Jump to content

User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Bad image list

Your addition to the bad image list is being discussed at WP:ANI. Hipocrite (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib images - Grandfathered

When bulk-adding all of the Abu Ghraib images to the bad-images list, did you check to make sure that there were no images that should have been grandfathered? Did you miss File:Abu Ghraib 58.jpg on Nudity? Hipocrite (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did, apparently I missed it despite checking. No doubt that means we have to start an ANI thread without informing me and using this as a reason to revert the list altogether rather than just putting on the list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done none of those things. I'm going to have to insist that you stop casting aspersions at me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You also missed File:Abu Ghraib 24.jpg on User:Writegeist, File:Abu Ghraib 48.jpg on Charles Graner, File:Abu Ghraib prison abuse.jpg on Ivan Frederick, and File:AbuGhraibScandalBrown55.jpg on User:Blankfaze/imagelist. Hipocrite (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding images licensing

Hi,

I noticed you deleted the picture (your_favorite_enemies_wiki.jpeg) from Your Favorite Enemies' Wikipedia profile. I am in contact with the author, as we are presently in the process of finalizing the official licensing of files. The author is now in the process of having its files authorized by Wikipedia through the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", is it the right process? In the meantime, I uploaded a new temporary one on the page, which I have found on the web. I am still clumsy with the use of Wikipedia and would be glad if you could give me a hand. Thanks! Sophenemy (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's alright; it's just that if you upload an image and it has no copyright tag for 7+ days, we will delete it. If it has an invalid copyright tag then we might need to use some other process. Once you figure out the copyright, you can apply it to your image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I have a question for you: How long may it take in order to receive a notice or authorization for the use of a file? 1 week ago, the author of the file I am looking forward to officially post online soon, sent a message of "Declaration of consent for all inquiries", to the "Creative Commons Attribution" email but didn't hear from them yet. Is it normal for the process to take a few days to be complete? Is "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" the right address to write to regarding such an inquiry? Thanks for your help!Sophenemy (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes; unfortunately we have a huge backlog, in the order of several weeks to a month. What you can do in the meantime, is: tag the image with the copyright that the author originally gave to you (e.g., {{cc-by-3.0}}) and place the tag {{OTRS pending}} on the image, so we know not to delete it until we've had time to work on it. I hope that clarifies your question. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I will do as you suggested, as soon as possible! I'll keep in touch with you if ever I have other questions! Is that ok? Thank you very much!!!Sophenemy (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Following your advice, I uploaded the file entitled "your_favorite_enemies.jpg", which was sent to Wiki Commons for approval by the author. While we wait for the official approval of the licensing of the picture, I placed the tag {{OTRS pending}} on it, as you suggested me, and selected {{cc-by-3.0}} to identify its copyright form! Is that ok? Thanks for your help!Sophenemy (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK good, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Magog, I was hoping to get your advice on this. I was forced to file an Edit Warring complaint against someone, and though I'm pretty confident it's a 3RR violation as well, it might not be that clear cut. It's a bit complicated, but I'd be happy to explain it. I'm just looking for an admin to review this. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, but a quick look at that shows me it was likely you doing the edit warring as much as the other editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
From AN3: I disagree whole-heartedly with that. Xenophrenic has thousands of edits over 3+ years, and blocks before. We don't give patronizing warnings for editors who know better. I ask you to reconsider that decision Looie. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Magog. The accurate version of your statement would read, "Xenophrenic has thousands of edits over 3+ years since being blocked only once ever for edit warring", but still the point you were making is spot on: Xenophrenic knows damn well about 3RR and edit warring, and certainly doesn't need a warning. To drive that point home, you could even note that my user page once advised editors considering reporting me that No Warning Is Necessary. But I'm not here to make a case against myself, or to argue; I'd actually like your input on this. Now that it no longer makes a difference to anyone but me, could you please review the 14 edits I made here that day (Oct. 23), through Administrator's eyes, and tell me if you see a 4th revert made by me? Your input could help me determine if I'm somehow misinterpreting what Admins consider a 'revert' these days, since I know the definition has undergone nuanced changes over the years. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed your statement (silly me). 1(reverted edit) 2(reverted edit) 3(edit summary: reverted bold edits pending discussion). That's all you had in a 24 hour period; I thought there were more. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may say, I seriously think someone needs to make the edit warring rules a lot clearer then. It was my understanding that a "revert" as defined by the edit warring rules does not necessarily have to literally "revert" to previous state, but also includes other edits to the same text, which would make sense. If a revert strictly meant reverting to a previous state, then it would be impossible for editors to maintain the integrity of a page. For example, see the Albert Pujols is 247 feet tall example as an illustration of what I meant. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I typed above? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were agreeing with what Xenophrenic said and that he didn't have a 4th revert. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was. Where's the fourth one? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrea De Cruz

This is for the Andrea De Cruz article you deleted: http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20080708-75325.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centralcitymarc (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More about andrea de cruz: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2003_Oct_6/ai_108553528/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centralcitymarc (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; I'm glad you can find articles that are important about her. The reason I deleted it is that your article didn't assert that she was notable; literally all you wrote is "Andrea De Cruz (爱丽) is a Singaporean actress and television host.". It's not enough that she be notable, you have to say it. You can recreate the article at any time if you can state how she is notable in the article. If you have any questions, you can ask us at the help desk; I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Your first article (see point #6, which shows how you can start the article in your own space while it's just a rough draft; we won't delete it there). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mindxmedia

Hi Magog. You have blocked the author - could you please also delete his blatant advert article in Swedish that I had already CSDd. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - just a little too lazy to do a machine translation, but I've gotten it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SGodara and Sumit Khatri

Good evening Your Ogreship,
SGodara appears to have escaped their block and re-started Sumit Khatri again. Is a salting possibly appropriate?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any recreations since I blocked the user. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Permission granted

Dear Magog the Ogre, First to thank you for your prompt answer to my question posted in the message – Image to delete, on Sept. 17. This assures me that you do things in good faith and with care.

The reason for this message is something else, but let me first clarify this image related to the message of Sept. 17: I cannot say that it was uploaded in error but the version filed is not cropped so that was in error and another photograph was uploaded to the same file and used. With your permission and assistance, this can be fixed if I upload separately (in a new file) the cropped version of the same photograph and then you can delete the existing version. When I uploaded the second one, which was used, I thought the first one would have been removed.

Te main reason for this message is this: Recently I uploaded some photographs and I received a message from GeorgHH at: Commons:User talk:GeorgHH I have sent him an e-mail and a message but did not receive an answer. Maybe three weeks ago (unrelated to GeorgHH), somebody else placed a label on one image and I have sent him two messages and he did not reply and the image was deleted. It was by this user: User talk:Eeekster

I did not want to bother you then, but now I am afraid the same thing can happen again and a lot of time and effort is spent dealing with these images. All these images, exactly as those you approved before, have permission granted and there is no problem; they are also taken under the same conditions; some of them taken by the same person as some of those you approved. Whatever was granted for those you approved, applies to these.

I don’t know if I am asking too much but since it already happened than one image was deleted because the person who labeled it did not want to reply, I am afraid the same thing can happen again. So, would you please remove the labels from the files listed below or advise GeorgHH how to proceed. I have sent him also the list of other images used at different places that are candidates for commons and it would be nice if they are moved to commons. Here is my last message to GeorgeHH: “Dear GeorgHH, I have sent you an e-mail confirming that the permission has been granted for the following files (I've also sent a copy to permissions-commons):

I have also included some other files for which the permission has been granted. I have not received an answer from you. Please remove the labels/templates or advise if you need Permission Granted Note placed at some other place (Internet Archive for instance). Please reply since there is no problem with the files and it takes a lot of time to do this work.”

The last part, inside the quotation marks, is the message sent to GeorgHH. Thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly help. For each and every one of those images, please indicate where you got them originally. Was it a private collection? Did the person who owns the image give you permission to upload it? You can do that here, or you can do it on the file page on commons. Then I will try to assist further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Magog,

Thank you for your prompt answer; I appreciate it. Yes, these images are from a private collection. The first one on the list was actually taken by the late father (Branko) of the person on the photo. The descriptions says - unknown, so that should be fixed (author is the late father Branko). The second one was taken by a close friend (named as the author in the description part) who is not a professional photographer and who gave permission. The third one is a drawing used in the book Conversations and permission has been granted. The last one is taken by the same person, first cousin, who took the one with Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro, if you recall. For all these images, permission to publish has been granted and there is no even a potential problem with them.

In order to avoid confusion I did not list here other images at other Wikipedias; probably about ten of them that are listed there as candidates to be transferred to commons. Also, the four images used for the article in English maybe should be transferred to commons (I don’t know if they are because they cannot be used at other Wikipedias). Since you are much more familiar with these matters than other users at some Wikipedias, I think, maybe you could help with that, although I understand that requires some effort. (Labels for those images say they are candidates for commons and that anybody can transfer them, but obviously people are probably not so versed). If you would be willing to do that, after we fix these four images, I can send you the links for the others. That way, they can be used at other places (and that is the purpose of the labels).

Again, I really appreciate your understanding and willingness to help. I don’t know exactly what your position, within the Wikipedia, is but in my opinion you should be put in charge of overlooking and supervising other editors. You always answer a question even though you are not directly involved. Best regards and I really appreciate your help. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad to help! Continuing on: can you say who the author is for the third image, so that I can mark it? And for the fourth image, does the author have access to the internet? Preferably even a website? If so, it would be great if we could get the email at permissions-commons; if not, we'll handle it separately. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The third image is actually a drawing by Zoran Tucic (that is why the image has the author’s name in the title) used for the book Conversations. The drawing was scanned from the book. The fourth image was taken by Marko Rakocevic, the same person who took the one with Prince Nicholas. His name is mentioned in the description section and he is the first cousin of Dejan Stojanovic (so there is no problem). The same conditions apply to the fourth image as to this one below. Actually, these photographs were taken during that same visit to Paris in the spring of 1990.

It is this image:

This was the source:

I offered these links from a previous image just to show that the same conditions apply to the fourth image – during the same visit to Paris and taken by the same person, so the same permission applies.

Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this right:
  1. You scanned the third image, and you have explicit permission from the person who drew the image.
  2. Can you explain how you got the fourth image to be digitized? Did you get it off a website? I'm sorry but I am not very familiar with how archive.org works their system. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is:

  1. Yes, I scanned the third image; permission is granted by the publisher that arranged and ordered the drawing to be made for the book Conversations.
  2. Regarding the fourth image, the answer is – not off a website but from the personal collection. I used the archive only as an example of a previous image, taken by the same person, and this one is not at the archive, but the same conditions apply otherwise.

I don’t know would it be a bother for you to transfer other photographs to commons, including the four images used for the article in English. Also, there are some other photographs that can be uploaded and they would all make a nice collection. I would do it if you get involved or create a page/category, otherwise it is too frustrating to deal with different people. This is not urgent though ; you can do it at your own pace and let me know when you are ready. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assist with that when I get back on later; for now, I have work to do, but I'm removed the no permission tags, and it seems to be sufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other files

Thank you Magog. I appreciate it. Regarding the other files, here is the list:

Files at English Wikipedia that you already approved:
  1. File:Dejan Stojanovic, Chicago.jpgcheckY
  2. File:Dejan Stojanovic 21.jpgcheckY
  3. File:Dejan Stojanovic, 1981.jpgcheckY
  4. File:Dejan Stojanović and Prince Nicholas Petrović Njegoš of Montenegro.jpgcheckY
Files at Serbian Wikipedia that are all candidates for Commons:
  1. sr:Слика:Dejan Stojanović, 2000.jpg checkY
  2. sr:Слика:Dejan Stojanović, Pariz, 1990.jpg(also used for the article in French; one of the four we just dealt with). checkY
  3. sr:Слика:Алек Вукадиновић и Дејан Стојановић 1990.jpgcheckY
  4. sr:Слика:Momo Kapor i Dejan Stojanović, Beograd, 1990.jpgcheckY
  5. sr:Слика:Dejan Stojanović, Chicago, 1991.jpgcheckY
  6. sr:Слика:Stiv Tešić i Dejan Stojanović, Čikago, 1991-1.jpgcheckY
  7. sr:Слика:Princ Tomislav Karađorđević i Dejan Stojanović.jpgcheckY
  8. sr:Слика:Helen Delić Bentli i Dejan Stojanović.jpgcheckY
  9. sr:Слика:Žak Klod Vilar i Dejan Stojanović, 1990.jpgcheckY
Files at Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (sh):
  1. sh:Datoteka:Dejan Stojanovic, 1981.jpg(also used for the article in eglish) checkY
  2. sh:Datoteka:Momo Kapor i Dejan Stojanović, Beograd, 1990.jpg(used for Serbian Wikipedia too).checkY
  3. sh:Datoteka:Dejan Stojanović, 1996.jpgcheckY

Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to include two photographs with Steve Tesich; they are important because even the article in English about Steve Tesich (the Academy Award winner) doesn’t have a photograph. For photographs with Steve Tesich (there are more that can be used for the gallery) the same conditions aaply as to the photographs you already approved – one in Paris; also the same conditions apply to this photograph taken by Marko Rakocevic (already listed in the previous section):

sr:Слика:Dejan Stojanović, 2000.jpgcheckY
Steve Tesich:
  1. sr:Слика:Steve Tesich 001.jpgcheckY
  2. sr:Слика:Steve Tesich, 002.jpgcheckY

Photographs were taken during the Dejan Stojanović's interview with Steve Tesich in front of the Goodman Theatre in Chicago in 1991. Thank you, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Magog,

thank you. You are a great person with a great style. I’ve read a few of your comments and replies to other users and I can tell you that, although maybe it is not up to me to say it, that you have a clear head and clear and accurate judgment. It would only benefit other users if they listen to you because you not only understand these matters but more important, you have a clear way of thinking and judging and that will benefit Wikipedia greatly in a long run.

I have some other important files - about ten photographs with Saul Bellow and more photographs with Steve Tesich but I will wait until you proceed with the remaining files and advise me how to proceed. I would upload new files only upon your approval. Regarding the photographs with Saul Bellow the understanding, when they were taken, was that they can be used. Still, I tried to find the person who took them but his phone was disconnected (it was more than 18 years ago when they were taken). There is no problem with them, but a note can be placed, along with the license – attribution share alike. At some point we will get in touch with him just to confirm and make it clear. Files with Steve Tesich were taken by the same person, first cousin, and you already approved some photographs by him. These are files connected to figures of great importance in the world of literature and I think it would be good if they are at Wikipedia Commons so literary historians and others can use them and also for other Wikipedia articles. Best regards and thank you. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for your kind words. A few more questions for you though:
What was the nature of the agreement with the photographer? Was it a work for hire? Did the photographer give you the rights to the photograph? You might consider posting at Commons:COM:VP asking for help on these photographs, depending on the nature of your answer to these questions.
Apologies for redundancy in my questions, but it's hard to keep track of: the first cousin is OK with this license for all his/her photographs? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Dear Magog, First cousin is OK with this license for the photographs already uploaded and those, mostly with Steve Tesich, not uploaded yet.

Photographs by the photographer you menhtioned are not posted anywhere yet but they were not a work for hire but done as a favor and some of those photographs were published in the magazine in Europe about 18 years ago when Stojanovic’s interview was published. It was a favor without any talk about commercial usage and similar, and that is why I think they can be uploaded (and sooner or later I will get in touch with the photographer anyway).

Regarding the other photographs from the previous list, already used, they were taken either by a friend or a close family member or, in some cases, under a trivial circumstance (when nobody can remember who took it) and this category is actually predicted at Commons.

If you say that the ones with the cousin are all right, then some of them, from the list included in the previous part titled – Permission Granted, are there; all others are under the same or similar conditions (including those not yet uploaded). There are about ten more photographs on that list (Permission Granted part) that qualify for Commons not any less than those already at Commons. You can include all the remaining photographs on the previous list into the Gallery without any hesitation.

Since, I think, you agree that those taken by the cousin are all right if under the same license with which he is OK, then with your permission I would upload the rest, mostly with Steve Tesich and I think they will be very beneficial for other users because currently articles with Steve Tesich are mostly without photographs.

Other photographs, with Saul Bellow, were taken by that photographer and, again, it was a favor, not work for hire. I would uppload them upon your approval.

There are also two nice photographs of Branko and Olga (mother and father) for which the copyrights expired since they were taken more than 50 years ago and I think these two would be a nice illustration of the times passed and as documents. Also, nobody knows who took these photographs more than 5o years ago.

I think these images would not only make a nice gallery but also be beneficial to other users and I think you will be happy with the outcome. This Gallery will be your “work of art” if I can use that term. You already invested more time into this than all the photographers (or accidental ones) who took the photographs. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Bump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

New files

Dear Magog, I uploaded 12 files that you can review at the category you have created:

Commons:Category:Dejan Stojanović
  1. Four oif these files are with Saul Bellow, taken by Goran Mikic. I wrote about this before. I cannot find his telephone number at the moment (his line was disconnected), but the understanding at the time of the interview was that he was doing this as a favor and approved this kind of a license (or similar). If you think that a note is needed in that sense, please feel free to place a little note. (I am sure I will get in touch with him sooner or later.)
  2. Two other photographs, by the lake, are by the same author, Goran Mikic.
  3. All photographs with Steve Tesich are by Marko Rakocevic and you approved some taken by him before. (Also, the one with Jacques Claude Villard. There is one more at the sr Wikipedia, although it says unknown author, I found out it was Marko.)
  4. Photograph of Stojanovic alone was taken by his father at the same time when the other one, which you already approved, was taken.
  5. Photograph with Alek was taken by Slobodan Stankovic and the understanding was that it can be used under this license. (There is another one used at sr Wikipedia that needs to be transferred.)
Files that still need to be transferred from other Wikipedias:
1. Alek:

sr:Слика:Алек Вукадиновић и Дејан Стојановић 1990.jpg

2. Momo Kapor:

sr:Слика:Momo Kapor i Dejan Stojanović, Beograd, 1990.jpg

3. Dejan, Chicago

sr:Слика:Dejan Stojanović, Chicago, 1991.jpg sh:Datoteka:Dejan Stojanović, 1996.jpg

4. Steve Tesich:

sr:Слика:Stiv Tešić i Dejan Stojanović, Čikago, 1991-1.jpg

5. Princ Tomislav Karadjordjevic:

sr:Слика:Princ Tomislav Karađorđević i Dejan Stojanović.jpg

6. Helen Delic Bentley:

sr:Слика:Helen Delić Bentli i Dejan Stojanović.jpg

7. Jacques Claude Villard:

sr:Слика:Žak Klod Vilar i Dejan Stojanović, 1990.jpg

There are more interesting files but did not want to do it yet before we finish this.

Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting there, apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Bump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
All done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Twinkleblacklisted

(moved to User talk:TeleComNasSprVen) Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Belen Echandia Logo.jpg

Dear Magog,

At the beginning of October, you deleted the File:Belen Echandia Logo.jpg that I uploaded. I have since checked with it's creator, Jackie Cawthra, Founder of Belen Echandia, and have her permission to re-upload the file for open use. I would appreciate it if you could re-instate the Belen Echandia logo after modifying its copyright status.

Thank you,

Parafianowicz (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message on your talk page explaining what we need, which is two different things. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll make sure to correct the standing issues within the given week long grace period. Thanks for your guidance. Parafianowicz (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CCI

Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that your request didn't disappear; I just rather quickly opened and completed it. It's here. The text has all been checked and all images have been deleted that are not already listed at WP:PUF. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Can I ask why we courtesy blank these pages without a specific request from the contributor? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File:NorfolkVAMontage2.JPG

Regarding your decline on File:NorfolkVAMontage2.JPG: why decline that, if there's a confirmed copyright violation?Doesn't that take precedence over NLD?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:CSD#F9 reads: "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses". There is no claim of free license here. This is, in fact, a hole in en.wp's CSD rules, as I've made clear before on my talk page. I suggest putting your weight behind a change I've proposed here, if you can stomach Soundvision's long paragraphs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
F9 has been updated, and remained stable for a good 15 hours with no major objections; I've straight away deleted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Sharron angle kdwn debate infobox.JPG

Hi, I looked at that derivative work you uploaded and you licensed it only under the GFDL even though the source file allows all Creative Commons Share-Alike licenses, likely because the cc-licenses on the original image had previously been displayed with an unusual template that doesn't work with derivativeFX. File:Sharron angle kdwn debate infobox.JPG is widely used so would you consider editing to so it's licensed under the same licenses as the original image? They are much more practical, especially since enwiki switched to cc-by-sa-3.0 as the default. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About Benlisquare

Benlisquare uses offensive language and he is doing a one-sided deletion obstinately. Do not you perform the regulation for him? HighSpeed-X (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. However, this isn't about him, it's about you in this case. Does that answer your question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do not change speaking. Speaking must continue by my talk about "me". Here is a topic of Benlisquare. HighSpeed-X (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please watch this. I advise on his account stop. HighSpeed-X (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is being erased many times by Benlisquare. There is no deleted reason. You might have to warn him. HighSpeed-X (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked you indefinitely, and as such any further discussion will be at your talk page. That said, I am going to make a note about Benlisquare, as he has no right to talk to you that way and has been warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is a statement at the top of WP:ANI that very clearly says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." (emphasis theirs). There are venues at the Japanese Wikipedia for those who are not fluent in Japanese to seek help; namely ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. I've closed down the thread at WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ireland protection

Ahem. How long is that again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

8 months. Given the protection history [1], that doesn't seem particularly excessive; do you disagree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's great. There's way too much vandalism over there. Might also be a good idea for this article: Normandy landings. Lot 'o vandals there, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That one doesn't look to have as much vandalism; much more iffy either way, you might want to try WP:RFP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It does seem to come in cycles and I wonder if it's a topic for high school papers, because it seems the spring is an especially bad time and then of course the D-Day anniversary. Also, thanks for unblocking Digiphi. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Got it. Thanks for taking the time. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Kings Island attractions

Recently I nominated the above category for speedy deletion which you declined. This category has been depreciated in an attempt to standardise the categorisation of amusement parks. Its "super category", Category:Kings Island, contains every article which was originally in this category and more. If it cannot be speedily deleted because it was "emptied out of process" how would I go about removing this unnecessary category. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  23:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#C2 indicates if it's a non-controversial merger or renaming, you can tag it as such. That may be what you're looking for; however, if you weren't merging two like categories, your best bet is WP:CFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've proposed a merger of the two categories at today's categories for discussion page. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Please provide some diffs or strike it out. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty

Hi Magog,

Can you do something about this? [2]. He just won't get off my talk page and the uncivil comments are getting over the top. This is something that's been going on for a week now. On Moonriddengirl's talk page he said he thought I had Asperger's Syndrome. Now he's saying I'm a liar. Any help over there would be much appreciated. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give you advice.
1) Ask him to say nothing impolite about you on your page.
2) Delete his comment, or grow a thicker skin and say you don't care.
I really can't mediate subtle he said/she said stuff son here like kids in a playground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else would have been blocked by now.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at his behaviour over this past week, other people have been blocked for far less.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's only valid if the other blocks were valid. I'll watch his behavior. If you have diffs showing gross incivility, I'll apply a block. Otherwise, just chill. If you're even asking for a block, it means his trolling is getting under your skin: i.e., it's achieving its end. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, I'm sorry you got dragged into this. Malke is forum-shopping: you're the third admin tonight that she's asked to block me. She's also not being entirely honest: for example, I tried to delete the section on her talk page and walk away, but she restored it and refused my polite request to remove it. I'd prefer to focus on editing than dealing with this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest you both stay the heck off each other's user talk pages. And don't post about the other user on other pages save for limited circumstances. And don't jump into conversations which the other user started on talk pages unless it directly concerns you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I am quite willing to follow that advice. Thanks and good night. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't forum shopping, Magog. I've left a post for Moonriddengirl because he went to her talk page, and I left diffs for Willbeback who seems to be trying to help him with advice. I did come to you because he just wouldn't stop over on my talk page and I knew you were around. And Daedulus did a good job of trying to help out. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what you'd call gross incivility. There are so many uncivil comments. Just in the last several hours. How many do you want?Malke 2010 (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything with swear words; most specifically directed at you or another individual. Anything short of that is probably just him being a dick - which is not a blockable offense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His uncivil comments are so numerous, despite being warned by Willbeback, he continues to do it and he's prolific with it. It's all over the place: the tea party movement talk page, the Mediation Cabal, my talk page, AN/I. The comments are always over the top, like this one [3]. I don't know, seems the standard is only for certain people to get blocked, not others. He edit wars, he goes against consensus, he calls people liars, he says consensus doesn't matter, it's only his definition of neutrality that counts. He even backtalks to Willbeback who is trying to help him. If you want to look it over, it's all over on Will's page, the Tea Party movement, the Mediation Cabal. It's like dog poop in New York City, it's everywhere.Malke 2010 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I want you to know that I took the step of simply removing all of my words from that section on her talk page, as well as the section she added to my talk page. There is simply nothing left to be offended by. If there had been any actual incivility, I would have redacted it, so what I just did is clearly overkill, but it seems like the best way to avoid needless conflict. Again, good night. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll look more tomorrow. Like I said, he's probably just being a dick - no offense Dylan, but if your'e doing that, it's true. That said, you did just compare him to dog poop, which is just as dickish as calling you a liar in a policy debate. Really though, if he's apologized, that should have been enough. Just stay away from each other guys. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, no offense taken, but before you respond, please note that we were ordered to disengage. Let's just drop this and move on. In fact, I would appreciate it if you were to blank this section. Thanks again and sorry for all the trouble. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You're fine, Dylan; I wasn't ordering (I was highly suggesting in the spirit of wisdom), and I wasn't even specifically referring to this conversation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Locking of Tea Party Movement Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks.

But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock? North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response is at AN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference and Conflict Advice

-Is there a place on wikipedia to discuss how to address issues and conflict, and just kick ideas around? :eg the Hannity discussion and my block there? I was hoping you could help direct me to some discussion sources. Or an experienced non-poitical fact based editor or admin that would mentor me. After all I asked people to explain the deletions and section blanking on talk and user pages, referenced my changes, and even reported the vandalsims IMHO hoping for some outside moderation. Looks like I was simply baited into a 3rr violation. However, I still disagree with that, and fall back to:

"Boldly editing Bold edits, though they may precede or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus."

I think wikipedia failed by not looking at my edits, and by simply blocking me, as I encougaged discussion and addressed the changes on Talk:Hannity. The pro hannity editors simply waited for me to make multiple changes to get a block to hold against me. I fell for it. LOL.

I would like to get input from experienced neutral editors. I start a discussion for this on BLP as well? Not to discuss Hannity, but how to address issue before seeking moderation I know you need to stay neutral, and get feedback on the issue outside of the "Cabal" on the Hannity page.

Issues: -WP says professional columnists/blogs are considered good references but there is objection to using the Huff Post, (only since they are hosting the fox video) and other "liberal blogs". Where would be a good place to discuss this? Some blogs are blocked, HP is not, so shouldn't my references to that be included? -3rr makes it too easy for people with vested interest or "ownership" of an article, or socks for Hannity to block things by claiming no consensus. -I think Liberal is irrelevant to the discussion, and if the rebuttal to the charges labelled against hannity and his groups warrants posting, Aren't the editors deleting my referenced facts showing bias by allowing one, but deleting my points.. Not to mention giving the pro-hannity rebuttle undue weight? -And your removal of liberal was undone... But they won't allow me to include "iraq veterans group" Why is liberal even relevant to the facts? This is pro-hannity editing, labling the charges liberal and political. Yet I posted the tax forms of the org in question, and they deleted it. If the rebuttle should be in, so should the charges. - Water-boarding. Major issues:

The fact the editors are deleting my referenced facts about millions of people watching hannity promise to be waterboarded for charity shows bias. If they are accusing me of 3rr, deleting my referenced facts and reverting to "this was a non issue and not covered by the media" I say that is vandalism, not good faith. The simple fact that they included/wrote/reverted "this is a non issues" makes it one.. THose sorts of comments do not belong in wikipedia.

"From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"

A former Governor and major news network host called him out, those are prominent adherents to the viewpoint. Liberal or not. Not to mention a major radio host that has millions of listeners who supported Hannity, and changed his mind after being waterboarded, and because he submitted to be boarded, the promised money was donated for Hannity to Charity. Not to mention hundreds of blogs, liberal or not.

If you have to delete this here due to neutrality, no problem, but I would love some direction. Asking for where to discuss this...

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you think your comments are being unfairly ignored, you can try a request for comment, and you will get community input on a specific issue. You can also try mediation, although I suggest other avenues first (if it turns out your edits have real problems, mediation isn't the way to go yet). You can also try editor review, but it may take a while to get a response. Try asking this same question on help desk; they might be able to point you to a good mentor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

THANKS! Bluebadger1 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS- Check out my comments on the the Hannity page, re: the revision of your changes as per "user talk" Bluebadger1 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You look like you're doing much better, but I have two recommendations:
1) When addressing what you believe to be bad wording in an article, avoid attacking the conduct of other editors [4], even if it's not "fair" per se. Just pretend like it never happened; it's better to ignore it for a bit while you discuss it on the page and eventually get a better version than to upset the other editors and never get a better version.
2) Again, you may do well to take a look at WP:RFC. Before I recommend that, I recommend trying to see the matter from the viewpoint of the other editors first, and then explaining why your viewpoint is perhaps superior within their understanding of the issue. This will not only help you convince them better, but perhaps give you a better understanding of why they think what they think, which can lead to a more appropriate compromise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Tamil-endhiran.jpg

Hi, I can see you have added FURs for the images used at Enthiran (soundtrack). I have been considering the interpretation of replaceability under the guidelines of Images as the use of three album cover variants in the same article might be seen as a breach of the guidance to not create image galleries. Are you aware of established example articles of albums or books where image variants have been included in this way, or even better an established consensus that allows for this usage? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? No. :) You might bring your question to WP:MCQ; I'm sure someone there might know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the prompt reply. I'll ponder it a bit longer before taking to MCQ, if we could find a featured article with similar detail on language variants of a publication then this would be a non-issue of interpretation. I also hesitate to arbitrarily poke at these again now you have gone to the effort of sorting out the FURs. Fæ (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You can go for {{subst:dfu}} or probably just WP:FFD if you get an affirmative response at MCQ - it's a totally different process than PUF. Don't mind me; I was just closing the PUF discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, I'll take a second look later today and ask for advice from the folks on MCQ. Fæ (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after a bit of thought I have raised it as an example on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Enthiran (soundtrack) (3 album covers). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi there Magog, I've noticed your an Admin who works in images. Which is a field I've been working in here lately, I was wondering if perhaps you could take a look at my contributions at some point and see if I'm accurately placing the tags on the images? --Shadowed Soul 23:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll get back to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Hello Magog the Ogre, please see my 2 cents on the case [5] Tuscumbia (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this one..

Hi Magog, I'm assuming you're an Administrator, and therefore would have a better idea of how to treat this User talk:Mhiji editors behaviour. They've been consistently adding italics templates to articles, and deleting all attempted discussion by others on their talk page (See talkpage history). This was brought to the noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647 last week, but the issue was closed unless the editor continued to refuse to discuss the issue (which is still continuing and happening). Since the incident is archived (and I'm not up with the wikipedia procedures), I'm not sure what the correct way is to bring this up again, or whether an antivandal approach is worth taking. Any ideas? Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the user is removing them now: [6]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Best to leave it then I suppose. They edit in an odd way, but there are no rules against that.. Thanks & sorry for the bother. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly dodgy photos by ThaiFutsal

Hi, I noticed you removed a lot of photos uploaded by User:ThaiFutsal recently, as they appeared to not be his own work. He has just uploaded 2 more...

  • File:Pattaya_city_thailand.jpg, which he claims is all his own work. I don't know about you, but I have to doubt he took all five photos and created the montage himself - it looks more like it's been taken from a tourism web site (especially as it is only a very low resolution image.)
  • File:Pattaya city 13.jpg, which he claims he took himself, but again the very low resolution makes me suspect he actually grabbed it from the web somewhere. (He used this one to replace a much higher resolution photo of Pattaya in the Thailand article, but I have reverted that.)

I'm not sure what to do about them, but seeing as you have already warned him (he has removed all the warnings), can I ask for your help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The second image has its EXIF info embedded. that might help. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC).
Oh yeah he's done [7]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM

Just a note, if you have "new users" and IP's causing a problems in future semi-prot would seem the way to go. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

It is semi-protected? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TucsonDavid (talk · contribs) pinged me on a image with questionable copyright status. What do you think. It's a toss up with me. :/--intelatitalk 07:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-Military}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

image violation?

your more knowledgeable. I saw this File:Leave And Earnings Statement.jpg and the author Kajmal states it was given to him on the summary but that's not true it can be found here http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Leave_And_Earnings_Statement.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leave_And_Earnings_Statement.jpg&usg=__Cuybz2W-G_k4_3U1pFFzUflnxmE=&h=719&w=752&sz=121&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=pmJfhE_cWTTuDM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleave%2Band%2Bearning%2Bstatement%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D578%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=281&vpy=67&dur=88&hovh=220&hovw=230&tx=122&ty=125&ei=04HfTP6jB8Sclgfh98iODQ&oei=04HfTP6jB8Sclgfh98iODQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0 I tried to use tiny url to shorten the link. How do you report it? what do you think?TucsonDavid (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The link is the same image, just on Wikipedia. It has the same license. --intelatitalk 07:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, see the section immediately above as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Protecting Tea Party movement

Please protect the article again. It is clear that nobody is willing to discuss changes in advance of making them, so we are not ready for an unprotected article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As discussed, it was a controversial change by a brand new editor and then reversion of the change by a regular editor. Up to that point I think it was routine, and restored it to it's "no-change" state. . The next step was a "revert of revert" by Dylan. IMHO this is sort of like Dylan asking to protect the article from actions like Dylan's  :-) but I consider it to be well intended and no big deal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
North, the initial revert was done on a questionable basis, thus biting the newbie. That's why I put it back and opened a discussion. Instead of this leading to a consensus, an editor decided to boldly bite again. We don't deserve an unprotected article if that's how we treat editors. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The first revert had nothing questionable about it. He reverted it because he believed it was an opinion inappropriate for the lede. Besides, WP:BRD doesn't particularly care how questionable the revert was; the point is to discuss. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I agree that it's inappropriate, but the reason given was "remove `anti-liberal` as being peejorative and sourced to a blog". Aside from misspelling "pejorative", it's BITEy.
I'll briefly explain why. In my resource search, I found the term used at least as often by conservatives as by liberals, which belies claim. And I found lots of hits, so having a weak source was fixable. Not that being a "blog" was the weakness: the citation was for http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/02/morning-must-reads-election-day/, written by Adam Sorensen, a politics producer for Time.com and under editorial control. The actual weakness, which the edit comment failed to note, is that the term was not used by Sorensen, appearing only in a comment. I doubt very much that they bothered clicking the link and searching for the usage, so this was more laziness than dishonesty.
In short, the term did not belong in the article, but for reasons entirely unrelated to those stated. Reverting an edit on a false basis is pretty darn BITEy in my book. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Right. These are all reasons that should have been brought about on the D part of BRD on the talk page. Stating "it's pejorative" isn't bitey - it was a calm rational way of saying it wasn't good. You might have read it that way because you have an emotional stake in the issue (as evidenced by your subsequent all-caps-headlined post). That isn't necessarily a fault - to my chagrin, I've noticed that I read something entirely differently one night than when I come back calmer the next.
Bitey would be: "rv bad edit adding unnecessarily pejorative term", "rv nonsense pejorative term", "rvv", or "Undid edit 4237981 by User:Joe" (i.e., no edit summary).
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how bitey it was, please heed the D part of BRD. It's frustrating, I know, and a lot of people don't, but you'll find you come across as a lot less headstrong and it gives you a strong place in a debate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Stating it's pejorative when, in fact, it's not is bitey. Stating that the source is unreliable because it's a blog ,when that's not the reason, is bitey. In short, lying is bitey. It's a bluff intended to intimidate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
a) Anything "anti-X group" can certainly be pejorative. And you just accused the other side of lying. That's assuming bad faith in the worst way - not only was the other side's point of view so illegitimate as to not be worthy of consideration, but it was so deliberately. Dylan, I'm afraid you're suffering heavily from WP:MPOV. Anything other than blatant vandalism doesn't excuse you from jumping outside process.
b) See WP:RS - a blog is usually not a legitimate reliable source. Please don't argue this point with me, I'm not arguing its merits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, blogs are usually not reliable sources, but we both realize this is an exceptional case. Likewise, while your general logic about anti-X is sound, it simply doesn't apply here. My point is that the edit comment was false, and this point seems unaffected by all the commentary. It really bugs me when people bluff in their edit comments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. Again, disagreement is fine and is to be expected - and to be hashed out on the talk page. I realize I'm holding you and other editors of this article to an unusually high standard (frankly many politicians can't even follow this level) - but it is not an unreasonable one. If in doubt, talk page. In this case, there was no blatant vandalism, and your assumption that the other side was lying because there's no way anyone could think differently - that's the MPOV I was talking about above (did you read the link?) Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I did. And, in fact, I generally follow a policy of not ascribing to malice what can be accounted for by error. The problem comes when people are supposedly geniuses. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I presume you're insinuating that the revert was justified because Arthur acts like a know-it-all. That's immaterial; the actions of another user do not excuse your own (the fallacy is formally known as tu quoque, but in the third person). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. I'm stating that he is supposed to be absurdly intelligent. To quote from his biographical article, "Arthur Rubin is to the mathematics world what Pegasus would be to the Kentucky Derby."
When it comes to an intellectual Pegasus, we expect more. That edit comment was flatly wrong about why the source was unreliable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright. Still, what are you not getting about this? It's not acceptable to violate BRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't say it was. Then again, I didn't violate BRD, so that's not what's on my mind right now. I've already explained what's on my mind. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you did. It was added, then removed; you added it with a slight modification. I said you might not have because of your slight modification, but that's assuming good faith - in reality, it was much more questionable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, two reasons were given for removal. I've already shown that the first was, in a word, bogus. And when I restored the term, I replaced the citation with a better one. That's not BRD, that's progressive editing. I did comply with the "D" part by then opening a section to discuss it. And that's where it all fell apart. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I definitely assume you were trying to abide by the letter of BRD. However, it was borderline - the content was substantially similar enough that its reinsertion would normally be seen as a violation of BRD. I'm just letting you know for future occasions - I really don't care that much about this one. Also, if you're saying that the material was substantially different enough, then its removal on the second occasion was also abiding by BRD. Just saying. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The point of BRD is that, once discussion starts, we take a break from editing. It would have been a violation of BRD for me to have just reverted the removal, as it would not have addressed any aspect of the edit comment. Instead, I recognized that the citation was weak (albeit for a different reason than stated) and make a good-faith effort to replace it. This wasn't edit-warring, it was a productive edit.
Technically, I could have stopped at this point, waited for someone to revert, then taken it to Discussion. However, I realized this term needed to be discussed so that we could arrive at a good reason to remove it. The part that disappointed me is that, despite the attempt at discussion, a non-productive edit was made. Now do you see why I was annoyed? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I see why you were annoyed, but I still find your logic is utterly flawed. Let me create a table.
Action Revert under scenario 1? Revert under scenario 2? BRD violation under sc. 1? BRD violation under sc. 2? Was the person pissed off by the previous edit?
User:Apostolos Margaritis's edit [8] ☒N ☒N ☒N ☒N N/A
User:Arthur Rubin's edit [9] checkY checkY ☒N ☒N checkY
User:Dylan Flaherty's edit [10] checkY ☒N checkY ☒N checkY
User:Arzel's edit [11] checkY checkY checkY ☒N checkY
You will notice a few things about this table:
1) You have no right to be unhappy with Arzel for removing your edit during discussion. Taking your view that you didn't violate BRD (scenario 2), then he had a right to remove your edit while discussion was pending. BRD doesn't read "be bold, and if you quickly take it to the talk page, the other person can't revert while it's being discussed."
2) If however, we are assuming that it was an out of process revert, then so was yours, in which case you fucked up first so you have no right to complain. Pick your poison; you can't have your cake and eat it too.
3) Who was pissed off by what had nothing to do with whether it was a BRD violation.
It comes down to this, Dylan: it doesn't matter how much the edit pisses you off, or how much you think the way the editor went about it was inappropriate, or even how poor a quality of an edit it was. BRD's only exemption for good faith edits is for blatant vandalism. Your inability to see what's a good faith edit and not vandalism is bordering on disruption. You are most definitely not hearing what I've said to you thus far. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are at a point where I can defend myself, but will only be punished for it, so I'm going to walk away. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no punishment involved. Perhaps it would be easiest to phrase this way: unless it's blatant vandalism, no matter how rudely it's added or poorly phrased it is, don't revert it. If you do revert it, you've violated 0RR, which is edit warring. OK. If you revert it again, you've violated 1RR, at which point you'll be blocked at TPM. If you do it twice more, you've violated 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Look, I can keep this up all day, until I've more than exhausted your patience.
By no interpretation have I done more than 1RR. I immediately opened a discussion and have not edited that item since, which makes it hard to claim I'm edit-warring.
I certainly did exceed 0RR, but then again, that's totally acceptable. Both Rubin and Arzel did, and nobody (myself included) is accusing them of edit-warring.
I would also suggest that there's a difference between a pure revert, such as the two I just mentioned, and my attempt to replace a defective citation while keeping the item cited.
Tired yet? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Are you? And I agree with everything you've said immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Then I'll have to report you immediately: refusal to disagree is the worst form of tendentious editing!!! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A surprisingly anti-climactic end to the conversation... Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. If it makes you feel better, you can block me for an hour. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_6&oldid=1138989353"