This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
How best to handle these images?
Hi. :) You do a lot of work with images; I don't. I know you've already been involved in the image issue under discussion at my user talk page, here, where apparently User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is proving somewhat difficult to work with in terms of addressing image concerns. Can you offer any input on the best way to handle images that have insufficient information in the FUR or on sourcing or for which DFU tags are removed? Would WP:FFD or WP:NFCR be better? (I worry about the latter, as it has quite a backlog; the former seems a problem where all that's really needed is more or better information.) It would be nice to get this CCI cleaned up, but this may prove difficult if the subject does not choose to cooperate. Your advice at my talk page would be much appreciated! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at discussion on your page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Thanks so much for your very thoughtful reply! I've got some running around to do today (stupid Holiday season :)), but I wanted to let you know that I've seen it and appreciate it and will digest it later today. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it's OK, I had some considerable activity last night and I outright ignored your message, so you have every right to take time at whatever you're doing first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FYI rename requests on images usually take a while on en.wikipedia (this is another reason to consider using commons). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anchor baby / "immigration reductionists" as weaselly?
Hi. As I see it, the "immigration reductionists" phrase in the lede of Anchor baby (the subject of the edit-warring notice) does seem to be adequately substantiated by cited, reliable sources which show the term "anchor baby" being applied derisively not only to children of illegal immigrants, but also to children of legal immigrants, or even children of naturalized US citizens. However, I'll concede that it might be appropriate to change the phrase if it sounds like WP:WEASEL (even if technically it is not). There's been a lot of controversy on this page in the past (most notably over whether or not "anchor baby" should be identified as a derogatory expression), and I imagine we're not done with all the controversy yet. Thanks for your feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. I don't see why there's any question that it has a primarily negative connotation. But I have to be honest the phrasing in the first sentence by anti-immigration activists screams of the some argue problem. And I'm not sure one has to be an activist to see a problem and use a derisive term about it. Say, regardless of how one feels about welfare policy, one may still see welfare queens as a problem and use the term. Actually, the lede for that article is pretty good, maybe we could use it as a template. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:UPNO "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space "
According to WP:NOTSOAPBOX "... Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise....
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. "
According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project."
According to WP:UPNO "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."
In accordance with the above policies, may I please ask you to remove offensive, antisemitic cartoon from rolandr's user page? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, no offense, but you are entirely too eager to see this happen, and I disdain your sort of zero-sum battleground thinking. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so, you "disdain"? Then maybe you could be so kind to address your "disdain" comment to Jimbo Wales too? Looks like he's also not very happy with roland'r user page, is he? Well, it is just a rhetorical question. I am not really interested in your response. You are just another of those unworthy admins running around Wikipedia. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to have a serious talk with you, but frankly I don't have time for games. Please don't post on my talk page unless you're willing to have a serious talk without trying to use reverse psychology or personal attacks or whatever it is you're doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TyDWiki IPs
Hi once again. I've been keeping track of TyDwiki's IP addresses in case we could discover more ranges. (Unfortunately, every day the IP changes.) I saw yesterday that you blocked one of them: 189.46.244.172 (talk·contribs),which was a single IP rather than a range. So I thought I'd mention that today he is using 189.18.224.96 (talk·contribs). This has become a game for me. ;) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seriously, is this man visiting every wifi in the city? Or is his ISP just that bad at allocating IPs? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I don't know a whole lot about how they assign IP addresses, but even to me they seem to be all over the board. (187.37.x.y / 187.58.x.y /187.79.x.y / 189.18.x.y / 189.46.x.y/ 189.62.x.y/ 189.110.x.y--it's crazy! And that's just the ones I have noticed.) Unfortunately, it seems impossible to really block this guy. Thanks for trying, though! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC Wiki page copied from SPLC site
No need to respond. I just wanted to say I have been vindicated on the SPLC page for adding the BIAS tag since the page looked like an SPLC advertisement.
I have uncovered massive wholesale copying of material from the SPLC site into the SPLC Wikipedia page. That's likely why the Wiki page looks like an SPLC advert. I am happy to have stuck with it, and while the harassment continues, I am handing that much better and significant changes are being made to the article as a result of the massive copying being changed or removed.
Just want to point out that WP:COPYVIO means we need to either attribute quotes or paraphrase them. It is not, in itself, an indication of bias. Bias would involve the content of the material, not merely its source. Glad that's all straightened out now. I fully expect that we'll restore most of the removed material, but in our own words. DylanFlaherty 07:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad to hear that you were correct, although kind of saddened that the other editors were so ready to shut down discussion before it came to full fruition when there was a legitimate problem with the page (assuming what you're saying is correct!). In the meantime, if you have any other questions, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. MalleusFatuorum 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. MalleusFatuorum 23:23, 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 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]
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]
Done. FYI rename requests on images usually take a while on en.wikipedia (this is another reason to consider using commons). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
