do confirm that he's following me while others are clear evidence of hounding. There must be more that I don't have in mind at the moment... are these enough to prove the hounding? The current one at Right to exist was the latest which was really irritating. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason I've been distancing myself from these issues, TopGun. Your behavior has not been exemplery and I don't want to see it reflect on me. Any RFC/U you open on either Darkness Shines or JCAla will reflect just as poorly on you as it will them. I recommend you spend some time addressing your own behaviors, like edit waring, before you ask for community scruitiny of theirs.--v/r - TP 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this was strictly in administrative capacity for you and I've previously made it clear that you don't 'side' with me so that it doesn't reflect on you. The concern with me was editwar which I'm handling much better than before... feel free to specify if there's another... as for the disputes, I discuss them after a revert now. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I have blocked Darkness Shines for 48 hours. I warned him about this hounding stuff before, and he's continued with it anyway. IMHO that is blockable, and if ArbCom doesn't want to take the case, then someone has to police conduct. Anyway, TopGun, you need to stop edit warring; I have considered blocking you today too, and I wasn't too far from doing it. And while the people edit warring against you have at times acted more poorly, the fact remains that you are much quicker to hit the revert button than to legitimately discuss an issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I accept that the second revert was clearly out of irritation as the edit summary specifies. I think the hounding is a clear explanation (while not my excuse) for driving me into editwars on different occasions. I've been discussing edits lately without further reverts but I can do with advise on how to handle ones such as these. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just let them revert. Time is not of the essence. Then use the talk page in the meantime. You quoted some OMGWTFBBQ essay on it (can't remember the acronym). And if you get a WP:MASTADON reaction, then leave for a while. Remember, there are far far worse injustices in this world being committed in the name of a cause (take a look at the good causes section of my userpage... has a laundry list of dictators with the blood of millions on their hands). Getting mad about something on Wikipedia is, in the long run, kind of stupid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@TopGun: I haven't been watching your editing at all so if you've made improvements on the edit warring then I want to commend your effort and I wouldn't want to admonish you for something that you're showing improvement on. I don't want to be responsible for ruining that progress by making it seem like your efforts arn't appreciated.--v/r - TP 03:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou both. I'll keep those in mind. I can always agree to disagree and let the consensus decide. I guess opening issue is resolved for now unless/until DS finds me at yet another article just to revert me. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Magog, I suggest you set up a page somewhere to deal with this dispute. Then recruit six to twelve administrators with experience dealing with ethnic conflicts to help. When complaints are posted there, it will be luck of the draw which one responds. You might borrow ideas from: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. You need support, and it will be very useful to have a place where long, complex discussions can be held without the drive-by, superficiality of ANI. It will also be beneficial to have the ongoing involvement of administrators who are familiar with the actors and the script. Jehochman ^Talk 10:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I think it would be sufficient to move these disputes to ANI, your suggestion is generally also a good possible solution. User:Bbb23, User:EdJohnston, User:Bwilkins and User:Basalisk have previous knowledge about this case from ANI and AN3. User:TParis certainly has also monitored the situation first as someone involved, now from a greater distance. I am fine if Magog is one of the administrators if he refrains from taking any unilateral actions on requests by TopGun to do so against me, and lets me discuss the issue with other administrators first. On a note, this is not an ethnic dispute. It is a political content dispute. Although both TopGun and Mar4d are Pakistani, I am not Indian and I think Darkness Shines somewhere wrote he is not Indian either. Also, I really don't care what nationality or ethnicity people are from. I am interested in the content. JCAla (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Would you recommend seeking general sanctions and thus Wikipedia:General sanctions/Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, setting up a page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts/Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, or something else? That's a stunningly good idea on your part. . My feeling is that general sanctions would only be effective in dealing with the socks, as the parties involved have shown mastery in avoiding a technical break of the rules, while ignoring them in spirit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Originally posted at DS's talk but posting it here since he reverted). I think he has accepted in his comments inspite after JCAla tried to 'clarify' on his behalf that he's following my contributions on the basis that he believes and that my edits are not acceptable to him. Exactly what I stated... I do not have to get all my edits approved from this user before making them. That is exactly what hounding is. And just to clarify... it is he who thinks my edits are biased which does not make it a fact since at many occasions I did get conensus (and many times a wide consensus from RFCs) on my edits. I can provide evidence if Magog requires that. I don't think reverting all my edits accessed from my contributions list (not RC patrol.. he must be kidding me... check his contributions how often does he revert vandalism in that case?) just to revert because they're made by me is constructive in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, it is funny how JCAla only quotes admin comments out of context who have mistaken me to be asking for a block where I asked for blocking an already blocked editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

They can't be quoted out of context since these comments are referring to your general behavior. JCAla (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are acting stupid. With both of you, why all this bicker bicker? It's all WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-India POV stance of Right to Exist#Pakistan.

Hi Magog,

I came across this debate when I saw on Darkness Shines page that he had got blocked for the above section. I do not like to get involved in the running arguments in the talk page of the above article which are in my opinion missing the woods for the trees. However, I do feel in my view that the text is completely misleading and the sources mis-represented. Imo the section is OR and needs deletion. I have detailed my views on the talk page and request you to please weigh them as an impartial third party. I have provided what I consider a neutral and accurate version of Indian stances about Pakistan's right to exist. I can also provide references after doing some more work. If my version is substantially accurate, it however demotes the thesis of Right to exist#Pakistan as an unimportant, non-mainstream view. Hence it arguably may be deleted. No matter what, I'm conviced that this anti-Indian POV nonsense should not remain in its present form and an impartial view be present in Wikipedia even if they are not exactly along the lines I have suggested. AshLin (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; it's a poorly written and outrageously anti-Indian POV section that needs to be heavily reworded. I do not want to comment further on it on the talk page though, as I am trying to remain uninvolved in the dispute itself unless necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Commons Barnstar

		The Commons Barnstar
		For all your work for Commons you decerve a promotion and a big raise... But all I have to offer is this small barnstar :-) MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File talk:Trumbo and Cleo 1947 HUAC hearings.png

Oh damn, is this a new rule? I've been G8'ing talk pages of transferred to commons files for years! :x -- Luk ^talk 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

wow... Well I'll stop doing it immediately then... -- Luk ^talk 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined delition of File:FujiInJapan.jpg‎

The description of the image says that it is a photo of Mt. Fuji in the heartland of Japan. To me it seems a little hoax-ish for there to be 2 black lines drawn on the mountain (I assume to look like eyes). Is that not enough for a CSD G3? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We have no idea why those lines are drawn. G3 is clear it has to be an unambiguous hoax. Try WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Right to exist

@Darkness shines: I see you've understood nothing about why I unblocked you. It had nothing to do with sources, and everything to do with bias, and that (unbelievably) you can't tell the difference between the two. Either stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality NOW or you will be subjected to a topic-ban. I'll tell you the same thing I told JCAla, who didn't listen me, and will be probably facing the consequences soon enough: I know what I'm talking about here. I'm even on your side in terms of the content. Stop, now.

@TopGun: so bring it up with that administrator. The fact that you are trying to defend the a text which literally states that "[i]t is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist" speaks horribly to your ability to view things neutrally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Those lines were not my additions, I added something different which I actually can defend on basis I'm discussing at the article... I objected to editwarring. Well I've informed that administrator for that purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but you ought to have removed the bias too strong in favor of Pakistan. Non-neutral is non-neutral, and it's bad. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.png

There is an svg version of this file on Commons so the png version on Wikipedia is not needed, nor is it used anywhere. Would you please delete it? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hey Magog, I have one more Katharine Hepburn file that needs to be deleted please: File:Tracy Hepburn Desk Set.jpg Thanks very much --Lobo512 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Map request

Hi, would it be possible to do a footprint map for Starbucks? At least in the United States, if worldwide is excessive. Thanks. Calwatch (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the branches? http://www.starbucks.com/store-locator only gives allows the user to search by location, which I can't parse. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK; I'm currently downloading the data from their site on all 19477 branches (that I count). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

F8

F8 barnstar

"(Deletion log); 07:06 . . Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Voyager OF5.png" (Deleted because "F8: now available on Commons under the same name ". (TW))", again! Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Good cause(s) -> "I seriously hope no one would consider any of these a poltical issue (I don't; see below);"

Well isn't that sweet of you. It's nice to be appreciated; and to have someone read my userpage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Vc46.jpg

Why did you reinsert this tag on this unfree image? This image is from the Philip Samuels Fine Art gallery and one of its early versions was published in 1988 [27] after Samuels bought that pair of ruby slippers. Can you provide evidence that the LOC ever said that this image, which they used by special permission from Samuels, was released to the public domain by its copyright holder? If so, could you please mention it in the description page? If not, could you please remove the misleading tag? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that without a copyright tag, we won't host the file, per policy. I misunderstood the content of your post; if he did not release the image as free, by all means I can nominate it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry, I made the mistake. Searching some more, I can't tell if there was a copyright notice in the original booklet. If not and if it was not registered, the image might be in the public domain as a pre-1989 work. That is not certain, however, because with such an artwork, the copyright holder would normally have taken the precaution of a notice or registration. Maybe we can tentatively use an appropriate public domain tag, without placing the "blame" of the statement on the LOC. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You know more about this subject than I do. However, there appear to be two copyrights involved: the 3D art in question, and the photograph of the 3D art in question. Both must be free in order for us to host it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

IP sock

Has returned Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thought I explained all this before magog ? 31.52.189.228 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be back in the morning british time so before blocking etc leave a note explaining because I know I will have to repeat what I told you a while back 31.52.189.228 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC) You were blocked for one week [28] That has not yet expired. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re IP: I realize that you explained that you believe you have a legitimate case. However, editing warring while logged out and across multiple IPs, and avoiding a block while at it, is disruptive. This is because a) you should not be editing while blocked and b) it makes discussing issues with you nearly impossible. Please know that the ends do not justify the means. Policy specifically allows me to take certain measures to prevent you from editing in such circumstances (Wikipedia:SPP#Guidance for administrators). Please register an account, or you'll continue to see your edits reverted and the articles you edit locked down.

Re DS: You can report this to ANI or another admin if I'm not around. Also, it's rather pointless to give warnings to editors who have been warned multiple times before (WP:DTR). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Had not thought of ANI truth be told, I thought it would be better to wait on you as you are familiar with the issue :o) Shall use ANI next time. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Academic block I of IIM Lucknow.jpg

I have provided the source for the image that you tagged for deletion:Academic_block_I_of_IIM_Lucknow.jpg please have a look if it is enough or any more information is needed. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichillT

Hi! Except for User:MGA73/Sandbox all files in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichillT should be deletable. The images in my sandbox have more than file in upload history. --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh nice. We can get to work by using oldver.php until they're all fixed. However, I've also noticed quite a few images in there with potential FOP problems. One thing you might do is take a quick scan of images by loading my daily updating script: tools:~magog/commons_images.htm, then making a note of the offending files by hand and uncheck them from the Twinkle delink box. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I move these files to Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichill to make it easier to delete the other files :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey; no fair having your Twinkle conflict with my Twinkle. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You too... I stoppend my Twinkle... I noticed the same problem :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What does "stoppend" mean? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

AS you have dealt with the IP editor evading his block I am asking you to look at this SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive bot thingumabob

Mine does not seem to work? I notice you have one. If you have a free second would you take a peek at mine and see if it can be fixed please? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, connection is acting weird. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So thank you for fixing the bot, much appreciated. I do however have a question regarding your statement on me on your Indo-Iran page. You have written same as my comments on JCAla. Has performed textbook hounding of TopGun, meaning he followed TG's edits to revert even perfectly OK contributions. To begin I am not pro any nation, I am pro factual accuracy and pro historic accuracy, if you wish to have me as pro something. I also, to the best of my memory have never, not once, reverted TG if the edit was OK. Now if you have a diff please share it, but I can honestly swear that I have not done that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated on his page, I don't currently have the diffs to prove anything. You would be wise to ignore the issue until TP and I actually come up with something. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Darknesshines

You may tell your friend that my block has expired and I am back editing before he floods your page moaning about me and trying to persuade you to block me. MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)