User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

2012 Burgas bus bombing

Hi Magog. Recently you closed an AN3 report on this article. In your opinion, does the subject matter of this article cause it to be under a 1RR restriction? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely; and I put a giant banner notice for every time someone edits the talk page. Maybe we need to copy it to the article page if this is continuing to be a problem? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems wise to put {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page as well. Otherwise a 3RR closer may not be sure what rule to apply. For extra credit, it would help to have a page notice on the article proper. I know — overkill, but we have some pages with all three. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking reverts

Hello,

Can you please take a look at the following diffs and whether they constitute a violation of WP:3RR, WP:1RR, or they are fine?

1 2 3 4

I believe they are a violation of these policies, and I have notified the user, but he is insisting they are not a violation. He is claiming that they are simply edits, and not actual reverts. According to WP:3RR, a revert is "undoing other editors - whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time - counts as a revert." It would appear he has done such.

I just wanted to check, and possibly notify an admin to simply notify him about the policies. I take the benefit of the doubt and assume it was made in good faith. But if it didn't violate any policies, then I will have learned something new, and I won't notify an admin for no reason.

Thanks. --Activism1234 18:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is clearly a violation. Whether it was a violation in spirit also or in law only, I cannot tell, although a cursory reading of the page shows he may have been following the spirit of WP:BRD. You might want to bring it up at WP:AN3, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG if you too are guilty. Also, sorry for the WP:OMGWTFBBQ. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this article should get WP:ARBPIA tag?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't take it up at the admin board yet, I'm just going to notify him that this is a violation and not to repeat it. If it does repeat, then I will take it up at the admin board. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt first and just politely notify him. --Activism1234 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the ARBPIA question was posed at me directly. Personally, I think it should be kept, since the reverts and edit warring that are problematic pertain to Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah, as opposed to say the aftermath section or the reactions of Belgium or France. --Activism1234 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike: see #2012 Burgas bus bombing. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Magog, please explain how the 4 diffs above violate 3RR. All 4 of them constitute regular edits. Here is part of something I posted on my talk page: "For example, if I come to an article and remove information, that is considered an edit. If another editor comes by and re-adds that information, which I then remove again, that is considered a revert." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dinamo and Spartak Moscow logos

Hello there. You recently removed NowCommons templates from File:Dinamo moscow logo.png ‎and File:FC Spartak Moscow logo.png without explanation, and I'm here to respectfully ask for one. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning is the same one I provided in the edit summary: the images are not actually on Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like they are on Commons, but that the version on Commons is of a different name and resolution, which is apparently causing a bug in my bot wherein the bot says the image isn't there at all. Undone. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What's more, the bug appears only when I'm running PHP in Windows, and not in Unix (no wonder I missed it). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for giving them a second look, then again for restoring them. Much appreciated, and keep up the good work! Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg

Hi Megog - do you remember helping me with the photograph? I first uploaded a color version and you said it would be better to use a free photograph and you found a sepia one and gave it to me to use. I was having a hard time uploading it because I used the same name as the colored one you deleted so you uploaded. Well Fastily just deleted it!! Unfortunately it is on many related pages! Could you help expedite having it reinstated? Thanks!! Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not an administrator on Commons so I can't help you with that. You'll have to wait until Fastily responds or you could ask another admin on Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Megog - remember the photograph you helped me find? - I need to answer the questions here in order for it to be reloaded- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg - can you help me complete this form properly by letting me know what to write in there. This image was placed on many pages. Thank you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I figured it out - all is well and thank you again!Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted file in use

Hi, Magog the Ogre, how are you? The first edition of the book "Autobiography of a Yogi", as appears in this eBay listing -- its cover, its content, its illustrations and photographs -- is in public domain. If the original cover was copyrighted, any attempt to make a similar cover would be plagiarism. However, you can find the original cover used presently by different Publishers. For example, at amazon.com US and at Amazon´s United Kingdon, a fac-simile. As for the File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg currently used in the "Autobiography of a Yogi"´s article, this one is without any doubt protected by copyright by the book´s Publisher, Self-Realization Fellowship. SRF is using it as a brand cover of his modified version of the book: around the world: Portuguese cover, German cover, French cover, Spanish cover, etc. They replaced the original black and white photograph for a hyperrealist color painting of Yogananda. SRF also slightly modified the public domain images they use. This is a practice some Publishers use to obtain a new copyright and to make people think the original images are still protected. I am writing to you to clarify this matter since there have been misleading information spread about the status of this book and images. The article is full of wrong information in order to advertise SRF´s book -- as if it had the priceless sponsorship of Wikipedia, and as if it was the one and only publication of the book in print, in detriment of all the others. Hope I could help. Please contact me if you need any further information. Thanks for your time and attention, bye bye. -- Tat Sat (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tat Sat, you have been warned previously about forum shopping and attacking other editors & their motivations. Please stop spraying this issue across yet more pages - it is being discussed at WP:DRN as per your request there. - Sitush (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll handle this when I get my monitor back. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog, and thanks for offering to take a look at this. I'm mediating the dispute at DRN, and my current plan is to work out the copyright status of the images involved and then hold an RfC to decide which one to use. If you don't feel like reading through the whole DRN thread, then you can just look at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Use of a book cover and/or frontispiece where I asked a question about the copyright part of the dispute. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have a monitor which allows me to look at something beyond a small sliver of my screen (!) within the next few days. Sorry for the delay; I'll contact you then. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Burgas again

I'm really sorry to bother you again, but you've been in charge of tags for this article so I decided to consult you.

This edit was made by an editor (the same one above who denied violating RR but you said he did).

The reasoning - "Added POV tag. User:Activism1234 added a Washington Post opinion piece to the aftermath section."

This is clearly referring to the last paragraph in the section "Aftermath."

As I explained to the editor, to no avail:

• What was added was not an opinion piece. Editorials are written by the newspaper staff.
• I likely would not have added it if it was an opinion piece. However, The Washington Post is an internationally known media outlet that is read daily by thousands and thousands, if not millions, of people. Their view on the matter seemed to be noteworthy, and was relevant to the section on "aftermath," as they talked about what response should be taken in regards to the attack.
• The claim that it's POV pushing is silly. If I wanted to push a POV, presumably that Iran was responsible, I would've put this into the "perpetrator" section. Instead, i put it in the "aftermath" section since it dealt with a media outlet's take on what should be done in response which is read by thousands and thousands, if not millions, and appears to be noteworthy.
• The passage itself does not violate POV. The passage explicitly states it is an editorial. It is not a case of an opinion piece or editorial being inserted without mentioning what it is, and passing it off as a fact or the views of someone else.
• Adding a POV tag to an entire article solely because of one passage that doesn't violate NPOV is silly.
• Many Wikipedia articles contain similar passages that explicitly state the media outlet and editorial, or if it's an opinion piece "X, writing for Y, wrote that..."

What is your take on the matter? Should the passage be deleted, or kept/remove POV tag? Thanks.

If it's too much, or if I'm bothering you too much, feel free to choose not to do this. I won't take it personally. --Activism1234 23:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all too much for me. I've looked at your posts but it is impossible to for me to determine without much more study of the issue who is at fault and who isn't. Try WP:NPOV/N, I guess. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't asking the question in "Whose rights/whose wrong" way, but rather whether the tag should be kept or removed, but I'll go to the noticeboard you sent me to. Thanks.

Have you tried to discuss the issue with the user on the talk page? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that was my first venue. You can see it here. Unfortunately, there wasn't any breakthrough, much like the discussion above that one involving violating 1RR and 3RR. I took it to the noticeboard, but so far no response. To simplify, my question is really just whether that one paragraph requires a POV tag, and I gave my arguments above. I'll also add that the page on public image of Barack Obama (random example) mentiones The Washington Post 17 times, often in the same way it's mentioned in my edit, except in that case it's an opinion piece, as opposed to an editorial (although it should make no difference, as long as it's explicitly mentioned what it is). I'll quote my passage here. This was in a section about aftermath, and it gives a media outlet's position, which is read by thousands and thousands, if not millions, across the globe daily. It's just quoting their opinion on what response should be given. As far as I'm aware, and with the arguments I gave above, this doesn't violate NPOV.

The Washington Post's editorial page on July 20 contained an editorial headline "Holding Iran accountable for terrorist attacks," in which The Washington Post said that Iran must suffer for its acts of global terrorism, and "The Security Council should review the abundant evidence of involvement by the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in this year’s attacks and punish both those groups as well as the Iranian government with sanctions." The newspaper wrote "Using the territory of countries across the world, working sometimes through proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and sometimes with its own forces, Tehran has been intentionally targeting not just diplomats of enemies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but also civilians."

Thanks--Activism1234 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, among other things, I suggest trying to be a bit less wordy. WP:TL;DR and WP:SOUP cover that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's my weak spot! But seriously, I wasn't at all that wordy with the editor, in both 1RR/3RR, the arguments I listed above were not stated like that on his talk page, I just expounded on them here and made it lengthier. But the thing is, the length doesn't really matter - he didn't understand why he violated 1RR/3RR when I explained it to him, even in the shortest possible way by simply copying from WP:3RR, and he didn't understand it when you said he violated it. I doubt he would renege on his insertion of the tag. And when I consult others, I want them to be fully aware of my argument and reasoning, so an error isn't made. Yes, I'm only discussing one passage on an article, but it's important to me enough that I went the extra mile for it, and well, I just stink at being concise. Should I have a go at it? This edit was made by an editor. He isnerted a POV tag to the entire article. The reasoning - "Added POV tag. User:Activism1234 added a Washington Post opinion piece to the aftermath section." This is clearly referring to the last paragraph in the section "Aftermath." However, in fact, what I did was insert an editorial in a prominent newspaper read by thousands, if not millions, of people every day across the globe. I didn't violate NPOV, as I mentioned explicitly it was an editorial. It is common across Wikipedia, for example in Public image of Barack Obama, to include stuff such as "Writing in the Washington Post, X wrote..." or "An editorial in the Washington Post said that..." with clearly explaining it's an editorial or opinion piece/who wrote it. It's also plain silly to put a POV tag on an entire article because of one passage that didn't violate NPOV.

Hope that's better :( --Activism1234 03:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not better at all.You just spent over 300 words repeating yourself. Pretend you're in Twitter and you have a character limit. I rarely have any posts above 100 words. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aight I'll try. But I do feel the info I give above helps explain it much better. Perhaps just consult it briefly if you're having any doubts over this? Thanks.

A POV tag was inserted on the entire article -This edit. Referring to paragraph on Washington Post. I don't believe it violates NPOV - it explicitly states it's editorial; such noteworthy passages are found across Wikipedia, for example on Public image of Barack Obama. The tag has not been discussed further, and just sits there. I would like this tag, which I feel is unnecessary, to be removed. What are your thoughts on this?

P.S. That was 76 words, not even 100! I hope it's good. Feel free to ask any questions. --Activism1234 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry I must have not been clear (too short in my words? ha! just kidding). I understand the locus of the dispute at this point, I was just giving you pointers for future communication on wiki. You will be immensely better at communicating and thus at accomplishing your goals if you are able to speak succinctly and to the point. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, sometimes I just feel I need to make my points very clear and cogent so no errors or mistakes are made. But I'll try to stick to your advice as much as possible. And in the unfortunate event that I wind up in Administrator Enforcement, either reporting someone or being reported, do you still recommend these rules? I saw a case where an editor being reported gave a 10 page essay and the admin said length doesn't matter and banned the editor, but do you feel that it's more important to make sure everything is listed clearly, not too long but enough to get the point across? Or still stick with shortness? Thanks. --Activism1234 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a false dichotomy: you can usually get all your points in succinctly. Instead of thinking about how you would say something in real life, try to make your statements most easily readable by other users. You can use bullet points, for example, which I always do if my point is too long.

Anyway, before ArbCom the point is moot because you are given a strict character limit. Interestingly, I've seen people who are wordy fail spectacularly with that limit by still adding in side points and repetitions and not adding in the meat of their argument, so it seem to me that users who aren't succinct (and you are certainly not the worst) seem to lack an understanding about what's important in a post, not just how to phrase it.

This is what I've told a friend who struggles with this IRL:

• We don't need to know your motivation for doing something in most cases, because it will often be obvious.
• We probably don't need a lot of the back story: if you are saying your car broke down, we don't really care about how you got into your car and turned the key this morning. It doesn't add anything to the conversation.
• If it's part of a story that you wouldn't care to hear in what someone else told, then someone else probably doesn't want to hear you say it.

That's the best I can do. My friend has gotten much much better, but only through practice. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Activism1234 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

International Reactions to Burgas bus bombing article template

Hey there,

Due to your involvement in the templates on the regular article...

Can you look at this new page that was created by another user (per talk page) and see whether 1RR Arab-Israeli conflict applies?

The majority of the article is about different governments. However, the countreis of Israel and Iran, and the organization of Hezbollah, are included in the article. It's a copy of "reactions" from the other article.

Thanks.

P.S. How was that in word limit? --Activism1234 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You get an A. Well improved! Y Done marked the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha thanks, you made my day (or I should say night)! --Activism1234 04:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Redaction of user creation log entries

Please note that the account name in the user creation log is, in fact, the user name section. There is no need to hide the action and target section. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then which sections should I hide? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like you already got it. I'd forgotten how there are admins (even ones who report to ArbCom) who patrol the logs to make sure there is no admin abuse (although in may case Hanlon's razor is correct). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't look for abuse - I look for incomplete/misdone log redactions and complete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Source was not provided, also Template:DFU does not exist

Regarding all of these edit summaries of yours. --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And that's because sourcing an image is not just stating it's simply "promotional materials", which is not only incredibly vague, but also completely unverifiable. Also all of the other uploads like that - huge non-free images by the same uploader (dozens of them), have been always deleted by the other admins. --Niemti (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The source was sufficient to establish copyright holder, and this was unquestionably not eligible for speedy deletion. Please follow the proper process. Also I meant Template:Dfu. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And which images have been deleted by the admins? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lots of them, but they're deleted now. Btw, fascists didn't build the Autobahns - national socialists did. Fascists "made the trains run on time" (or not[1]). --Niemti (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, or think you're cleverly referring to. The point is these are definitely not eligible for speedy deletion. Please don't tag them as such. Any previous deletions were both out of process and possibly wrong anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your essay at User:Magog the Ogre? "(fascists actually did good things too; e.g., building the Autobahn)" --Niemti (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were making a comment about how I was making the trains run as an admin or something. Anyway, the Nazis = fascist = national socialist unless I'm mistaken. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, "Nazi" is a sort of a made-up word for national socialism, it was never official and was used only by opponents (something akin for a "commie" for a communist). Similarily, the "Nazi Party" was actually the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Now, a system commonly regarded as fascist was in place in Austria before it became a part of Germany, but it was destroyed by national socialists, and the "Austrofascists" didn't build no German autobahns ("Austrofascist" economy was in fact very poor as compared to this of the Third Reich). And of course fascism was the system of Mussolini and his National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista) and then the German-puppet Republican Fascist Party. --Niemti (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway. How stating "promotional materials" complies with WP:V? And whatever happened to the old rule that every picture had to be first published on the Internet? (And here I'm trying to source all the pictures the best I can and to use reliable sources for that, like this [2], and then it turns out I could have only stamp "promotional materials" into every single one of them. Wow.) --Niemti (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you relink me to the images please? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What images, mine? Well I'm trying to do it like that: [3] < where it's actually a promotional artwork and it can be verified (dug up from a defunct official website via Internet Archive) or that: [4]. It varies, but it's never just stamping everything off as just "promotional materials" while uploading hi-res mystery pictures. --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

These are indeed valid reasons for deletion, but like with articles, speedy deletion rules are written in such a way that they only apply under a narrow set of circumstances (this is mainly because deletion is undoable by non-administrators); under all other circumstances, they should be discussed or given a tag which gives the uploader a week to clarify the source. In this case, IMO the source as "promotional material distributed by X" does not qualify for pseudo-speedy deletion either (i.e., {{subst:nsd}}, WP:CSD#F4) because it is poorly sourced, not unsourced (the uploader may have scanned the photograph himself). As such, I recommend taking images like this to WP:FFD, where your reasoning can be discussed. You will likely get a deletion decision but this at least allows people to weigh in on the matter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit waring lock

Hi, can you also put a lock on Winshape. Some of the same people have now moved from the chickfila page to Winshaope and trying to change what a lot of referances show. Also what is the best way to bring this and Chickfila before a Admin to decide? I think the referances are clear but many keep editing in what is not there. Thanks 216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to edit warring ruling

The IP address clearly violated the revert three rule by reverting five times I know I'm a bias party against him but I just don't see how the IP address did not break the rules maybe I'm missing something here but it seems like a mistake Algonquin7 (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

He did break the rules. But since all of you were editing warring anyway, I locked the page. And once the page is locked, making a block is punitive and redundant, because the edit warring has been forced to stop Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I was edit warring ( I was only accused by him of it) but all-right I'll deal with it. I guess I can't expect you to re-rule on it that would be just more trouble Algonquin7 (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts: [5] [6] [7]. That is edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not edit warring the first two of those where about a different section and done in a period of one day the other was done a day later in another section on the page to keep the conversation moving like wikipedia suggets I was not at all edit warring Algonquin7 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also like to add the first RV someone took it out my edit calling it not pure source which sounded like a poor reason, second RV paraphrased material since someone said it violated copyright, third RV the conversation seemed stagnate so I was bold but it was about a completely differant issue then the firtst to edits were about the day before Algonquin7 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right to upload a picture

Hello,

Can you take a look at the sketch of this man, which they attributed to a screenshot, and whether it's permissible to upload, or violates copyright? (Many other media outlets as well used the image, but not sure if I'm/we allowed to do that as well)

It's a sketch of the perpetrator of the Burgas bus bombing.

Thanks!--Activism1234 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You should be OK to use it under fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at IIIraute's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Orphan file redirects

Sometimes files are renamed without fixing the pages that used the file after the move. It seems that not all tools like that and there have been problems with for example categorization on Commons and global usage.

Since Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 10 is probably no longer active I was wondering if your bot could do the task? --MGA73 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your help and bearing with me! Really really helpful and polite. Activism1234 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more eyes and editors on this

Having a hard time keeping the two parties focused on a positive resolution, seems to have begun at a somewhat uncivil An/I thread and moved on into Wikiquette. Would love it if you have a moment to drop in at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#AndyTheGrump's accusations

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'll take a look at it soon enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

To quote wikipedia policy, administration guidance: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.". I'm flattering you saying you probably won't even accept that, so I'm not going to waste my time saying anything other than next time pay more attention when you block my IP.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You edit warred against multiple people and even violated the 3RR rule. You were the only one who breached 3RR, and it wasn't even close. You have completely misunderstood the application of 3RR and page protection; the latter is practiced when there are many sides which are guilty. In this case, there was only one guilty side: you. I will by all means block you and your IP if you continue to edit war. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record

I filed an ANI in regards to that AN3 report you closed out. I'll try to, but can you also keep an eye on the block user's talk page in case he wants to contribute to ANI? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit unfair?

I see you blocked User:IIIraute for 31 hours for breaking the 3 RR. But did you notice, that - as was explained in the same thread - his opponent User:Volunteer Marek similarly broke the 3 RR, by changing the title in the article Malbork Castle 4 times back into Malbork Castle → [8], [9], [10], [11]. As VM has been blocked before for edit warring, I don't think he warrants amnesty here. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Miacek, seriously, stop it with the hounding, block shopping, grudge pursuing and the general battleground attitude. So you were tag-team edit warring on Dhimmitude. So I pointed it out. And now you're agitating for a block. Not very nice of you. Disruptive in fact.

As per the supposed reverts, as has been pointed out half a dozen times, at least the first of these edits is not a revert but a regular edit. And Miacek knows this very well, since he's been around. Yet, here he is pretending otherwise in pursuit of a grudge.

And hey, if there is some edit of mine that you want me to self-revert, I'll be happy to do so, just ask (not Miacek, Magog).VolunteerMarek 17:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. My last block for edit warring was like, ten years ago or something (and I'm good wiki friends with the guy I was edit warring against). Miacek also knows this, so this is more bad faithed poisoning the well..

Of course it was a revert: you reverted the title back into Malbork castle, cf [12].Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

VM: please assume good faith. In this case, it is entirely appropriate of Estlandia to ask the admin who performed the block why he performed it and ask for me to make sure my actions were even-handed.

E: I'm just not seeing the revert in the first edit. What change was undone, and can you show a) the version he reverted to and b) the version that he reverted? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, is there any edit you want me to self-revert, just let me know.VolunteerMarek 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first edit, he reverted the title Marienburg Castle in Malbork back into Malbork Castle as it had been before IIIraute's edits: [13].Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 07:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I definitely missed that. If I'd caught it earlier I would have blocked VM but now frankly it's stale. VM is on warning against future edit warring and violation of 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre/Indo-Iran

Since the topic area got sanctions, do you mind deleting this (or removing my name/diffs from here)? The diffs with my name are cherry picked and I wouldn't like to be listed on a page with a series of allegations. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I was quite surprised

to just learn that a "decision" was reached regarding File:Roger Morigi gargoyle, National Cathedral, Washington DC, USA.jpg. Looking at the discussion this seems like an odd decision to reach unless there is more discussion elsewhere. In this decision I find the phrase "Artwork placed in public in the US after 1977 is not considered "published"" Do you know when the artwork was placed? Here is a bit of a bio regarding Roger Morigi - the subject of the gargoyle. "Among the more famous of the carvers was Roger Morigi, who came to America in 1928 and worked at the cathedral from 1956-1977, earning the title of “master carver.” So unless this was done after he retired, which I doubt, but am working on, the piece was placed before 1977. Which means what? einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well none of this information was included in the discussion. The only information that I saw in the discussion speculated that it was carved in 1990 or earlier, and possibly in August of 1989. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It appeared to me that the discussion had ended at KEEP. I had stopped digging stuff up. As you know, research is a never ending process, mostly at some point we just go, "Well that seems like enough." Which is where I believed the issue to be. I discovered after playing softball for a quarter of a century that if I'd won more than I had lost then I could feel okay. I can absorb this loss and still be well over .500 here. Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are not SUCH an Ogre. The 1990 date that you saw, I think, was when I took the picture, probably incorrectly listed on the upload form. Carptrash (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

An understandable mistake, no? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Carptrash (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit keeps getting reverted, editor doesn't care for explanation

Hi again,

The 2012 Burgas bus bombing article had an edit added by someone to it that said "On July 21, it was reported that Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the official who is in charge of the investigation, "denied rumors in the international media about the bomber's identity and said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack."[37]"

The reference is an article from July 21. I explained to the editor that the minister's statements are written above nearly exactly the same thing, but on July 20, and most likely, the newspaper just repeated what he said the day before for context, as is often done. There was no proof he said it again, and it's just redundant. When I removed it, it just got reverted. The editor has failed to explain why he feels it belongs twice.

I added a section on the talk page for other people's comments, but didn't get any replies. I again tried to explain it to the editor, but no luck - he just reverted it, saying "Look at what day the article was written." In other words, ignored everything I wrote.

Do you think that it should be kept in the article, or removed? Need more info? And if you're not up for this, do you know which forum I can take this to? The editor has been blocked for 72 hours in the past for edit warring, and this is really what it feels like, but I'm not interested in sanctions or anything... Thanks. --Activism1234 01:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please make an attempt to discuss this with the editor in question, in particular at Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing . Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done just this on the talk page, see here. I also brought it up on his user page here. He has refused to answer or help out, which makes it very difficult. Thanks. --Activism1234 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

He has not refused to answer, he just hasn't answered very thoroughly or helpfully. You might try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, I think I'll go to "third opinion." I'm not sure what you are referring to though about not answering thoroughly, he hasn't provided an explanation to my section on the talk page or his user page. The only explanation I've heard from him was his comment in the summary box when he reverted me in all capital letters, which essentially ignored nearly everything I wrote to him. --Activism1234 04:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I just meant that he did answer you, he just didn't do it in satisfactory fashion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I could be overlooking something or just not sure what you're referring to, but either way I took it to 3O, but it was rejected since it was on his user page rather than the talk page. I once again posted on his user page, but it didn't get anywhere (and I moved it to talk page as well), and then went to dispute resolution. I posted on his page that I went to dispute resolution, so I'm waiting for his opening statement so others can discuss it. Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it. --Activism1234 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed your comment

But I had already responded, should I now remove mine? I have never had this happen before. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, please delete this page Milos Bozovic. That player does not exist at all. Page creator removing the template for deletion. Thanks--Заза (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for intercession, the page is deleted. Cheers. --Zaza (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

70.118.102.247 and ARBMAC

You may want to watch this user; after you left the block template and the other comments, the IP removed almost everything, the block template and the statement about WP:ARBMAC being the only exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup; I already placed it on the user page where the IP cannot edit.[14] Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkness_Shines. Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Wow thanks so much man! Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your 6 month 1RR/week probabation on 70.118.102.247

Already broken on Yugoslav Wars. See 1 and 2. Blanked your notification here before the first revert, so he can't claim he didn't know. Meters (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of one week. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Capt MK Durrani.jpg

Can this file be deleted? You tagged it as {{keep local}} to test something in January and then tagged as {{NotMovedToCommons}} a month later. —innotata 01:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well seeing as they've ignored the bug report for 7 months now, sure, why not? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Shame

Shame on you - diff - Youreallycan 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd stop edit warring with other people on talk pages then you wouldn't have to deal with people like me saying you should be outright banned from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

People like you. - Youreallycan 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think your recent edit warring was justified? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No edit of mine could possibly warrant me being banned as you desired - Youreallycan 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you - is not a question - Youreallycan 14:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop being coy. There is a question immediately above and you know what it is. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous tossers get what they deserve Youreallycan 14:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the question. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel source distortion/edit war

I noticed that you warned Cwobeel about edit warring very recently on the Mitt Romney articl here.

Recently, he engaged in source distortion two times. See here for more info.

In between his first source distortion and the second, an editor included a "citation needed tag," another editor removed it with a different source that didn't support it either, so another editor removed that... So I'm not sure whether it constitutes edit war or not, but I'm almost positive it's serious source distortion. The edits were specifically made to write that it was a fundraiser, and the second time refs were specifically included to support this assertion, yet the refs don't make any mention of that at all.

Not sure what to do, but I notified you since you originally warned him, and maybe you can look whether it's edit warring or not, and whether it deserves a response. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He's a new editor who joined last month, so I'm not saying he should be blocked for this, but maybe, if appropriate, a warning and temporary ban (1 week?) from Mitt Romney related articles, and by that time the issue should already be solved and he can edit with that off his back. Of course, that's completely up to you (and I don't even know whether you can do that or I need to take it to ANI), and you may feel he doesn't deserve that either. Just wanted to notify you, that's all. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, where exactly was the distortion? You've just written me five paragraphs and didn't even tell me what was wrong with the additions. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The third link, where I wrote "See here for more info" explains it in full. here Not such a big deal to me now though if you want to ignore it. --Activism1234 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He claims it was an honest mistake (although I'm skeptical since his edit was made specifically to include refs). --Activism1234 03:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to assume good faith and say if he claims it was an honest mistake, then to believe that. Only if it becomes a pattern should other activity be taken. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Thanks. --Activism1234 16:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U, which mentions your block, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I draw your attention to the comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#Certification? Thanks in advance. Prioryman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification questions on "Move to Commons"

With others starting to move the "generic taxt/shape" logos to the Commons that I originally uploaded here, I thought it might be better (for tracking, in a sense) to do so myself first. But I need help with a particular situation. A file I will example is File:InsideTheActorsStudioLogo.png. I now have a decently higher quality version of this file with no background, and I would also rename the file putting spaces between the words. So even though it is the same logo, it would be an entirely different file and file name. Should I do something different on the English Wikipedia page to get this file deleted since CSD F8 would not qualify? It would, after all, soon end up orphaned anyway. What about the same situation of a higher quality/different logo but the file name didn't change? Please send me a talkback. Thanks. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 04:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you uploaded the file on English Wikipedia, you could simply tag it with {{db-self}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That'll be much easier than I was expecting. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

	The Flying Pig
	Wow. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've given me a flying pig, and if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of User:ChrisO

I am not well versed on the proper procedure in these cases, so hopefully you can set me straight if I am wrong. However, his page was deleted due to a RTV, which he obviously failed to fulfill the requirements of. So I don't see how that qualifies as a G6. Also, possibly related, where are his contribs under that account now stored? Thanks in advance. Arkon (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How did he fail to fulfill the requirements of RTV? I was simply trying to enforce the RTV. I admit I'm not as good at with RTV either, but it seems if someone has fulfilled the reuqirements and doesn't want their page to exist, we should honor that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RTV requires that the editor in question not return to editing. Arkon (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't made any edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You do know Prioryman is ChrisO, correct? Arkon (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea. I am assuming that you aren't committing WP:OUTING, so could I have the link? I will undelete. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, one second, gotta dig through the sanctions pages. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions Arkon (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmk, Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Arkon (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I still don't know if his contribs should be viewable or not. They didn't get moved to his new account. Any ideas on that one? Arkon (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't feel quite comfortable commenting on that; suffice to say, they're not gone, and if you did your research well enough, you'd find them laying around. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure they got moved to a vanished user account at some point, but as with the deletion, that should probably be reversed if that's the case, don't you think? Arkon (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I plead the fifth. That's question with no right answer, both politically and morally. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I honestly have no idea what's suppose to happen. Who do you think I should ask? Arkon (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For a failed restarter WP:Vanish - that refuses to accept his full account contributions being returned to his ongoing contributory account I suggest direct to WP:Arbitration is the only solution left - - Youreallycan 23:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Were you asked off Wiki to delete it ? - please declare - if not what caused you to delete it after months of its existence? - diff/edit history -please note - I do appreciate your re creating it on questioning of your deletion - but what caused you to do it at this time? After eighteen months of total inactivity on the Users talkpage, you made an edit to delete it, and fully protect it, stating, ... 23:03, 10 August 2012 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) deleted page User talk:ChrisO (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) - Why was that? - What caused you to make those two administrative actions ?Youreallycan 22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not asked off wiki to delete it; I deleted it because I came across it today in my image patrol, and saw it had been recreated, ostensibly against the ChrisO's will (I was unaware of this whole backstory). Also, FYI Arkon, I did not keep the page protected - you can edit it now if you'd want. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Crap, sorry man, It showed as still protected (as in, the last activity shown was the protection in my watchlist.) Still ok with the protection even if it did happen though. Arkon (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the latest of my watchlist http://imgur.com/TxJ1X Arkon (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It was protected against creation. But once it's recreated, the creation protection flag disappears; it's not automatically unset, it just disappears (it only applies for non-existant pages). So anyone can edit it now. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'm ignorant as hell for all that stuff, just wanted to try to explain why I thought that. I'll strike it. You've been nothing but good here man, no worries. Arkon (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arkon (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)