User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DELETING MY 2T-GEU

Hey you deleted the picture of the 2T-GEU in my TE71 Sprinter! I am quite happy for this image to be used on the Toyota T engine article as it is lacking a good photo of a complete T engine. Please restore it and next time it would pay to check with the author of the photo before deleting it. Thanks. see http://www.flickr.com/photos/ars666/4984889972/ for confirmation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.239.61 (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you ars666? If so, if you could leave a note at the Flickr page indicating which free license you choose to license it under. On principle, Wikipedia refuses to accept any content that reserves most rights for the author, including anything that disallows commercial reuse of content. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Having responded on ars666's Flickr page, I am so happy that this worked out. And ars666, most photographers would prefer us to delete before waiting for a response, as it is often the case that the image was uploaded without their permission. All's well that ends well.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the channel guides...

Sorry about the channel guides getting removed due to the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. However, I've started a wiki in response to that: the Channel Listings Wiki. I've asked Plastikspork to be the co-admin of the Wiki, but the Spork didn't respond or come to the Wiki. So, I'm inviting you instead. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 12:28, 26 October, 2012 (UTC)

Always nice to be second choice LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'll have to turn this one down. Not very knowledgeable about such things. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky Movies 007 HD

This is a ridiculous stand-alone article about a limited edition channel. I'm loss at words about this. May I propose a merge now? This is part of DYK. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, George: if it's a television channel on a major provider, that seems notable to me. Again, however, I'm not very knowledgeable about this area so you might want to ask someone else. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 08:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairly uncontentious request

Hi Magog! I see you are active at the moment, on this lovely spring evening. Could you possibly check your email? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'll be finished in 5-10 minutes so you'll want to make it quick. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

oops

sorry about that -- thanks for the } Nobody Ent 12:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

re: File:Balogh.jpg

Oops - thanks! Nikthestunned 15:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

List of AT&T U-verse channels

List of AT&T U-verse channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This redirect page may fail WP:RFD#KEEP. History log is useless, as some useful (or useless) content are already merged into AT&T U-verse. No mainspace pages link to this article. "AT&T U-verse" and its listings are already searchable. That's all I can say. May I nominate this page as RFD? --George Ho (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's useless; if the two are merged, then it is necessary for attribution, and thus for fulfilling cc-by-sa. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

However, I removed a lot of content in AT&T U-verse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because info is not very useful, but another editor reverted back my edits. Look at packages and carriage negotiations. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, if it's in the history of AT&T U-verse, then we still need the attribution from the history of the original article. It's not that I don't want to say yes, it's that I don't want to get you in trouble. In any case, is there an administrator who is knowledgeable about redirects? I may have gone on WP:RFD once in my entire life. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Interaction Ban?

Magog, might I suggest an interaction ban between myself, Ihardlythinkso and Momento? There shouldn't be any problems with compliance; Momento only edits Prem Rawat, a topic that I have zero interest in. Ihardlythinkso primarily edits in the area of chess (and Donald Trump; go figure), and I don't. Neither frequents the engineering articles I usually edit (I am interested in chess computers, but I have not seen any interest in that subtopic of chess by Ihardlythinkso).

To show good faith and to give them no reason to talk to me or about me, I am now voluntarily putting myself under a unilateral interaction ban with Ihardlythinkso and Momento for at least the rest of this year, and I would be happy to make it indefinite on request. This includes not replying even if they directly address me. Note: I might post a diff to this talk page with the term "FYI" to notify you of abuse such as violating an interaction ban, but will not discuss the matter unless you specifically ask me to. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that to be an excellent idea. You might want to suggest it at WP:ANI, as I am powerless to enforce one all by my lonesome. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments

I was hoping that your replies to IHTS might shed some light on your claim that I engaged in "battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc." but I can't find anything to justify it. IHTS's argument against your claim that I was Canvassing seams clear and irrefutable. Could you explain your reasoning?Momento (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

IHTS never made a single argument in favor of the fact that you weren't canvassing. In fact, that you were canvassing is itself "clear and irrefutable." You know, I'm really kind of getting sick of this wikilawyering. If you need a list of diffs, I believe Guy Macon provided them upon his post at ANI. If you need to see them, go look at the ANI archive. Again, if you can't even figure out how I might think that you're canvassing, then it is my opinion that you are probably here with an agenda, and this conversation will come to naught. If you don't like my response, ANI is over here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That is really a cock-eyed interpretation of what I wrote. I explained clearly why your charge of canvassing didn't seem to be based in policy at all, and so I asked how the charge made sense. Rather than explain answer to a legitimate and reasonable question, you rather call people "wikilawyers" and assert that I didn't make a favorable argument for something, when I was rather asking a question (what your basis was, since it wasn't provided, and I didn't see any). How inhospitable do you want to get here in on your user Talk? Because you certainly seem to find plenty of ways, without any encouragement at all. You've been full of ABF here. (Not becoming of an Admin, IOM. Editors have asked you reasonable & understandable questions, and your responses have been mostly non-answers, and consistently defensive & hostile. Maybe you could lower the temperature here a bit, by trying to be more objective and less attitudinal, so Q&A can be at least possible with you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As suggested I have gone to ANI Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Momento (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently ANI isn't the venue for this and since you're unable to to explain your reasoning, I'll just have to accept you can't.Momento (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your accuses

You accused me of several things here. I'd like to hear from you what the bases are that you made these accusations. Last first: canvassing. On what basis did you accuse me of canvassing? Could you provide a diff for that please to back up your accusation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You weren't guilty canvassing, Momento was. You were, however, guilty of gross personal attacks, ironically, in the name of the personal attacks he allegedly made against you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it sure seems to read that you accused me on the public Wikipedia of canvassing. Why don't you read what you wrote, as others would read it: "both Momento and Ihardlythinkso should be blocked for battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc." (Do you honestly think that other parties might read that and not conclude your accusation of canvassing applied to me?)

"Gross personal attacks". Please provide a diff, of even one, please. (It's a serious claim. And now you're adding "gross" modifier. I'd like to know what is the basis you make that contention.) And, because you're also now drawing in a comparison to the personal attacks he made against me, I'm wondering which one(s) of those you are specifically comparing. So please identify. Also, please explain why you say "allegedly" -- that of course makes no sense to me, as the attacks I named were concrete and plain; nothing "alleged". (If you could please just answer my questions, rather than complicating things further, by throwing in other additional new contentions, and comparisons, and so on, that would be appreciated, too. Let's keep this discussion clear and simple as possible, it's less confusing and involved/lengthy that way.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in playing gotcha Wikipedia politics. I'm not answering any more questions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As Administrator, you have a responsibility to explain what your rationales were when making accusations and recommending a block on me at the ANI, if I ask you reasonably, and I believe I'm asking you reasonably. If it makes you uncomfortable then please explain that. But please don't falsely accuse me of playing politics or games, as I am totally serious about this.

I want to get at the bottom of your accusations of personal attacks, and battlegrounding. Please give me diffs supporting those accusations you made. (AN/I is infamous for being a sewer pit of irresponsibility and mob mentality. For sure you, as Admin, are not a contributor to that, and take your job, and your contributions at ANI, with some degree of professionalism and seriousness.)

As Admin you are held to a "higher standard". But what I'm asking you to explain doesn't require reaching that higher standard, merely an average standard that one would expect from any Administrator at WP.

Please stop accusing me of games, that's ad hominem & offensive to my character. Please explain what I've asked you to explain. (If you have no bases for making the accusations you did at the ANI, or no good or solid ones, then I think perhaps you should just apologize to me at this point. If you think the idea of apology is a joke, then let's hear it: What are the bases you used for the accusations you made against me at the ANI, including your recommendation for block. Please share them. I want to see them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

You've already dropped the accusation of canvassing, saying it wasn't meant to apply to me, even though any reasonable person reading what you wrote at the ANI, wouldn't come to that conclusion (they would conclude that you were accusing me of canvassing). So you and I know that you didn't mean to apply the canvassing accusation to me, but, no one else does, unless they are reading this discussion on your user Talk. (How do you think I feel about that? That you wrote at ANI in a way that expressed that I was guilty of canvassing, for all to see, when, you were making no such charge? I don't feel too good about it, about the carelessness of how you wrote it to spread belief that I was guilty of something when I wasn't.) And regarding the canvassing charge against Momento, you said it applied to him, but I'm curious to understand too, how would that be possible? (It's my understanding that canvassing, is reaching out to a user, to solicit them to come to a given WP page, to contribute or post. But in this case, Momento and I WERE ALREADY posting at the MEDCOM Nomination page, before he ever left the friendly message on my user Talk. So how could it be that he was soliciting me to come to a page to post, that I was already posting at?) Can you explain how Momento violated WP policy on canvassing, because, your accusation that he did makes no sense to me. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

From what i can see there was a misunderstanding here. The best thing to do in that situation is just move along. Pass a Method talk 09:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Pass, the only thing that "misunderstanding" could apply to, is the accusation of canvassing, which Magog said was not directed at me, but at Momento. Magog's other charges were distinct in nature, and there is no misunderstanding about them. I have been trying to secure an explanation from him, what are the basis for the other charges he made at the ANI, which I feel as Admin, he is obliged to give clear explanation, if I reasonably ask, and I believe I have done that. I want to know the basis Magog made the accusations he did. There was no rationale given at the ANI. I have no right to know this? An Admin isn't required to explain to an editor the basis of making serious vioations of policy accusations, from which he recommended a block? An Admin is held to "higher standard", and I think that includes giving me a clear idea what were the bases of his accusations. They affected me. They weren't directed at you. You aren't therefore in a position to know how I feel about being on receiving end. I'm asking for some accountability, and that should be completely understandable. Also it doesn't take rising to "higher standard" for Magog to explain his basis for the ANI accusations of breach of policy that he claims is block-deserving, only an "average standard". Shouldn't be that hard. Please tell me why you think I'm being out-of-line here, if that is what you think, because clearly I want to know the basis why I was accused of these serious things, and if they are valid accusations (if they are, then it is something I should really know), and clearly I think that it's reasonable for me to request same. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Magog worded it in a way that the other charges could be interpreted as also being directed at Momento. Since Magog has not made an explicit statement on what he meant, we should not jump to conclusions. Either way, Magog appears to want to deescalate this situation, so i think you should too as well. Pass a Method talk 12:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Of course he was "also directing to Momento", he was directing his comments to both of us, this is what he wrote at the ANI: "[...] both Momento and Ihardlythinkso should be blocked for battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc." How does "also directing to Momento" remove the fact that he was also charging me with serious policy violations that he asserted were deserving of a block?? Magog accused me above of being disingenuous by accusing me of playing games. I'm not playing any game or any politic -- I want an explanation for the basis he used for charging me with serious policy violations that he did. I have no interest in "escalation" or "de-escalation" or in wikidrama -- I want answers from this Admin regarding what was his rationale for making serious policy violation accusations on me. Aren't you exempting him from being accountable and responsible for what he accused at the ANI? He gave no justifcation or rationale backing his accusations at the ANI, that is why I am here, to learn what they were. I think I deserve an answer to that, else you are saying that an Administrator can accuse of anything they please for any reason they please, without regard to accountability or responsibility. Please explain how you think that is "jumping to conclusions" ... I don't see what you mean, at all. You seem to be exempting Magog from being responsible and accountable for what he asserts and accuses at an ANI. That is not consistent with my understanding of the role of Administrator and what the community expects from them. Why are you trying to exempt him from being accountable for what he says and accuses? He is an ADMINISTRATOR, and thereby is not a tender thing needing your protection and exemption from my reasonable and understandable requests for explanation of his accusations against me. Please be clear and specific if you have negating comments again, because obviously, your points seem confused and puzzling to me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And why do I have to explain the obvious, over and over again? I've been consistently clear and sincere from the beginning. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Magog is entitled to be exempt from being responsible or accountable for any accusation he chooses to make against an editor at ANI?! (Is that a new WP Guideline for Administrators that I was unaware? Huh?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am refusing to answer the question because I already know that it would not lead to better behavior on your part: you would not be open to constructive criticism, rather you would go on about how your words weren't a personal attack, but how your opponents' were and how unfair I was being for singling you out but ignoring you opponent. I can tell all of this without even looking too much further into your opponent's behavior: sorry, I've seen this song and dance before, and it does not lead to any remedied behavior. If at any point you're willing to admit that maybe you aren't perfect and say "oh wow, yeah, I fucked up, thanks for pointing it out; I'll be sure not to do it anymore" and not for one moment mention someone else's behavior as a justification, then we can talk. But my experience tells me you will admit no such thing. The very fact that you can't find the personal attacks on your own without a diff from me is proof. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

*You* made the charges. I'm asking you to back them up. You dance around and find excuses, including making personal attacks on me now, as reasons why you won't be accountable and responsibly explain your charges when reasonably asked. Your "you think you're perfect so nothing I will say will make any difference" is a bullshit and escapist tactic. (You don't see that?!) You are an Administrator and I've asked you to explain the rationale for your accusations at the ANI. Quit finding pathetic excuses, and just do it. Quit asking me to be my own prosecutor, that is another escapist tactic. Give me the respect of being able to evaluate the basis of your serious charges of violating WP policy that your decided were were block-worthy, and being in position to evaluate what I think of them. So far here are your justifications you have offered for the serious charges you have made: <blanks here>. Very impressive. Maybe you should do a little better than that, AS ADMINISTRATOR, before passing personal attacks to exempt yourself from being responsible to a reasonable request for explanation of the serious charges you made against me at the very public ANI. Or do you have some more personal attacks you want to throw my way, as tactic to get out of responsible explanations of your rationale for your accusations at the ANI. (You don't see how transparent and pathetic response that is? Really? If you had real confidence, you wouldn't have any issue supporting the accusations you made, with explicit reasons that justified them. It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree with those justifications -- that is up to me to evaluate and decide, isn't it??? That is not the point at all. The point is for you to reveal and clearly put on the table, the basis for the accusations you made, why you made them. That is what I've been asking all along. Your answer should not have to pre-condition that I will agree with you. (How you do find logical, that I must demonstrate that I would agree with your reasons, as a condition to you giving them??? Since when does that make sense???) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's just too bad: my precondition for providing constructive criticism is that someone is willing to listen. Either you can change your attitude and be willing to do so (I explained the process above, starting in "If at any point" and ending in "then we can talk"). If you find being open to constructive criticism too much to bear, ANI is thataway. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps finally we are getting somewhere. (A little bit.) I am willing to listen. I am open to listen. But that is not a promise or future guarantee that I will ultimately agree with your reasons that you thought a block was justified under policy. (How can I know or evaluate or form an opinion of that, without knowing your reasons?)

But now you have changed my request, and that is not good. I have not and am not asking you for "constructive criticism". That is not why I opened this thread. I have asked and am asking to know what your rationale was, to make serious policy violation accusations that you asserted were block-worthy. That is information I am looking to get from you.

However, yes, I am open to constructive criticism, I know that I am not a perfect editor, and I do wish to improve as editor, without some goal that I will someday be 'perfect' editor -- which is just nuts. Yes, I am open to any constructive criticism you care to give, and even, thank you for that offer to give same. But be clear, said constructive criticism is independent from the distinct reasons you felt that acccusations of breach of policy were sufficient to warrant a block recommendation. I am looking for your logic there, independent of constructive criticism that I know I can profit from. They are separate things, though possibly related too. We shoudn't confuse them. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to share first? Your constructive criticisms? Or the rationale you used why a block was warranted under policy? I'm ready to hear you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Magog, please believe, I am not interested to waste your time, or make a Congressional affair. We can just be to the point, to minimize time investment, I see that you spend a great deal of time protecting WP image use, and I really don't want to subtract from that to any measurable degree. I do not want to debate you. Rather basic information & exchange. Thx for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I will look at this more tomorrow when I'm more coherent. I'm just a bit tired tonight, so I lack the energy and mental wherewithal to respond. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, i specifically closed the thread with the explanation "to deescalate the situatio". Your immediate reaction was to reignite the situation. Please grow a thicker skin. Its starting to get annoying. Administrators are humans, not fucking robots. Pass a Method talk 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, if you are not asking me for the sake of constructive criticism, then why are you asking me? I don't mean to dance around the subject, but this is kind of important. If you are doing it in order to right what you perceive to be a wrong, then I might advise you to pick your battles more wisely, because if you won even this one, it would not do a thing to help or harm your reputation. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why am I asking you. Because I was shocked to see the charges against me, that you registered at the ANI, and block recommendation. If those charges are at all valid, then I need to know how I'm going wrong. I wish to be a decent WP editor, and I have tried to do that. You wrote at the ANI: "This is very bad." And then went on to recommend my block. If I'm that wrong re my self-opinion about my conduct as editor, I need to know what and why. You've stated in this thread that not only was I guilty of making personal attack, but "gross" personal attack. I'm not supposed to take that serious from an Administrator? I do. What else do you want me to say? Why do I have to keep explaining a totally understandable thing? I have no idea why Pass is getting hot, on what basis he calls me annoying, he wasn't invited here to read or conduct this thread, he is not the boss of me, and I'm not doing anything bad here and haven't done anything bad here. I've been asking to know the rationale you used to make the accusations at the ANI that you felt were block-worthy, and I think I've repeated that now lots of times. If anyone has an understandable reason to be annoyed, it is me, for having to request numerous times for the same thing, and still be questioned over and over about my motives. My motives should be understandable on their face. I feel I have been trying to be a decent editor on WP, and an Administrator says "very bad" and recommends my block!? I want to know why, and it is reasonable for me to ask.

@Pass, please unwatch this page, it does not concern you at this point, why do you think it does? I have little understanding of what Pass wants or why from me, as he has not explained himself, he has just complained and given orders, without commenting on his opinion of the reasonableness of my requests here, but rather mischaracterizing them as "escalation" when this is a simple followup. I can't read minds, if he has something logical to say he should spell it out so I can understand it. ("Administrators are humans, not fucking robots." I never accused or thought or suggested that Magog was a robot or resembled a robot. I already know Magog is human, I do not need to be told this. If you have some special message to impart by saying the obvious, I'm not mindreader, so please spell it out. However I do not see why you are attempting to speak for Magog if that is what you are doing; my query has been addressed to Magog and you decided to insert and end the thread when my followups to Magog are completely reasonable and you have not explained why you disagree, you have only barked orders. Please spell out if you have something to say, instead of getting crass and using "fucking" when I have done you no wrong. I'm not a mind reader and don't like to be blamed for not being one. If you and I have a clash of values and expectations about WP, which may be, then Pass, you and I should discuss that on your User talk, or mine, but not here, in this thread. Because that would be a related but separate issue and thing.)

@Magog, I understand you are tired, please do as time permits. I have no interest to pressure you about when. I've also grown somewhat emotionally tired of having to repeat my request, again and again, without ever getting started on concrete answers, but, the reasonableness of my requests remains fresh and clear. If you have anything to say, Magog, I'm all ears. Again, I'm not asking for any major documented research effort from you. You made simple charges of badness at the ANI, I'm asking for you to explain what the bases were, and what you felt was blockworthy, what I said that elicited your charges and to recommend block. If you need to continue to ask me why I'm asking, could you please explain, because as mentioned the requests from me to explain myself have been numerous and you've tired me out regarding same. I want to get to discussion why you charged what you did at the ANI, and what you felt was block-worthy. Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Magog, just so you know, I really don't see any valid reason why you couldn't have entered Q&A with me on the Qs I've asked, instead of putting down conditions that 1) I must be open to criticism and listen to you (which I've agreed to do), and now a new condition 2) that (apparently) my primary motive in order to get answers to what I've asked must be to solicit constructive criticism. You and I both know that is not required of me, to ask the Qs I have asked. And you and I both know, that as Admin, you are under some obligation regarding my above Qs to you if I ask reasonably, and I believe I have asked reasonably. Surely I don't have to quote from WP:Administrator to defend why I would expect to get answers to the Qs I've asked in this thread? I could ask you why you are continuing to ask about my motivations to ask, but I haven't. Instead, I've answered you, even though that kind of vetting isn't a requirement on an editor doing a followup with you. You said asking my motivation a second time was "important", but, I don't find that at WP:Administrator. Nevertheless, I answered all your Qs honest & sincere. Would it be considered offensive of me if I told you that you do seem to be avoiding and pushing off my Qs? You do seem to me to be doing that. No offense intended. It occurs to me that you want a way out of anwering my Qs, but if that is wrong, please tell me, I do not mean to superimpose what *your* motives are, even though you have been making me answer your Qs regarding my motivations for my Qs. If you do want to explain to me if you have motivations that I don't know, and it is material to the thread, then please do, I'm listening. According to WP:Administrator, I can "question your conduct", but I'm feeling from you, were I to do that (which I haven't, I've only asked your rationale for your charges and block recommendation at the ANI), you perhaps would be inclined to interpret it as some sort of "bad attitude" from me, and on that basis, stiff-arm me for answers to my Qs. So that does not seem right at all with WP:Administrator, and I'm not looking for any contention or drama with you. I'm sick of writing this thread, I've been way more clear than anyone would reasonably need me to be. You have required respect of listenting to you, and I've promised that. What are you ready to give now or when you have time? (And if you have anything other you feel is relevant to say on the topic of what went down at the ANI, again, I'm all ears, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "as Admin, you are under some obligation regarding my above Qs to you", this is incorrect. Magog the Ogre's only obligation is to Wikipedia. If you want answers to your questions, you need to convince him that answering you benefits Wikipedia in some way. One good way to do that would be to indicate that you are willing to stop battling other editors and go back to editing article content. Doing that would benefit Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please go away, you're biased since you filed a failed ANI against me, you're involved, IMO you don't know policy well, and you have a long history of being rude and extremely nasty to me personally. So please just go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You can either not interact with / be left alone by an editor or you can repeatedly complain about that editor on multiple talk pages.[1][2][3][4]^{(edit comment)}[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] You can't do both. You have posted 16 negative (and often insulting) comments about me on 6 different talk pages in the last 5 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Please consider reading WP:TLDR. I realize you have a lot to say, but repeating it several times just makes your posts harder to read. 2) Alright, here it is: calling him the the most abusive editor you've met on Wikipedia[17], accusing him of shitty things and all other sorts of malice,[18], and of course hypocritical bullshit.[19]. There, are you happy now? Of course not. Now you're going to tell me why that wasn't a personal attack. Or, if I'm lucky, you'll admit it was a personal attack, but you'll explain how it's totally acceptable because Guy did worse than you, as if that would be an excuse anyway. I'll be thrilled if you prove me wrong, but I'm not optimistic. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to let me have my own responses? Rather than second-guessing what my responses might be, incivil and stupid ones, and blaming me for them, even though I never made them? (You don't think that's insulting? You don't think your "are you happy now?" is unnecessary, snarky, and immature comment?! I have been straight-forward with you all along in what I've asked and why I've asked it, per your questions. The fact there has been repetition here is not all on me ... you've questioned and requestioned and requestioned my motives, instead of just getting down to business.) I'd like to look over your responses and give a considered reply. Thanks for finally putting your rationale on the table, I'd like to take my time with it if that is okay. Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Magog, as you know, I've asked you to spell out the rationale you used to make the accuses you did, including block recommendation, at the ANI. And you have done that, above. And I would like to review them, as mentioned. However, you have named and linked three things I wrote, but one of them (the last one), is an edit summary I wrote, nearly 10 hours after you made your accuses and block recommendation at the ANI. (So obviously, how could what was written in the future, have been part of your rationale, when in fact it didn't happen yet??) So could you please agree to subtract the third of the three reasons you gave as your rationale for your accuses at the ANI? Please let me know. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Here's the link for your ANI accuses, so you can inspect the time of day, for your convenience: [20]

Please let me know about your third link. (I've asked you to strike it, as part of your rationale, as explained above. Please let me know if you feel this request is unreasonable for any reason.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Map request

I was wondering whether you could create a brand map for the '100 montaditos' franchise in Spain. Here is a link that includes the ZIP codes and a location map in Google Maps HERE. Could you also notify your answers? Cheers.--Pseudousuario (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can do that. I can't promise when I will get to it: I'm very busy these days. I will try to do it soon though. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:BBC.svg

You deleted the local copy of BBC logo. Per File talk:BBC.svg, should I nominate the Commons copy for deletion, please? --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No; the whole reason it was kept on English Wikipedia was per my request, which (obviously) I withdrew. I did so because there was a deletion discussion on Commons which resulted in keep: commons:File talk:BBC.svg. Nominating it again without new reasoning would just result in the same decision, and would probably make the people at Commons unhappy (they don't like when something is renominated if there is no new evidence presented, unless there is a really really good reason). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Attribution question

Could you check if File:ISKCONTirupathiFullView.jpg is the same as File:ISKCON Tirupathi.jpg, as claimed here? If so, the source on Commons is wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is the same. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Old versions wts.wikivoyage

Hi. I wonder if it is possible to add a link on "NowCommons" so you just have to hit "Move old versions" via http://toolserver.org/~magog/oldver.php. We have both the name on WTS and the name on Commons. How should such a link look like? --MGA73 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's simple: add the following link:

• On projects which recognize the [[tools:]] interwiki: [[tools:~magog/oldver.php?project=INSERTPROJECTCODE&src={{PAGENAMEE}}&trg={{PAGENAMEE:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|Oldver link]]
• On projects which don't recognize the [[tools:]] interwiki: [//toolserver.org/~magog/oldver.php?project=INSERTPROJECTCODE&src={{PAGENAMEE}}&trg={{PAGENAMEE:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} Oldver link]

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The main problem now is that "wts.wikivoyage" needs to be changed into "wts.wikivoyage-old" in the URL, but the template namespace at wts.wikivoyage-old.org is read-only. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Try it now. Not sure if it will work or not, but I think it will. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Tool for wts wikivoyage once more

Hi. Can you do something so http://toolserver.org/~magog/commons_images.htm can be used by the admins on wts? --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You will have to wait until I get a keyboard back (using on-screen keyboard now... hard). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Next time find something else to break when users ask stupid questions ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, Y Done. It is at tools:~magog/commons_images-wts.wikivoyage.htm. It will update daily until I am told it no longer needs it. The only thing to note right now is that the interwikis don't work properly on fileinfo.php, but I figure I'm OK because your bot has exactly (and I mean exactly) the same bug in it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, you'll notice that the page stops at 500 for same name and different name, each. This appears to be a limit in the Mediawiki software, which gives the max of 500 category members. If this is a problem, I can try to look for a workaround. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! We will try it! --Atsirlin (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's fixed now: it will display all of the images on several pages. All ten thousand of them! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And I've cut the interval to twice a week, in view of the high processing times related to querying information on 10000+ files. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I know that my bot have the same problem. My plan was to do a search and replace once the files are on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good minds think alike! Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your charge and justification for it

Magog, when I registered my opinion re the quality of the candidate at the MED COM board, it was my opinion, based on my personal experiences with the candidate. I made it clear there that it was my opinion, and when questioned to support it with evidence, did some of that. (Fact is, I presented two incidents. There are actually more like 17.) It was my opinion, sincerely expressed. It was not an exaggeration. (For example, I have a clear idea who is the 2nd most and 3rd most uncivil editors on WP that I have had chance to meet during my editorship time here, and I could specifically name them, and explain why I feel that way. [Don't worry, you aren't one of them. And neither is Elen or Brown. Guess again.] So what I am saying here, is that my opinion on the level of civility of the candidate, that I registered at MED COM, was in total sincerity, and if called upon, could provide 17 reasons for having formed that opinion. My opinion wasn't registered as an insult, it was an accurate statement of an exact opionion held by me. The fact you think that my expression of it, at the MED COM, as input to the evaluation of the candidacy there, was a "personal attack", seems to me to be a fundamental unfairness, that you would prefer that I was not allowed to register a sincere opinion that I held and could explain to someone the 17 reasons behind it. So as you can see, I am confused why you feel that expressing said opinion was a blockable offense, that falls under "personal attack". When I expressed the opinion, and at all times later referring to it, I never said the candidate *was* an uncivil editor in general. Just uncivil towards me, in 17 instances. I know that others of course may have different experiences with the candidate, their own, and the candidate could have a different angle with them too, than the candidate assumed with me during my time at WP. I'm wondering why you feel I can't express a sincere opinion, where I'm willing and able to back it up why I feel such-and-such, and instead claiming it was a blockable offense that I registered the opinion at the MED COM. Surely it was nothing positive that I had to contribute there, and it was unpleasant to hear. Such is life. I felt it was important to register my opinion, clearly held, at that board, since my experiences with the candidate were diff-able, concrete, and undeniable, and there was no other opinion I could really form, afer said experiences. Did you wish to stop me ("gag" me) with a block, so that I cannot register my sincere opinion? I'm wondering about your logic. If I go to the doctor and he tells me I have cancer spread to my spine and I have 6 months to live, just because he was honest and sincere to tell me, and just because I didn't like hearing that he had that to say, does not give me the right to go to the Board of Medical Examiners and petition the removal of his license to practice medicine. Even if he delivered the message to me in a way that could have been gentler. Please explain (or take back) the comment you made at the ANI, that my true opinion held by me for reasons I can ennumerate to anyone interested, registered at the MED COM, was not a blockable offense. Because this obviously makes no sense to me, as long as WP has no "thought Police" and as long as WP is not punishing editors for holding opinions. (BTW, No. 2 & No. 3 "most uncivil" editors IMO, are both Admins. But I won't name them here. And I have reasons why No. 2 is not No. 3, and why No. 3 is not No. 2. The point is, when I said "the most" at the MED COM, it wasn't hyperbole or exaggeration, but exactly matches my heartfelt feelings, experiences, and resultant belief/opinion. Why is it you feel I cannot express said opinion, without bringing on a block? This I need to know. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a lot of text; I'm not capable of reviewing it and giving it justice by a quick look, which means I'll have to promise to look at it tomorrow or Friday. I will read it ASAP - as soon as I have some time where I'm not doing development work. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of personal attacks for registering your opinion. I accused you of personal attacks for claiming he was guilty of, and I quote, "shitty things"[21] and a host of other offenses entirely unsupported by your diffs, and "hypocritical bullshit"[22]. I believe I already said this? Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:LACMA.jpg

Should I nominate this image for deletion? The uploader believes that it does help readers understand the text. However, another person doesn't think so. Also, the image should not be used in Wikipedia under terms; it was uploaded without permission. Also, Stanley Kubrick's widow is still alive, so a free photo must be taken before she could reach her highest peak. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, never mind; Begoon changed his answer, so I'll nominate it soon because we must follow policy. --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my fault, sorry - I didn't investigate properly before I gave George an unclear answer on my talk page. Confusion all my fault. Must. slow. down. Hope you're well, anyway, while I'm here Begoon ^talk 05:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maps question

Hey Magog, I left a message on your Maps Talk page a few days ago, but I'm not sure you've seen it yet. We have location data that we would be interested in sharing for the footprint maps you create. Let me know if you are interested either way. Thanks! Hathawayc (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a bit on that. I have a very full plate so I can't respond immediately; sorry about that. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OgreBot 2 at Commons

Please check the diff and in case it's not fixed yet, ensure there's no space between migration and the parameter. GFDL + CC-BY-3.0 (or CC-BY-SA-3.0) doesn't need a review anyway as it's redundant. --Denniss (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

1) The spacing is ignored in template parameters in MediaWiki, and 2) fixing; I didn't know cc-by-3.0 is redundant. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See commons:Template:License_migration. Would it be possible for the Bot to undo these changes, we currently have 8,400 images for review but a good portion of them is affected by this bug. I assume cc-by-3.0 makes it redundant because it's the less restrictive license version of cc-by-sa-3.0. --Denniss (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'll write up a script here at some point in the next few days to go and fix all the license migrations. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems we have redundant tasks. My bot tries to find out if a file is eligible for migration and it runs every day. Do your bot mak all files for review or does it perform some checks? --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And this edit looks bad. --MGA73 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume your bot only looks at cc-by-sa-3.0 for GFDL migration but it should also filter-out the already-migrated license tag. You may also want to ask MGA73 for help/instructions, his bots also work with GFDL migration (although one or the other error happen as well). --Denniss (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, MGA, it runs some checks. Anyway, users hardly ever actually include the cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated tag in the {{self}} template; it's not supposed to be used that way (the user should be using the migration parameter). So I didn't code for it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll never know what a bot, script or user accidentally adds/removes .... - Anyway, if not already excluded please add the templates Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 + Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 + Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers and cc-by-all + cc-by-sa-all to the redundant marking list. There are a hell lot of nationalized 3.0 license templates you may want to exclude as well.--Denniss (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Bot seem to work through the list and has already reduced the category from 8k to 5.5k images. I would have preferred to remove the entire wrong section though as the redundant marking from other 3.0 license types is automatic. But thanks for your help. --Denniss (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will write that into the bot here shortly as well. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at [23] - is that something your bot could fix? If CC is used without parameter and a cc-by-3.0 or cc-by-sa-3.0 tag is present, remove CC tag. Many/most images in the cat are from he wiki without cleanup. Impotant here is CC without parameter, if CC is used with parameters it may need a manual review. --Denniss (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that pretty easily. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your work on en-wiki, Commons, wikivoyage and almost everywhere to make sure files are properly moved to Commons. MGA73 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it on my userpage. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Files on WTS available under a different name on Commons

Hi! When deleting a WTS file as available on Commons, please always check that the file is marked with the template "Unused". Files which have neither "Unused" nor "Wikivoyage:ImageUsage" may be in use somewhere and links might not yet have been updated. For example, you deleted http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Bernhard_Hitch.jpg but it's still in use under this name on English Wikivoyage. Simple check:

• If the file is marked with "Unused", then the old file name isn't used anywhere.
• If the file is marked with "Wikivoyage:ImageUsage", then the old file name is in use somewhere.
• If the file isn't marked with either, then the old file name might be in use somewhere, to be checked by my bot at some point. It may be better to keep the files until usage has been checked. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I try to check it, but sometimes I miss it. Fortunately, when my bot updates the file listing again in about 9 hours, it will detect both the unused and wikivoyage:imageusage templates and highlight them so they're harder to miss. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No big problem, since I spotted the file. Also, since you are working on files which are available on Commons, note that it seems that User:MGA73 recently has replaced all file redirects on WTS with a NowCommons template. This was something which we discussed on the pub there: my bot only updates file links if there is a NowCommons tag, so the redirects were skipped. Thus, you might find some file information pages where there is just a NowCommons tag and nothing else. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, as you might have noticed, there are lots of flags, location maps and route signs on WTS which may have NowCommons even if they aren't 100% identical. The thought was that Commons has better files (usually in SVG format) which can replace the WTS images and that the WTS images are out of scope for Commons once the images have been orphaned. The migration process has to be done rather quickly so that red links disappear from Wikivoyage, and there have been lots of very quick decisions like that. NowCommons has the advantage that my bot finds the file and updates file names on Wikivoyage pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems we can now delete files on WTS again :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! Although I really need to be handling some other things on here first. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OgreBot 2 at Commons

Please have a look at the Bot script so it doesn't add another redundancy message, see [24]. This is handled by the GFDL template even if enclosed in a Self template. --Denniss (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I meant to get that but I've had so much I've been fixing and else on my plate I haven't gotten to it. I'm a bit backed up at the moment; I will try to get it in the next two days. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

100 montaditos

Hi! The map looks awesome just as presented. Best regards.--Pseudousuario (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New mail

Hello, Magog the Ogre. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Carliitaeliza TALK 03:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright

You do image copyright stuff right? I noticed this image today[25] which seems to have come from this blog[26] But I see no licence on the image, just a link to the blog. Is that a copy right issue? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Nfur not needed listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Nfur not needed. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Nfur not needed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File rename request

Magog the Ogre, I know that you are very talented in this type of situations. I have two "file" rename requests because it seems to me that the uploaders made a mistake and confused one image with another. To make things short, you can find my request for both images here: File talk:Lares Revolutionary Flag of 1868 (Pale Yellow Star).svg and File talk:Flag of Lares.svg. In you I trust, Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuation: your charge at ANI and justification for it

Magog, I'm following up with you ...

You: "I did not accuse you of personal attacks for registering your opinion. I accused you of personal attacks for claiming he was guilty of, and I quote, "shitty things"[27]

IMO the things that user did against me were shitty. And I think that is a light modifier (I could have chosen worse). I was not asked at the MEDCOM nomination to defend use of word "shitty". If asked, I could have. (Ditto if you ask.)

You: "[...] and a host of other offenses entirely unsupported by your diffs,"

Let's not exaggerate, Magog. I didn't take the time nor space to present any "host of other offenses" at the MEDCOM thread. I presented two examples backing up why I had opinion the user was the most uncivil I've ever had opportunity to meet at WP, and that was all. At the MEDCOM I exercised conscientiousness to not burden the discussion thread there with anything that I was not asked. It wasn't the purpose of the MEDCOM thread for me to rag on in detail about the nominee (unless asked, and I wasn't asked beyond the two examples I presented there).

You: "and "hypocritical bullshit"[28]. I believe I already said this? Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, IMO the opened ANI by the MEDCOM nominee, was hypocritical, and BS. ("Possible harassement"??????? Give me a break. Harrassment is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly. There are some definitions of in on WP, for procedural reasons. I had expressed my sincere opinion of the nominee's qualities at the MEDCOM thread. Was that harassment???? User:Momento initiated a friendly chat with me, and I responded in kind. Was that harassment???? There was no basis for accusing me of "possible harassment", and doing so via opening an ANI, is way more harassing than anything I had done, since nothing I did was harassment by any measure. (So THAT is why I called the ANI "hypocritical". And the fact there was no substance at all behind the ANI, is why I called it "BS".) I can defend my opinions and my statements. The fact you don't like them, or the mild words I used in them, is reason for a block recommendation from you?? The language chosen was also on my USER TALK, and I have seen many many editors use harsher language on their user Talks, when deleting stuff off of it, so, that is hardly a basis for you to use for block recommendation, either, IMO.

I take my edits seriously at WP. I watch my behavior seriously. The fact you (an Admin) recommended my block, at an spuriously-openend ANI, is what I have been questioning (the basis for it). If you think a block recommendation of me by an Admin at an ANI is not something I would take seriously, please guess again. I am wondering what real basis you had for it, and I've been trying to examine that with you in these followups. (Are these your best reasons for making the block recommendation of me that you did at the ANI? Really? You think these "offenses" were blockable? Giving one's opinion, which can be substantiated? Calling a spurious ANI, without substance, "hypocritical" and "BS"? If you would be alert here for one moment, you will notice I used phrase "shitty things" in lieu of a more serious accusation against the MEDCOM nominee, namely, "harassment". I took care not to go into that territory. Yet, the MEDCOM nominee, who opened the spurious and baseless ANI against me, had no problem titling the ANI: "Possible harrassement". Let's recount: I did nothing of the kind, by any measure, toward the nominee. Yet he uses word "harassment". And the nominee had done 17 shitty things toward me over a period of time, which I avoided calling "harassment". Now, who is the conscientious one, choosing their words conservatively and fairly?: Me, or the nominee? While you were recommending a block of me, IMO, the truth was on the other foot, and if you wanted to recommend a block of someone, it should have been the MEDCOM noninee editor who opened a spurious and baseless ANI, titling it "Possible harassment". This is IMO, of course. Harassment is a serious thing. Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Magog, I've striken my defense of the edit summary you quoted as part of your rationale to recommend block of me at the ANI, because, as brought to your attention in your Talk archive twice, your block recommendation at the ANI was made nearly 10 hours before that edit sum. (I asked you twice if you would withdraw it as proffered reason and rationale for making your block recommendation on that basis, but never got a reply from you. Specifically from your Talk archive:

[...] you have named and linked three things I wrote, but one of them (the last one), is an edit summary I wrote, nearly 10 hours after you made your accuses and block recommendation at the ANI. (So obviously, how could what was written in the future, have been part of your rationale, when in fact it didn't happen yet??) So could you please agree to subtract the third of the three reasons you gave as your rationale for your accuses at the ANI? Please let me know. p.s. Here's the link for your ANI accuses, so you can inspect the time of day, for your convenience: [29]

And again:

Please let me know about your third link. (I've asked you to strike it, as part of your rationale, as explained above. Please let me know if you feel this request is unreasonable for any reason.)

You asked me if you didn't mention the edit summary already. Yes you did. I responded twice, as you can see. (It's interesting that you chose to name something that didn't happen yet, as justification for recommending a block of me at the ANI. Doesn't that indicate that you aren't really answering my question regarding what was your basis for recommending the block, and rather that you have subsequently gone looking for things which retroactively justify your recommendation to block? And found something outside of the timeframe that couldn't possibly apply? Or what?) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And while you're at it, consider what about your writing (*ahem*) might cause people not to want to engage in protracted discussion with you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of a nasty response of me; sorry. Probably better not to respond when I'm having a bad day? I'll give you a more coherent response shortly. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems even ogres can have good & bad days (didn't know that). "Ogres are people, too!" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to respond to this tomorrow. Finally. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I've read your response above, and I just can't come to any idea other than sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Perhaps I was wrong; honestly, it's so far back at this point, I don't even remember very well why I said what I said.

I'm glad you watch what you do on Wikipedia, but sometimes people will look at a situation and think you're the one to blame, especially if you're broadcasting your disapproval of said person across numerous boards. Do you not see any irony in the fact that you are calling the ANI report against you "spurious", yet you were doing the same thing by bringing your dispute to many different areas? If you do not, I cannot help you, it is perhaps a WP:COMPETENCE issue.

Also, on another note, I have a recommendation: if you want to get a good response from someone on Wikipedia, it is best to try to keep it short. I know you have a lot to say, but sometimes it's just repeating the same point, just said in a different way. Try reading WP:TL;DR. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you put off answering my query, and so much time has erased your memory, was not my doing, it was yours. My questions have been consistent from the start. Much earlier, you justified recommending my block, based on an edit summary I left after you recommended that block. (So that, is not "agree to disagree", that is a matter of counting calendar times, and logic that something coming after cannot justify a block recommendation made in before-time.) And you want to suggest *I* am incompetent! As long as you have suggestions for me, then I have one for you. Take some responsibility what you say, especially as Admin, at ANI. (I know it is an irresponsible cesspool there, but that does not excuse your own irresponsibility with loose tongue, just because that behavior matches and is harmonious with the environment there. It just perpetuates said irresponsible environment, which presumably, is tempting to do, but also not really a good thing to do, when you stop and think. The fact that you affected my life and my equalibrium by your irresponsible block recommendation at ANI, which you can't justify, and then think that you have a major point by telling me to lessen the number of words I write, after you dragged this out more than 10 times the length and time this dialogue needed to be, by delays and non-answers, is beyond perposterous. Goodnight Mr. Magog the Ogre. I really want nothing to do with you, you haven't been kind or fair, starting at the ANI. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of answering my original query, you've been great at dodging me, and making additonal unnecessary and BS accusations. Now this false accusation from you:

broadcasting your disapproval of said person across numerous boards. Do you not see any irony in the fact that you are calling the ANI report against you "spurious", yet you were doing the same thing by bringing your dispute to many different areas?

What "dispute"? I registered an opinion on the merits of a candidate at the MEDCOM nomination. That was *me*, registering a view, for the voters there. I was not conducting or participating in a "dispute". That is a total mischaracterization. After registering that view at MEDCOM, User:Momento and I had some friendly dialogue on respective User Talks. You call those "boards"??? Most people here think boards mean Noticeboards. When the candidate decided to send annoying and inappropriate messages, it became something else, something new, and I asked a member of the MEDCOM team for help to stop it. That seemed to have worked, because said editor did stop then. The only other User Talk was with you, here, trying to learn the basis of your recommendation of block of me. That is all. So I really resent you saying somehow there is irony here, and suggesting and accusing me of spurious activity. There was none, at all, and it is flagrantly offensive that you now accuse me of spuriousness. (If you want me to go into detail how said editor opened a spurious ANI and why I can demonstrate it was spurious, just ask. Ditto how your behavior has been not only irresponsible, but dodging, unfair, unkind. Just let me know. Meantime, you have no reasonable basis for making the accusations you just made. And Oh I am so so sorry to hurt your eyes, with so many words for you to read again. My gosh how terrible of me.) If you have more irresponsible accuses to make, then do me a decent favor by agreeing to discuss it to fair conclusion, rather than your side-swiping remarks. Good night! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Here's a little lesson for you ... First, please get a dictionary out, and read definition of "spurious".

Next, do you want to know what spurious is? It is said editor, opening an ANI on the basis of "harassment", which is a serious and defined thing, with no basis whatever to do it. And claming that, in my friendly chats with User:Momento, that we were "coordinating future attacks". That is spurious. Then you, claiming at the ANI, that both Momento and I were guilty of "canvassing". (Spurious.) Then you, claiming further that I made "personal attacks", offering my sincere and defensible opinion that editor XYZ was "the least civil editor I've run across in my experience at WP" to a MEDCOM nomination process, where the candidate was being vetted, and where the candidate was actively soliciting both positive and negative feedback in more than one spaces. Then you, claiming I've made offences to policy that warrant block. All of it is spurious and unsupportable, Magog. For my end, I can back up what I say. For the editor's end who opened the ANI, he can't. For you at the ANI, you haven't, over all this time, so I think it's pretty clear you can't. (Now that your memory has gone away, after all the non-answers and delays that you initiated.) I repeat: I can back up what I say. (Can *you* say that? I really, really highly doubt that you can. For obvious reasons. Just look at our dialogue, how my requests started simple, and how you dodged and threw down roadblocks and side issues, and created delay upon delay. Does that instil belief that you can "back up what you say" at ANI and in this thread? It all comes down to responsiblity, Mr. Admin, and responsibility means being able to back up what you say with facts and reasonable argument, doesn't it. Rather than all of the ad hominem and irrelevant side issues like "numbers of words" you would prefer to throw down.) You wanna accuse me of spuriousness? When I haven't been but others have? Give me a [...] break. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

{tps}} (cough) You are now officially "ranting". You need to give it a rest for now. Doc talk 10:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, Doc. And Mr. Magog is officially baiting, IMO. I'm done for good here, unless there are to be more false accusations. I only will make a spell-fix edit. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just breathe normally, relax, and remember that it's only a wiki. It will still be here tomorrow. It's best to edit when stress levels have subsided a bit. We all get there from time to time! Cheers... Doc talk 10:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the console, Doc. (Not so much stress though, as just ... pissed.) Please know, the wiki is not "still there tomorrow", for an editor who wakes up one morning, to find themselves [indefinitely] blocked. (It happened to me. And, I'm sure by now, I won't be able to forget it anytime soon. The stuff that goes on at ANI is inconceivably irresponsible. It is the culture there. But maybe the insanity could pull back, if people begin to realize there are people behind computers, and past experience, and irresponsible utterances like "block him!" and "BOOMERANG!", have a ripple effect, not as casual as the utterers supposed and can possibly think, no doubt.) ANI should be gotten rid of, because the enema it so desperately needs would likely "kill" the patient. It's all about culture there, and the culture is ... bad & out of control, long before I got here. Irresponsibility is the accepted culture. It is a total dumbing down, just like "BOOMERANG!" is, and just like "No justice, only solutions" is. This place is upholding templated shallowness as some sort of virtue, and "the blockee must repent his sins or stay blocked" as some sort of D- grade in a Freshman class in Logic or fundamental fairness. As an example of the complexity, nearly everyone preaches AGF like a mantra and as though it is unassailable virtue, yet Malleus, in his "exit interview" at Editor Retention, said it should be gotten rid of. (I don't know if I totally understand it, but Malleus is no dummy.) Template thinking here is like frontal lobotomy, putting solid steel bars in place of masses of gray matter. It's a total dumbing down, and ... why don't more people see it? (It is obvious.) And the crap culture spreads to ANI and becomes the norm there. I'm here to say fuck that. (But, only when it affects me directly, 'cause, I'm no martyr.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: did you read what I wrote about writing succinctly, or do you just not care? Maybe some other editors on here excel at patience, and are willing to read 1000 word diatribes on their talk page. I am not one of those. And i made that clear to you, several times. I'm not reading anything else you write to me unless you can do it in a succinct format. I'm not refusing to do so out of spite, but rather a recognition of my limitations: And you can cry all you want about how unfair that is, but it's not like I didn't warn you about it. I'm a very slow reader, and my attention span for doing things which I don't enjoy is disgustingly short (maybe I even have a mild form of ADD?). If I don't enjoy myself on Wikiepdia, then I'm just not going to edit it. Can you please reword your statement in 200 words or less, or at least bullet point them? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Done with you a long while ago, Magog. I can't take your adhominem excuses seriously; if you spent 1/4 the time reading instead of complaining about length, you could have read my stuff 10 times over. Don't think that I believe any of your avoidance stuff; you avoided from square one, and continued in that vein consistently, even till now, when I've more than given up possibility of having any real dialogue with you. Please go away and leave me alone with your additional comments. I want you out of my Wiki life, permanently and completely. Dig? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)