User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

File:Yodsaenklai.jpg

• File:Yodsaenklai.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

here's the copy of the email.

From: payap

To: Marty Rockatasnaky

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:40 am

Subject: Re: Yosaenklai

Quote message Hi marty,

you can use any photo you like. Al pix are made by me and you can use them.

gr

chris

Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marty. We'll need you to send any messages you have to OTRS, as the message indicates on your talk page. That message you have there is probably not enough for us to work with it, but you can work that out with OTRS in your communication. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your block of Quantumor

• User:Quantumor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Quantum or not (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He's now added block evasion and sockpuppetry to his repertoire.

Special:Contributions/Quantum or not

(Hohum ^@) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantumor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had started an SPI, but it was closed. Did I do it wrong? (Hohum ^@) 23:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not (depends on how you look at it). Probably shouldn't have been closed so quickly, but neither did you specify why you were filing the case (e.g., to go after the sockmaster, see if there are other socks, etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Chartinael (talk · contribs)

As soon as his block expired he immediately engaged in another edit-war at Afghanistan and Languages of Afghanistan. I think he again violated the 3rr here.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The block was a thing I risked yesterday. I would have prefered if Magog actually looked at the discussions and not just the history. I didn't want to get the other user blocked, I just wanted him addressed. I would also like to get you addressed to step back and look at the edits. Other than that, Lagoo, go report me. Chartinael (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Replacment of Evolution tasks with Evolution tasks2

This edit [1] appears to be an error. The file File:Evolution-tasks.png is not the same as File:Evolution-tasks2.png, and in any case is already a Commons file so does not appear to need replacing. There are several thousand similar edits in the bots log around 28th November. SpinningSpark 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was an image on en.wikipedia which I deleted on 11-28 [2] which was equivalent to the commons image Evolution-tasks2.png. The file you're seeing now is a commons image different from the one that was local at that time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see it now. SpinningSpark 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik

extended discussion

Hi, can you please take a look at the actions of this user [3], who's been blocked so many times but still edit-warring. First it was User:Cabolitae who wasn't satisfied with the britannica reference on Dari language [4] [5] and now User:Tajik is unsatisfied with it, attempting to remove it. He manipulates the situation, accuses me of picking the sources and sentences I like, but reject them in other parts [6], but the fact is he's doing this[7].--Lagoo sab (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) It is not only me who is calling your WP:OR "source picking" and "selective quoting". See the Talk:Afghanistan. As for Britannica: here is the link to the article. Lagoo sab is not only quoting wrong and picking sources, he is in fact falsifying them. And reporting me to an admin because I have reverted his falsification is very uncivil. Tajik (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC) You started rioting everywhere by calling my edits this and that and then 2 other editors who've been opposing me in the past came out of no where to support you and began reverting my edits to your version. The Britannica article was changed yesterday from "one third" to "half". Calling my edits falsification is a terrible intentional lie. Everyone can see my edits and what I do is report figures presented by major academic sources (including scholars, experts and professionals), and you're getting angry calling this POV, OR and source picking.--Lagoo sab (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Lagoo Sab, you are source picking. You have been in opposition to edits by me ever since I came to edit the articles you edit with your single purpose user. Chartinael (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Can you explain more about my source picking? I choose sources that specifically deal with world languages like this (UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages. If you reject these sources you have a problem.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC): You rejected UCLA Language Project on Pashto speaker population and argued hard, that that source was unusable. However, you pick it when it specifically suits your purpose. That is considered source picking. BTW, as far as I remember, that was in October and was one of the reasons why both you and me got blocked by Magog. Chartinael (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I rejected UCLA L P on Pashto speaker population? I don't remember can you show me the diff? Your edits show strong support of Dari (Persian) over Pashto, are you a Tajik (Farsiwan) also?--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Do I need to remind you that you think that Tajik and I are identical, too? And that you were absolutely certain a while back I was Tajik for sure? Anyhow, why show diffs: [8]. You selectively source and use numbers and percentage figures: While UCLA stated number of Pashto speakers at 17 Mio all over. They also stated about 50% of Afghanistan (8 Mio) and 13% in Pakistan. You then took the UCLA percentages and applied them to raw figures of estimated present day population in terms of Afghanistand and 1998 census figures for Pakistan. Well, not really, you took the 15,42 % of the 1998 Pakistan census and applied it to a present day population figure. That is not academic, that is OR. Chartinael (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC) UCLA states that Pashto is 50% and it doesn't even make any sense for me to reject that, which I never rejected did, I only rejected your uneducated guess of 20 million total Pashto speakers only. The numbers of people (population) grow every hour, day, year, and significantly every decade, but the percentags of ethnic groups or speakers of certain language doesn't change from 50% to 35%. BTW, thanks for the link to UCLA Pashto.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) You just don't get it, do you?! You cannot take the 50% without looking what it pertains to and apply it to a different set of data. You ignore the 17 Mio speaker population for Pashto entirely. This is cherry picking, this is selectively sourcing, this is against WP standards. Chartinael (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC) The 17 Mio now grew to 49 Mio, every year earth's population grow by 100 million. Wikipedia is not your personal scientific research center, instead it is just a free online encyclopedia which reports info by citing reliable academic sources as its references. Cherry picking is when someone removes sources that they don't agree with, this is what you Tajik and JCALA are doing. I, on the other hand, am adding ALL sources. It is you who don't get it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC) That's a good one. Thank you, Chartinael, for highlighting that to us. Because it demonstrates Lagoo sab's POV-pushing and WP:OR. He picks only the parts that fit his POV. And that's for sure against Wikipedia's rules. Tajik (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC) It's a waste of time trying to reject and remove reliable academic sources from articles. In the long run it will be re-added and those repeatedly removing it will just get themselves blocked and make 1,000s of people around the world laugh at them. Just so you know that every day over 10,000 people view Afghanistan article, in November a total of 375,709 people viewed the page.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Do I need to remind you, that you rejected an academic source on the basis of author ethnicity and religion? Chartinael (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Just have a honest look at the sources. Iranica is far outdated. It's from the 1970s or 80s. It shouldn't even be included. But for the sake of compromise I did include it in the table on the Afghanistan article. Ethnologue is also outdated. It is from the 1990s and is not very precise. UCLA quotes Ethnologue as its source. So what applies to Ethnologue also applies to UCLA. Omniglot is not a reliable source. It is more like a personal website of a person who works as a translator and has a passion for languages. The concise book source is unreliable. Simple math will prove it and it has only two out of five stars in the google book review. The sources that remain are the CIA World Factbook and the Britannica. Both also appear to be the most recent ones. JCAla (talk) 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quit it. If you need to squabble, take it to the appropriate talk page. And for that matter, I note that every single one of you has had blocks in the past for edit warring - none of you is innocent. I've been here for years, and how many blocks do I have for edit warring? None. How close have I been to getting blocked? Not close at all. Do you think I don't feel very strongly about many subjects? It's really not that hard, guys, really. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It's this simple: you don't edit war or even break WP:BRD, and you let the other guy hang himself with his own rope.

I suggest you all read up on Wikipedia:Write for the enemy and WP:DR, and put them both into practice. Because FYI you're all showing a lack of competence in the very basic skill of agreeing over some simple wording. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lagoo sab

Hey. Just so you know, I left a question for you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a question: since User:Lagoo sab is accusing almost all other users of "vandalism", I want to know if this edit by him/her is OK? I added a source from the Gulf/2000 Project of Columbia University to the article (before, I had explained my concerns regarding this and other sources on Talk:Afghanistan), but Lagoo sab immediately removed it, saying that "maps are not allowed as sources". This is quite interesting, because he himself adds all kinds of (googled) sources to the article, as long as they suit his POV. This one, despite being published by a major US university, is immediately removed because it does not support his POV. Tajik (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest bringing that question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where they are experts at determining what is proper. Generally in a dispute I try to avoid taking a position on a revision unless necessary. In this case, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am looking for that Email, but can't find it currently (I received it 2 years go). I also had nothing to do with the admins who were involved in that arb com. And I have not violated any rules in the past 2 years. As for the current situation: in the past 2 days, I have not been "edit warring" in any article. You can check my history. Most of my edits were on talk- or project pages. And even when I edited articles, I had only 2RRs, never 3RRs. But feel free to ask around. You can ask User:Khoikhoi or User:Kingturtle who were partially involved back then. Tajik (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Really?

[9]?!? This is just taunting. Please don't do this. It would even be nice to simply revert yourself here. Just because he's been behaving badly doesn't mean there's need to dance on his grave after he's been banned. --Jayron32 21:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you look in User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 6, you'll see I had quite a bit of discussion with him. Frankly I'm convinced there's no way he's gonna get the point that his edits aren't wanted as is unless we're in his face. But if you say so, I'll remove it, sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: rarely I'm willing to be a dick if I think it will be helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lagoo sab II

Sorry to bother you again, but this kind and this kind of behavior is very unhelpful. We are all trying to have a discussion in order to reach a consensus. In fact, on WP:RSN he was told by other users that he is pushing for POV, that he is source picking, and that he should stop that. Here, he told everyone that he is taking a break. But now he has once again deleted reliable sources and restored his own cherry picked sources. He could have tagged the section instead, but no, he is ignoring the current discussions, he is ignoring the warnings, and he is ignoring his own message. I will not revert him, but his behavior is really tiring and unhelpful. I do not want to take this to WP:ANI. There are so many discussions going on about him right now. There is no need to open yet another front. Your help is very appreciated. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've protected all four pages around the locus of this dispute. Use dispute resolution, guys. Whether this means getting a mediator or opening an RFC. I find it incomprehensible that you are all incapable of discussing this with one another without spreading the argument onto four million different talk pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second! Everyone else is discussing, except for Lagoo sab. None of his recent edits has been reverted by anyone. But he keeps reverting to his POV versions. He is even insulting other users or respected scholars, such as Mehrdad Izady, only because they do not back up his POV. And now, all articles have been protected in either partially falsified versions (for example Pashto language) or his POV version. He is absolutely not interested in a discussion or in a consensus. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Tajik (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you opened an RFC? Have you started mediation? Have you never reverted beyond WP:BRD? With all due respect, I work the edit warring noticeboard, so I'm quite familiar with situations like these. And one thing I hear all the time is "the other party isn't talking but I am", and only rarely is that true. Have you proposed any halfway solutions or other ways to work around it while Lagoo sab hasn't? Frankly, Tajik, you're in blatant violation of your parole; you're damned lucky I didn't block you. What I will do for you: I will tag any pages with any NPOV or other tags that you ask me to during the dispute, within reason.

I apologize for being so rude about this, Tajik, but I'm really really becoming sick of it. You guys almost got HJ Mitchell to block you, and he hasn't dealt with this 1/5th of what I have. None of you are handling this dispute like educated adults who know how to compromise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the case to WP:RS, as you had suggested. But there, he is ignoring and even insulting respected scholars, while at the same time reverting articles to his POV version. He is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab right now, and, of course, on your talkpage. You can go through my edit history: I did not revert him, in fact, most of my edits recently have been on talkpages (mostly related to Lagoo sab) and the very few edits were either unrelated to him or they were minor edits or tagging of articles. And as for the parole: first of all, I am not aware that I have violated it. But if so, I apologize. As you have noticed, since you came up with that parole again, I have not reverted any article, and I won't revert any article until the matter is solved. Secondly, I have not violated any other rule: neither 3RR nor anything else. A discussion is only possible if the opposite site is also interested. But so far, Lagoo sab has not shown any sign indicating that he is interested. Basically, he is opposed to everybody else. And that is extremely tiring and frustrating ... Tajik (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is frustrating, getting the the wrong version protected is always frustrating as well. If he is opposed to everything else, then you can start a dispute resolution and the consensus will come out. And for that matter, you admitted not 24 hours ago a few sections up that you had "2RR" on an article, which is a blatant violation of your parole. Please don't be dense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above: I was not aware that I am violating a parole, because I was (and still am) convinced that the parole has ended. I was banned because of an unjustified accusation (i.e. that I had a sockpuppet to evade an ArbCom; the claim was proved wrong - 1 years later!). When I was unblocked, I agreed to a 1RR. Since then, I did not have any problems with the community or with administrators. You can check my history. That was 2 years ago. But I repeat myself: if I have violated the parole with the 2RRs recently because of my wrong assumption, then I apologize! But calling this a "blatant violation" of the parole is unfair, and you know that! Tajik (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then find for me the clause which invalidates your parole after one year. A private communication with an administrator, nothing on-wiki? Cmon, you have to do better than that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're last sentence is WP:ABF, but anyway ... Just for your information: I had a lot of "private communication" with admins. That was the reason why I was unblocked again. As you can see here, no blocks were documented (because there were none), and the arbitration page has not been edited since September 13th 2008. Tajik (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Magog, but you yourself have stated that you prefer blocking editors in stead of protecting pages. Now I am surely surprised to see you have protected the pages in question but did not block Lagoo Sab. I find this extremely odd considering that i.e. in regards to the Gulf Project source he has been told off by quite a few other editors. Nevertheless you let him roam but keep going after Tajik. I am furthermore suprised as you are a fairly recent editor on WP and a very recent Administrator. Maybe you ought to look for assistance from an Admin who has got some more time as an an admin. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@Tajik - OK, that's fine. But if I can't see active documentation of a reversal of your probation, I have to assume it's still outstanding. Surely you can understand why.

@Chartinael - If you disagree with a decision of mine, you may feel free to ask for a second opinion on ANI or from another admin. I know several editors told Lagoo Sab to quit it, but I also know several editors have told Tajik and you that your edits had NPOV problems. I'm trying really hard here to be fair. If I was unfair, I'd just lock the page and walk away, or worse, just block all of you. But I'm not, I don't think. Believe me, if LS stays out of line, I will block him. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@all (addendum) - I apologize if I'm been short but it's very difficult for me to make heads or tails of this whole argument. Especially with the tendency of all the editors in this dispute to spread the argument out over so many pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

magog, thank you for clarifying your position. Please note that we appeared on mitchell's page after LS accused us of sockpuppetry. Do you really think we enjoy having to take discussions everywhere? Just look where LS took the cia factbook thing and the ethnologue figures. Regarding your armin abilities- I see no need to take it any further. Usually I address issues directly. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ogre, what do you mean by several editors telling me to quit it? It is they who want to continue on and on with this non-ending dispute over the percentage of languages in Afghanistan. Why can't they just accept the results of all the reliable sources and end this meaningless discussion? That is what I want and that is the policy of Wikipedia. I'm not here playing any kind of games, but every page starts with my ID name and I find this very inappropriate. Not that it's my concern, I just wanted to point out that Tajik was blocked 3 separate times after his Arb was lifted[10] (Sept. 2009, May 2010 and Nov. 2010), and according to this, he has used sockpuppets to evade Arb.--Lagoo sab (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

LS, asking for my ban and repeating baseless accusation that were proven wrong 2 years ago (i.e. the wrong accusation of me having sockpuppets) is not going to change the fact that almost everyone agrees that your edits are POV, OR, and against all rules of Wikipedia. Can you name even a single contributer who is supporting your POV?! You should keep that in mind, especially because you are currently facing a serious sockpuppet-investigation yourself. Tajik (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read this whole thing here. Do you guys, T, C, and LS, not see how MtO has provided the answer? Quoting now, "Use dispute resolution, guys". Please, it does WP and yourselves no good to have this endless back and forth bickering that even bleeds into attacking the admin. Please stop your bickering and "Use dispute resolution, guys". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation

Thanks for the invitation to the discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. I'm commenting here, rather than there, because I don't have a lot to add at this time, but wanted to acknowledge that I've seen it and will follow it. Yes, I have been trying to address some of the backlog, but as a new admin, I decided to start with what seemed like the easier situation - files with the same name. If I understand correctly (and I hope I do and you'll correct me if I'm wrong), when the files have the same name, I don't have to worry about delinking, as the software first looks for File:foo on en.WP, and if it doesn't find it there, looks to Commons. If the files have different names, more work is needed.

I've also noticed that the work I'm doing is incredibly tedious, yet I don't see an easy way to automate it. I go through a few dozen with no incident, then run across one that has a questionable tag, and have to report it to PUF. That said, it occurs to me that part of the routine could be semi-automated. I'll try to think though what could be done, and come back with more thoughts at some later time.--SPhilbrickT 15:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, if it's the same name you don't have to delink it. However, if it's the same name at a higher resolution (which happens especially with Flickr images uploaded at the wrong resolution here), then you might need to go through the transclusions and make sure you reset pixel requirements, lest you end up with a really big image on a page where the editors weren't especially careful. That probably applies to 1% of images with the same name, and only 10% of even those transclusions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I have my own poorly written PHP tool that helps me iterate through the images and compare them side by side. It sure sped up the process for me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. The first handful I deleted, I checked to make sure everything looked OK after I was done. However, all of the first ones had identical resolution. I noticed a couple recently that had higher resolution in the Commons image; I'll now know to check them.--SPhilbrickT 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want I'll give you access to my PHP tool. Frankly, it kind of sucks; I wrote it ad-hoc, and I took programming in college but never used it in the real world, so it's ugly. But you might like it. It's seriously sped things up by like 3 times for me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you online?

You're an image-working ogre...could you take a look at the bottom of User talk:KrakatoaKatie for an image issue I ran across. (Doing Commons transfers/copyright cleanup.) Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 04:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have pointed you at my talk page too. Thanks for helping! Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And because I'm not sure you saw on my talk that I wasn't mad at all, and that I gave hugs to the Kelly and the Ogre, here are more hugs for you. {{{{{hugs}}}}} {{{{{hugs}}}}} :-) KrakatoaKatie 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha it's all good. I'm sometimes fairly succinct so I didn't respond on your page. Don't worry; it's hard to offend me if you're acting in good faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

IP violating block

The IP is violating his block trough another IP: [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

He has not only evaded his block one more time but also violated the 1rr one more time: [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done see your AN3 report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bands Against Bush nominated for deletion again

As you commented in the earlier discussion, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush (2nd nomination), which I have just started. Please feel free to comment there if you wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tomato picture

Not a big deal, here's the copy of the tomato picture that I transferred to Commons. The uploader has the same name as the Flickr user and claims to be the copyright holder. The pic is orphaned anyhow - I've just been trying to clear all the free images with Flickr links off en and get them on Commons if they're free. Already cleared out a ton of noncommercial/noderivs pics by tagging them for speedy. Kelly ^hi! 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lagoo Sab is a sockpuppet of User:Ketabtoon

Good morning dear Admin,

User:Lagoo Sab is a sockpuppet of User:Ketabtoon. I contacted him through a just created account and his email and introduced myself as one of his allies and talked with him about the Pashtun-Tajik-Hazara editwars here on Wikipedia and told him I would support him against infidel Hazaras and sellout Tajiks. In return he told me creating at least two accounts and use them alternating. Further, he said between both account´s usage should be at least 3month break for not beeing identified as sockpuppet. He himself told me Ketabtoon is another account of him which is used on his cousins computer. Now it´s your duty as admin and guard of Wikipedia´s policy to do something against him. I can pass on his message to you if you wish

withg best regards --94.219.98.69 (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

serious accusation. If you feel your information is correct, please enter suspect info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lagoo_sab and forward email correspondence to endorsing clerk. Regards छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha absolutely unbelievable. Like Chartinael said, why don't you do us a favor and forward my e-mail to any of the admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketabtoon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lacking IP evidence, I can say the behavioral patterns seem to be a bit different. However, two notes: 1) feel free to add the note to the SPI as suggested above. 2) Why don't you show us who your primary account is? Because right now you're engaging in sockpuppetry as well by logging out to edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A CheckUser was completed @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. (Ketabtoon (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Ah. Well I guess that means the IP is getting blocked for 48 hours for lying to get another user blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ActuallyRationalThinker

I'm not sure that an indefinite block of this user is a good idea. While he has been somewhat single-minded on the circumcision article, the editor has productive contributions in other areas. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

80% of this editors additions have been regarding circumcision, with over 50% of those being revert-warring. And of course willingly breaking 3RR (and expecting leniency for it), obvious race/religion-baiting (which he denies) and accuastions of a cabal to boot. What's more, the editing pattern indicates someone altogether familiar with WP practices, indicating either a bad-cop sock or a reincarnation of a banned editor (editing style pushes me to lean toward the latter). There have been tons of disruptive editors on that page before:

• Studiodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Usergreatpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Signsolid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edwardsville
• TipPt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I realize the sock case is not air-tight, but someone who derogatorily uses the word "Jew" (i.e., fairly clear antisemitism) and whose best contrition is "I guess I'm sorry but..." Really? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Objections withdrawn. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:DorothyPound.jpg

What's going on here? It's pointless having both a PD and a NFC tag- as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it must be one or the other. Why do you feel it should be treated as non-free? J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's only PD in the UK, but to be used as free on WP it needs to be free in the U.S. The PD tag is only there for information and because it tends to add to the fair-use rationale. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the tag shouldn't be there at all- it should be just the non-free tag. The fact it is PD in the UK is certainly worth mentioning, but the tag isn't needed. If we need to treat it as non-free, it's non-free as far as we're concerned- the use of multiple tags serves to confuse bots and other machine readers, places it in categories it should not be in, serves to confuse readers/editors and so on. I don't see why it's still copyrighted in the United States, but I'll take your word for it if you're sure it is... J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And if it is non-free, it should only be used on Ezra Pound- it's not adding enough to the other articles to have its use justified. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the PD-70 tag exists, it must be okay to use it. We don't know that it's PD in the United States, because the earliest publication date we know of is 1970 (and we need it to be before 1923 to be PD in the U.S.), and because the author died only 74 years ago. It would need to be 100 years to be PD in the U.S. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then the image must be treated as non-free, and should be tagged as such. The fact a certain tag exists does not mean it's automatically ok to use it... J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SV is correct; it's not free in the US, but it is in Britain. However, Commons is currently ignoring WMF policy, and hosting images that are free abroad, but not in the US (see commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act). One thing you might consider doing is uploading the same image to commons as free, with a big fat note on the talk page that if we ever get our policy and procedure synced, and we delete this image, please notify an admin at en.wp where we can restore it. Or possibly you could upload the image to commons under the same file name, with a {{keep local}} tag at en, just in case. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not disputing that issue. However, if it's not free in the US, it can't be treated as free here, and so should not have the PD template, and should be removed from the articles in which its use does not meet the NFCC. That's the point I'm making. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. We also should be enforcing the rules at commons; otherwise I could simply upload the image there and use it wherever the heck I wanted. Also, it's my opinion that if a PD and a fair use tag are on an image, this shouldn't really confuse a bot; the bot should assume it's non-free. Is your only problem with the tag that it confuses the bots? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize Commons was deliberately ignoring the policy. I keep seeing non-free images on the Commons and was wondering what was going on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as we are agreed the image has to be considered non-free in the US, I have cleaned up the image page a little and removed the image from Ezra Pound. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is provocative editing, JM. You removed the fair-use rationale, including the explanation that it's probably PD but we can't confirm it, then removed it from the article. It seems odd to argue that we can't claim fair use for an image of a person's wife that we know was taken before 1923, and which is PD in the country it was taken. I see you're engaged in multiple reverts against several editors over other images related to Pound. If people disagree with you, please take it to a central place for discussion and fresh eyes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, you're straight up misrepresenting my actions there. If this image is non-free in the US, all the arguing about how it's PD elsewhere is irrelevant (and I most certainly did not remove that from the rationale I left standing); it needs to be treated as non-free. I'm slightly alarmed that people think there is valid non-free use of this image here, there and everywhere, but there you go. People seem very scared to actually discuss it beyond asserting that everything is a-ok. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are legitimate worries that its use wouldn't properly fall under fair use, I'm afraid we'll have to delete it. Of course, the solution is then to upload it to commons. Confused yet? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup help/advice needed

• Cretanforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been cleaning up old images with the deprecated {{No rights reserved}} copyright tag, and last night I kept running across images uploaded by this user. Checking out their upload log, they have uploaded hundreds of images here, many now deleted. They are sourced to a variety of websites and lack evidence of permission. Others are claimed to be {{PD-US}} when they were actually first published in Turkey, which is life+70. The user will probably freak when they see their talk page; I started at the oldest uploads and tagged a bunch before I just got exhausted.

Many of the images originally uploaded here have been transwiki'd to Commons and still lack permission. The user also has a Commons account under the same name.

The user is familiar with the permission process, apparently, because some of their images are tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}. However, I noticed that the OTRS tag was added by the user in all the particular images I looked at, so it might not be a bad idea to have an OTRS volunteer verify them.

Would welcome any advice on how to proceed. Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend starting an investigation at WP:CCI. Currently there isn't a very centralized way to contact OTRS volunteers, so personally I just ask User:VernoWhitney to do it for me. As he works CCI on occasion, this would be a perfect fit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Kelly ^hi! 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777

Hi Magog, I've always appreciated the facts I gathered at wiki and recently decided to join in contributing knowledge I've gathered. However I ran into a bit of a troubling encounter. Phoenix7777 accuses my input as vandalism and claims a book to be fictional. Just in case, I went back and I've added another source to support my claim. Clicking on Phoenix7777's page, it appears the user has on multiple occasions gone into other people's contributions and done the same. I just don't want to impede the progress wiki has made but also wonder if one person can without merit keep deleting other people's efforts. If so, how often can the same person do that? Thank you Popeyeatucb (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Responded at User talk:Phoenix7777#Your opinions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mosterd na de maaltijd

That's the Dutch saying (I already fixed the encoding bug). multichill (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Maps of regions of development in Romania

• File:USA location map.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• commons:User talk:Magul#Images without a source

Hi,

I saw You have requested deletion of this maps, unless I have find the source of this maps. And I have saw that You have done some maps with fingerprint of stores in USA using USA location map.svg as source, so my question is: what is distinct difference between this maps of Romania and that one You have use as source? --Magul (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that someone actually created File:USA location map.svg from scratch. They drew every boundary and made every color on it. Did you actually make the map itself, or did you find an image of the provinces in Romania, and just color it in and/or crop out the other regions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,

the first thing is that I'm not the author of this maps, I have only uploaded them to commons from en.wiki, but I saw on en.wiki, that their has been released under PD by them author User:Andrei nacu, so we should ask him/her about it.

do You have proof, that these maps have not been created by User:Andrei nacu, or is this only assumption? If it's only assumtion, then, I guess, are two wyas of dealing with that maps: first - accept every statement about authoring, if we cannot prove that them are false, or mark every map with deletion reqest and wait until author will prove, that he/she does it by himself/herself. --Magul (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most often maps are not made by the uploader in these circumstances; only the derivatives are. This presents a big problem, especially with PD tags, because often the underlying maps are cc-by or cc-by-sa/GFDL; as such, they are copyright violations for failure to cite the original author. While I realize it's best to assume good faith, copyright policy is something where we have to be more careful. I consider the onus to be on the uploader to give a proper explanation of their work. And yes, I have notified Andrei naci: if you look at User talk:Andrei nacu, you'll see several recent messages. I even would have emailed the user, but he didn't have it turned on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can guess that lots of maps are not a original work of uploader, but I'm standing on position, that unless we can prove that it's a copy violation, we need asume good faith. Now the maps You have labeled are in queue to deletion at Dec 29, unless User:Andrei nacu will provide a source of original work, but what if He/She will still stand, that He/She is original author of this map? It will be deleted, because He/She dosn't provide origin work, or if He/She will still stand, that it's his/her work, we should beleve him/her? In this case You have istead of proving, that this maps are copiright violation, You have dump burden of proof that this maps are his/her work to the User talk:Andrei nacu and in situation, that it is his/her work it very difficult, not to say imposible, to prove that statement. --Magul (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Andrei edits fairly often, so I expect him to see the message before they get deleted. But I tell you what... if it's getting near the date of deletion, feel free to extend it by another week by editing the template parameters, either here or on commons. You can even do it for a few more weeks, which seems fair. But if the editor doesn't respond within a few weeks, eventually we might have to delete them. If he returns after they're deleted and asserts otherwise, we can always undelete them. If you're not satisfied with that, I suppose you can feel free to remove the nsd at commons (where really this discussion should be located, but isn't for procedural and simplicity reasons), but I will nominate the images for deletion via another method. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I have decide, after Your sugestion, to remove templates about leak in sorces from file pages. if You still think these images should be deleted, fill free to insert a deletion template on image page, but choose any procedure, where we can discus this issues in more public place, not in mine or yours talk page.

Thanks in advance. --Magul (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Delinking

Hi! You are most welcome to run your bot on files in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by MGA73.

You may also have noticed that I recreated a lot of deleted categories. Multichills bot found a lot of images that was also on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Will do. I still have a few pieces of code to write. It's also gonna check that an admin is the one who did plopped the template on the page; if you have anyone you trust enough otherwise, let me know. I should have it running in a few days at most. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, all done. I'll say you picked out some weird images that are stuck in odd parse parameters in templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Well I just started from one end :-) It is a good idea only to replace files checked by admins and other trusted users. Some users do not check properly. Have you tested the review script I use? I'm sure you will like it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm using it as we speak (although it's clearly having some unexpected bugs). It will only replace if it was placed by an admin. I'll add trusted users from commons by hand at request, too. w:User:Kelly is trusted, so I would add her. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it. Man my bot, not to mention I, was mightily confused. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I only used the script for a short time because I became an admin shortly after. And it is only after your bot was mentioned I started to use it again. So you are probably right that there is (was) some problems. Hope you got them fixed now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly functional; I'm supervising it enough that any errors won't be an issue. My only request to you is the same as the one to Kelly: please don't tag any images with the same name on en.wp as on commons until I update the documentation to clarify that the feature is enabled. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Charterhouse School "Crest"

Hi Magog! :) I noticed that you marked the above file for speedy delete, on copyright grounds. I'd just like to let you know that Coats of Arms, under English or Scottish law, are NOT copyright items. They are classified as an "honour" - something that is part of the person or corporation to whom the arms have been assigned. They are not intellectual property. You might like to look up a copy of this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aldermen-Citizens-Mancherter-Manchester-Varieties/dp/B0012O5VCA where this issue was decided in the Court of Chivalry in 1953. I suppose I also need to contact the uploader to inform him that he's used the wrong declaration. All the best! Neuralwarp (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the actual image? I happen to mark lots of images, and there are a few reasons I might have marked it. In any case, I'd like to refer you to our current policies on these: Commons:Coats of Arms and Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. If you have something to add to either of those that we're not aware of, that would be great; I'd point you to the talk page of the commons essay I linked above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Local image templates

What's your opinion on the templates {{KeepLocal}} and {{NoCommons}} for obviously free images? Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it on a case by case basis and try to figure out why the user added it to begin with. Often times s/he added it because it wasn't free in the home country, or it wasn't quite clear yet if it was free. If in doubt, I'll contact the uploader. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it seems to be an ownership issue too. Do you see any problem with just removing the templates if the uploader seems to be absent? Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2. What a wonderful idea! The main reason I hate dealing with the "different name" Commons dupes is that it's such a pain in the ass to delink the images. Perhaps you could consider some kind of "trusted user" scheme (like Flickrreviewers on Commons) to allow selected non-admins to place templates that will trigger the bot. I'm not an admin but I do understand Commons and copyright. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll add your name to the trusted users list (for other people I'll still have to take it on a case-by-case basis). You'll want to install MGA73's script at User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js. Just do me a favor: don't tag any images with the same name on English as on commons quite yet; it's not yet implemented and I have to handle those on a page by page basis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No rush, I'm still working on cleaning up images with the old license {{No rights reserved}}. So just to be clear, the tag is to be used only on images with a different name on Commons? Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For now; I'll eventually update User:OgreBot/Commons instructions if that changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question, how does the interface work? I put the script in my monobook.js and refreshed my cache, but I don't see any new widgets. (I use Chrome, FYI.) Kelly ^hi! 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Add this to your skin javascript. Mine loaded right away, but you might have to do a hard-refresh. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks... Kelly ^hi! 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the awesome things about this is that, when I move an image to Commons that has a bad name, I can give it a proper name without worrying about creating extra work for admins. Kelly ^hi! 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried it and it seems to work great. Am I supposed to get my own category? Kelly ^hi! 04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you'd like; my bot could care less, as long as you spell the new category name right ;). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilderbot

I try to be super-careful about maintaining copyright links for derivative works here and on Commons - for a long time now I've used derivateFx to transwiki derivative works and trusted Bilderbot to annotate the pages of the source works. But I've gone back and checked some files I've transwiki'd lately (for example File:1980s montage.png), and Bilderbot seems broke. Do we need to start doing that job manually? Because that would really suck, especially for works derivative of multiple images. You have any contacts or inside info? It looks like Luxo is kinda hands-off on his bots. Kelly ^hi! 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnus' bot is great for attribution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I typically use a combination of the two - using derivativeFx for upload of the image, but copying text from Magnus' bot for file history during upload. (Don't ask, it's complicated, but I have it down to a system.) But I was relying on Bilderbot to add the "other versions" part to the source images. Kelly ^hi! 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you: I'm a straight Magnus man. I'd recommend the VP at commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm eclectic - CommonsHelper, FlickrUploadBot, and derivativeFx. Thanks, sorry for bugging you so much tonight. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Error

Looks like there was an error [13]. It should have been File:Hillside in Sunol Regional Wilderness.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 08:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my error, not a bot error. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Kelly ^hi! 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Hello, I noticed you dealt with the last 3RR issue, would you please deal with the latest one I have reported. I am tired of dealing with this editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Amraamny_reported_by_User:Zabanio

Thank you, Zabanio (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Derivative works of now-deleted files

Trying to figure out how to verify copyright on File:Feistel.png, which was derivative of a file deleted per this discussion. Kelly ^hi! 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File history:

• 22:58, 20 January 2004 . . Lunkwill (talk | contribs | block) 450×695 (25,732 bytes) (Feistel network diagram. Created by me, public domain.)

It is a public domain work. The images are essentially identical, minus a small cropping of whitespace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move it over and attribute it correctly. Kelly ^hi! 21:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Feistel cipher diagram.png - Lunkwill was the original author, right? Or did it come from somewhere else? Kelly ^hi! 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is properly attributed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about source information for World Factbook images

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Bkell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Quick question

Sorry to keep bugging you - just to confirm, I am not supposed to "review" files with the same name on Commons, right? Only ones with different names? Kelly ^hi! 05:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've changed the bot a bit; you can review those images, but, um, make sure they're the identical copies, not higher resolution versions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Kelly ^hi! 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment about source information for Doc Holliday 1882 photo

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Sbharris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Larsen twins

FYI. I noticed you had created the template, wanted to check to see if you investigated this already. Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice I provided a link on commons to the page. I think that page was made before there was OTRS permission. If you want, you might consider contacting OTRS yourself to have them follow through, or contacting the person who made the permission page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem - that's why I left the note at the OTRS noticeboard on Commons. I just wanted to make sure nobody had already checked. I'm just asking because I've run across several images sourced to them and the original website is dead. Having an OTRS ticket will prevent them from being deleted in the future. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I suggest the waybackmachine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That reminds me - I've been thinking about making a bot proposal at Commons to check and archive links to image permissions - for example, there is a bot here (I forget the name) that automatically archives references to WebCite to keep them from being lost. Doing something similar with image permissions might keep us from losing them to link rot. What do you think? Kelly ^hi! 04:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would bring that up at VP; my knowledge of how commons works is too limited. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OgreBot error report

In this edit, the bot converted an image description page into a redirect to itself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; thanks. I'll fix that in the code. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple versions of files

For instance, File:Bled lake.jpg. Should I take the top version off and give it a different name on Commons, then let the deleting admin decide whether or not to retain the underlying versions. I'd only do this with files that may have multiple versions worth saving. I think it's too much hassle when there have just been incremental changes to a file to save all the different versions at Commons. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The top version is its own file, and I would delete and replace it. The bottom two versions would constitute another file, although I notice it was never licensed because it was uploaded in 2003 (I haven't a clue how they handled those images... I'll probably post somewhere if I have to deal with that file). No, I don't bother worrying saving incremental changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:VPP#Image tags pre-2004. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Hi MTO, I'm new, and I posted a question somewhere and just found your reply. But I'm not sure if this is how I should be contacting you. Please forgive me if I am doing this wrong. I need help. I have two images now that need to go (I added a 2nd while trying to get rid of the first). They can both be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tufino_almaadentro.jpg Can you remove them for me? The copyright/user info is wrong, and I have to get them off of there. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.131.224 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the image on commons. Actually, you'll notice on your talk page, commons:User talk:Imagesforall2, it has instructions on how to proceed in the future. Let me know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Do you know how long it will be before it is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesforall2 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It should only be until an administrator on commons clears out the category, which shouldn't be too much longer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Harland Sanders.jpg

After noticing the edit history of File:Harland Sanders.jpg, it may be time to delete the prior upload versions and upload protect the image. It may be funny for some of us to see Colonel Sanders with a light saber, but it's obviously not within the Wikipedia scope. mechamind90 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez

Hi Magog, I semi-protected this after a request on RfPP. Could you say why you changed it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

He was fired from his job within the past hour, a major news item. I wanted IPs to be able to add information on the article, as they've contributed well before. If you want to reverse it, go ahead. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi was added because the PC wasn't coping, per the request on RfPP, so I'll restore it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statue

Good catch on the Logan statue, don't know how I spaced out on that one. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Banks Peninsula

• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 5#File:NZ-Banks P.png

If you don't mind, I've moved this to the FFD. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons Review

Hi! I just noticed this notice User_talk:Avicennasis/MainArchive/2010Q4#CommonsReviewer. Are you saing that files should not be reviewed if they have a different name and is still in use? --MGA73 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No not at all; he was using a different script that tagged it with {{db-f8}}, putting it under the immediate CSD categories. Actually I prefer if you tag images with a different name. It's OK if they're the same name, but if the one on commons is a different resolution, then my bot will get confused, go belly up, and make me fix it by hand. At least for now. ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've excluded images reviewed by your bot from detagging, FYI. I don't know if you're hand reviewing those; if you are, then I'll add your bot to my approved list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My bot delink usage during transfer if I choose a different name. So there should not be any files for your bot to work on. If there is then something went wrong during transfer or someone used the file after I transfered it. So no need to have your bot spend time on those. --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)