User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

File:Laçın şəhəri-009.jpg

• File:Laçın şəhəri-009.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like to draw your attention to File:Laçın şəhəri-009.jpg. It seems to be a screenshot from a film and I doubt that the author information is correct. Regards, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 10:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you know what film it is from, you can go to commons and click the "nominate for deletion" link on the left under the toolbox: commons:File:Laçın_şəhəri-009.jpg. Then put in your explanation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well?

According to this, User:Cptnono reverted a page three times in under 24 hours. Not only that, he did it after being warned, without going to the talk page, and after characterizing what is a least arguably a reasonable and justifiable edit as "vandalism" and "malicious". To a new user (great welcoming committee, there).

So are you going to block him? You blocked me for a lot less than that.

But, you know, I don't want you to block him. I'm not going to file a 3RR report. If I did, I would be playing "gotcha" and I have little interest in that. Instead, I'm going to go to bed, and then write some more articles. I mean... He's User:Cptnono, he's always been User:Cptnono, and he's always going to be User:Cptnono. Blocking him isn't going to change that, so why bother?

So I guess my question is, is it de facto Wikipedia policy that if you are not litigious, don't keep a database of your "opponents" edit histories, and don't care to play wack-a-mole with fellow editors, that you are always going to lose out, and the admin corps is going to make dame sure that you do lose out?

And why is this is a good policy? This is a philosophical question, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the de facto way of things. I've been in thought ever since your block about the proper way to handle this, and I had eventually planned to discuss it with you (see item #10 under my to-do list right now at the very top of this page). In any case, I'm really pretty sick of seeing Cptnono edit war and not listen to requests to stop (and in fact respond rudely to them), so I've blocked him (her?) for 12 hours, and I think it's entirely justified - it was wrong for every reason expounded in Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". If s/he disagrees, s/he can place an unblock request. I personally don't think it will be overturned, especially only a 12 hour block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah #10; well, you are thorough. I wouldn't worry about it, though - speaking just for myself, I'd just as soon you write or improve an article instead, although you might want to do #10 for your own self-learning purposes. As to the rest... well, on the one hand, it's not worth worrying about too much - "From the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing was ever made" according to Kant, or to put it more plainly, life isn't fair, and we can't expect it to be or obsess about it. But then on the other hand that doesn't absolve us from working to make things best, knowing its a fight that can't ever be won, at least to complete satisfaction. Herostratus (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? In that case, I'll take it no further than here. But yes, that's something I've noticed as well - people strive and strive and strive, but they will never reach Utopia. In a modern political sense, it's a view that the proper government and policies should fix everything (at least in my country). It becomes even more pernicious when people assume that corporate entities should never make mistakes. Hence the doctor who makes a small error in surgery and is successfully sued for millions upon millions in pain and suffering damages. Hence the New York City councilman who weights 350 lbs (~160 kg in case you're from abroad; 25 stone in case you have a particularly odd way of understanding weight), sneaks out to McDonald's frequently, but wants to ban McDonald's because they are a corporation and should have more control than he, and obviously are bad for selling their product (I suppose it never occurs to him that they have a legitimate sale of their product to legitimate people - the fact that there is any illegitimate use means that it should be wiped out). Or, more to the point, the constant offense at extraordinarily stupid things which affect no one, other than (ironically) having their removal offend 100 other people - e.g., my uncle, who is not a particularly religious man, liked to pray with his football team (he was a high-school level coach) in order to instill character, but had to forgo this - to the offense of 99% of his kids - in order to avoid the offense of the 1%.

At the risk of making this look a religious exercise (after my plug above against the prohibition of prayer - which actually wasn't a plug against the prohibition of prayer, but rather a plug against thin skin), I will quote the Bible a little (on the premise that even if ancient religion was entirely wrong, it certainly had some wisdom to offer): "Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain?" [1]. To see all the toiling and uproar for a good policy (it seems the primary aim of half of America), and really, it's just quite useless. Very humbling when you think about it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your "To Do" list

You can remove "#11 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, if you feel like it."

It was closed due to staleness. – Ajl^talk 05:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, man. I'm just so busy . i know I do other stuff when I'm on here a lot, but I do it sort of as an... escape. And when I'm not escaping, I'm working. And I don't really enjoy doing most of the stuff on my list, I do it because I have to. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly okay. I'm not sure any comment you would have made would have helped things along... It's my feeling that editors have just decided to steer away from things that he is involved in. Hope things get less hectic for you. Good luck! – Ajl^talk 07:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lagoo sab with new names

Me again, sorry.

Lagoo sab is back with new names. The name he uses most prominently is User: She has a bird brain. I also suspect the following other names may be related to him:

• User: Coocoo4fun
• User: Jinglejew
• User: Zaawta
• User: Juzjan
• User: Tayyabrana
• User: Asimayub81

Should I just add the names to the already existing Lagoo sab investigation, or how is it done? JCAla (talk) 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Follow the directions here. Cheers! – Ajl^talk 08:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) JCAla (talk) 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Decora

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

—Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

Block

Regarding the unblock

I have unblocked Cptnono, please see their talkpage for the explanation. Thank you, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't want to cause you offense right now in my response - I am not happy with the outcome, but I'm not really angry, even if I think it's justified (anger is a rather useless emotion).

In any case, I spelled out the reasoning fairly clearly on his talk page (I indicated quite clearly that there had been previous warnings for this behavior, and that he knew very damned well what he was doing). Additionally, your unblock has been a complete contravention of policy: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block reviews, "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.". I cannot see that this was an unambiguous error, or enough of an abuse of process on my part to invoke the famous WP:IAR clause or to ignore the clear instruction of the policy page.

It is my personal opinion that you have done a disservice to the cohesion of the community in that you have given an edit warrior - who has ignored warnings, been rude to other editors, and knew very well what he was doing - the impression that the behavior is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And in my opinion you blocked for faulty reasoning. Since you volunteered for this, I think it is reasonable that the burden is on you to back it up. So show me consistently edit warring and getting out of it by filibustering.

And while you are at it, how about you explain what I should do when there is obvious disruption. The IP was being disruptive and most established editor stop vandalism when they see it. 2 other editors agree (one on my talk page and one through a revert of a similar edit). Herstratus even agreed not too long ago (completely, the diff is on my talk page) but had a change of heart when it suited his needs. You got two inquiries so go for it. I would love to hear your thoughts even though I am already assuming I will disagree. If I am wrong I would be willing to admit it and look to adjust my behavior.

And if you wanted to block for incivility you should have done it when I made those comments but they are more than stale. But if that was your reasoning feel free to just admit it. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way "and I see your name come up a lot." is not a valid reason for a block. So please respond to the request for actual evidence instead of just assuming. I notice that you have two separate editors who often disrupt the project running to your talk page when they see a problem. Why is that? I would at least hope that you could look into both sides of the story. Also note that your reasoning for blocking given on this page is separate from that on my page. I did not revert based on "no consensus". I reverted based on the disruption. See the edit summaries. SO in response to "I'm really pretty sick of seeing Cptnono edit war and not listen to requests to stop " Lets see 'em. Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Magog: Nowhere on this site does it state that you can block anyone other than obvious vandals, without them at least being warned by an uninvolved user. Herostratus had very obvious intentions also, considering his last block (which actually violated WP:3RR) involved an edit war where he and Cptnono disagreed on a very similar topic. Strangely enough, Cptnono's reversions on that article were justified as the IP failed to give any reason as to why they removed the image at all. Herostratus' reversion was again obviously tainted, both by the fact that he has motive against Cptnono regarding the last block, and the fact he has a very strong viewpoint on these images being included on Wikipedia. But all of that is besides the point, as Cptnono never broke the 3RR rule, and he never even edited the article after the (obviously motivated) "warning" by Herostratus (which is unambiguously against every policy, guideline, consensus, etc. there has ever been on blocking in cases of edit wars). So yes there was plenty of "unambiguous errors" in your blocking of Cptnono... and there would have been anyway, as it seems that this block was obviously intended to be punitive rather than preventative. (Oh and allow me tear that last sentence to shreds: 1. You gave no evidence, either in your block summary, nor on his talkpage that he had at anytime in the past been warned for 3RR, by an uninvolved user, and then proceeded to violate it [which is what you have to show to prove that he has in the past not stopped reverting after being warned by an uninvolved user {granted as I said before, he was in no way warned by an uninvolved user this time} which would partially validate your block]. 2. This block was [at least according to your block summary] meant to prevent Cptnono from "edit warring", not "let me take a bit of everything from your past edits, and throw it together for one big family reunion in a 12 hour block", so your point that he has been uncivil in the past is mute [especially because in this case, it simply wasn't an issue]. 3. My unblock summary and comments have not only clearly laid out why I was unblocking Cptnono, but they also clearly did not endorse any behavior that was against policy by Cptnono in the past, present, or future; your statement that they did, is simply hyperbole to make you appear to have blocked to protect Wikipedia.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Coffee, where exactly does it say that an uninvolved editor must give a warning before an admin blocks someone? As far as admins only being able to block obvious vandals, see this. Doc talk 06:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you nailed it perfectly. I do appreciate it and could not have worded it better. I am of course way biased here. But just to take the good out of this since you guys discussing each other's administrative actions will eventually (if it isn't already) turn to you two being purely defensive and maybe even heated: How about MtO lays out his thoughts on his edit warring (I can't dispute my incivility). Even if I disagree there will certainly be something I can take from it. 3/rr archives shows me actually going to the board too early at times. It also probably shows too much whining on my part. But I am interested in the habitual edit warring accusation. I have to admit that I might be wrong. I was not in this instance but I might have been previously and if there is enough evidence pointing that direction then I need to make changes. Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot possibly hope to respond to both of you at once. So I will respond to Coffee, who started this thread: you may not have agreed with my reasoning, but that's the beside the point. You didn't even bother to ask me, nor go to any other administrators, who very well may have agreed.

So may I ask, boldly: who are you to decide what's punitive and not? It seems to me that you made some false assumptions (including: that the only warnings I was referring to were the ones by Herostratus - not the many beforehand for other edit wars, that this particular edit war didn't in fact go deeper and across many articles, that my judgment was poor and I was acting punitively, and that Cptnono's chasting and reporting other users for making less than 4 reverts in 24 hours wasn't material - it was because it showed he was familiar with what is OK and what's not in edit warring) . But this is all irrelevant - you should not decide this on your own - you should come to the community or to me (and for good reason, as your reasoning may turn out to be false, as it was in this circumstance IMHO). Thus, you were doubly wrong.

In any case, we are talking about the wrong subject. I will talk about the reasons for the block once you've given a good reason for ignoring policy and assuming your own interpretation on a non-obvious matter was good enough to ignore a policy (not guideline), or that you've admitted your error in this matter (although I've already given my explanation in short, I can do so in more depth). I am perfectly willing to accept I've made a mistake on the issue, but I think we need to get out of the way the issue of the unblock before we handle the block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (copyedited 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

As a truly uninvolved non-admin (as if that makes a difference - I can run circles around quoting policy to a great many admins): it's a horrid unblock rationale, and I would love to see where policy dictates a warning from an "uninvolved" editor must be issued before any block. Doc talk 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ok, I'll bite. It's clear to me there was an edit war beginning. Perhaps Magog should have temp-blocked all three editors (the IP, Herostratus, and Cptnono)?

On the other hand, both of the last two reverts reference WP:BRD. IMO, by invoking BRD (the first time), discussion should have IMMEDIATELY ensued on the talk page, which it didn't, so maybe Cptnono should have been blocked for not discussing it after BRD was invoked?

And yet, on the third hand (is that even possible?), discussion should have taken place after the second revert (the one by the IP), so maybe both Herostratus and Cptnono should have been blocked?

But still, on the one foot (lolwut?), I don't particularly like the fact that Coffee unblocked without discussing it first.

I guess what it ultimately boils down to is this: Is it an unambiguous error that Magog blocked Cptnono? That would be the only reason for "unblocking [Cptnono] without first attempting to contact [Magog] and discuss[ing] the matter[...]".

Honestly, I think this is quickly devolving into making a mountain out of a molehill. It (was) only for 12 stupid hours, not the 24 hours 3RR suggests. – Ajl^talk 07:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Magog: I've already given my reasons why I made the unblock, twice now actually. And I just gave my reasons for why I didn't come to you first. I will not repeat myself, you can read my statements again above. However, while I will note that I was fairly tired while I looked over this, and it seemed rather apparent to me at the time that "I note that you've been asked plenty of times to stop edit warring" was in relation to this block... I still believe the unblock was warranted given the circumstances that no real edit war took place until Herostratus came into the picture; and I also don't know why he ran to you directly after putting a warning on Cptnono's talkpage, when there was no edit post-warning by Cptnono. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring the non-admins ;> "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block... Be sure to add the "uninvolved editor warning" to the policy when you have time, 'cause I'm still trying to find it... Doc talk 08:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Doc: There is this: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war[.]" – Ajl^talk 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly that's the point I'm trying to get at here... there was no real discussion made by Herostratus or the IP with Cptnono, and any "warning" by Herostratus would have been seen by Cptnono as aggressive (not for the fact he used a template... but more or less because they have a history with each other on this issue [even though Herostratus attempted to hide this fact and make it appear as if he was simply editing in interests of the IP editor]). Then all of a sudden Cptnono was blocked for past behavior, instead of there being any real preventative need for him to not be able to edit. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is frustrating, Coffee. Do you not understand that the ends don't justify the means, just because you don't like the ends? There is a good reason for process. Unless it's blatant, and I mean blatant (as in what constitutes blatant vandalism being "fuck penis vagina faggot", not subtle trolling), it is not OK for you to break process. My reason for unblock is irrelevant - you are not allowed to uniliterally apply the unblock yourself. Repeat after me, Coffee: "I will not violate policy just because I don't like the result." Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How about honoring your offer, Coffee? Concerning administrator recall:"It seems like a good idea and I'd be happy to add myself to that category as soon as I become an admin." Not seeing you there.[2] Lip service, maybe? Don't instigate a possible wheel war between administrators should be the lesson. Total bollocks trying to justify the unblock. I don't even think he needs to be blocked again, but the reasons you give for unblocking him and thus circumventing the process are self-serving and inappropriate. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And another note: I know I sound kind of WP:DICKish here. Sorry about that. It's just how I communicate sometimes (I shoot from the hip, to say the least). I'm not trying to be rude; just get my point across right now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Ogres are ogres. Doc talk 06:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that I personally don't like the ends... it's that I personally don't think the ends on your part were justified in this case. And if you didn't notice, I've been trying to stay civil throughout this entire conversation... and believe me I understand that being "dickish" or blunt sometimes is just how people are, but to act like I made the action purely because "I didn't like the result" is bullcrap... I made the decision to unblock because the block shouldn't have happened. You continue to say that his previous edit wars are what led you to make the block... but you fail to mention why you didn't open an RFCu on Cptnono if this really has been a problem; perhaps getting him sanctioned to 1RR or 2RR (which would then justify a block like the one you made). (On an unrelated note: I'd ask your friend Doc to stay out of this conversation... as he's only adding fuel to the fire, while not adding any real content to this discussion.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But Coffee, you're not supposed to do that. Policy states you should go to the blocking admin, and failing that, to the community. Simply put, you're not free to undo a block by another admin unliterally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here I blocked a user for vandalism/trying to use Wikipedia for their POV. Several admins reviewed the user's unblock requests and denied them... then later on one admin unblocked the user without either consulting me, or notifying me of the unblock. I didn't accuse them of breaking policy... I didn't even bother them about it. IAR doesn't have a stipulation anywhere that says when it can be invoked, and in a case like this where you were likely to not reply in the 12 hours of the block, there's fair reason to use it. (especially when the block was that questionable) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

a) I don't know why you're even mentioning another incidence you were in; shitty behavior by another admin doesn't mean you should engage in shitty behavior yourself, no matter what you accused the other admin of.

b) Your argument would make sense, but policy directly addresses this situation: you should go to the community of said administrator isn't available. And I might point out the statement "especially when the block was that questionable" isn't relevant either - of course you thought it was questionable, or you wouldn't want to undo the block.

c) I see you've been blocked in the past for violating policy on admin conduct. Do I have to open an RFC on you just to say "please stop breaking our fucking policy?" Or can you just admit that you've erred and you won't do this again? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you do, "my friend". This is absolute WP:IDHT. Coffee: I'm sorry you don't agree with my disagreement of your subversion of policy, but you will find you can't silence those that feel you made a mistake so easily. I'll take this to a higher level if you want, believe me. Your unblock was wrong, you didn't follow proper procedure, and if you want to threaten me: block me for "fueling the fire". Then you might see a true wheel war. It should NEVER come to that. You messed up and you won't admit it, and I really don't appreciate your vague "closing ranks" dismissal of my opinions as if you are above policy. You are not. I'm glad you finally chose to acknowledge my input, but you have yet to answer any of the very valid questions/issues I've brought up. If Magog wants me to not comment further I'll honor it; but not solely because you disagree with what I'm saying. Doc talk 06:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility?

I would have appreciated it if you had refer to me as trolling in an edit summary or call me an ass. You mentioned civility so don't throw stones in a glass house. You can blank or close this out too but some mention of your behavior was appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Decora 2

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

—Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

Psst - you don't have to let me know every time - only if I haven't responded recently and might not have your page on my watchlist anymore! Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mayward District killings, Iquinn and WD40

If you truly feel that my move was at Mayward District killings was not appropriate then say so. On the other hand if you do find it appropriate I'd say the same. I've tried pretty hard to be process conscious and inclusive on that article and, while I'm not going to let a vocal minority bully its way around, I want my move to be above board. If you think a "third party" should review the move I'd ask you recommend one. Either way I can't just keep putting off the inevitable because one or two editors makes enough noise, that's not how this place (should) work. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to comment. I was just making a recommendation - I'd personally say you might ask at WP:ANI to see if they approve or not. But I have no skin in the game, and don't care either way anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already taken it to RfC and the consensus from that was to change the title. That the minority that opposes any move will also object to that one in particular is pretty much unavoidable. I fear that once Iquinn's latest block expires he'll be back to edit warring and he'll probably move it back. If that happens it'll probably end up at ANI and maybe even me asking for him to be blocked from the article but I'd like to give it a chance to work first. I know you're not falling over yourself to get in on this article so I appreciate the time you've put in so far and hope you'll find the time to do so again. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CAtruthwatcher

Yes, I knew all along that User:97.77.103.82 was the IP address of User:CAtruthwatcher, but I saw no reason to block again. This time around, CA made an edit to St. John's University (New York) (still POV-pushing, but I was willing to discuss), and I reverted him with an explanation in my edit summary. Rathering than edit warring, which is why his main account was blocked so many times, he discussed it calmly on my talk page. And I actually agree with the point he makes regarding the POV of the article. If it's alright with you, I'd like to unblock his IP address so we can discuss the changes he would like to make on the article. If he edit wars again, I will re-block immediately. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you can just go for it, no argument from me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

Dear Magog,

since you have experience on copyright issues and were involved in a file about Ahmad Shah Massoud a while ago, can you maybe please tell me your opinion regarding the following discussions (if you find the time):

• File:Massoud_and_Qadir_2.PNG
• File:Massoud_2000.jpg

Best wishes, JCAla (talk) 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a very difficult case, so I do not promise an opinion either way, but I will look at it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. JCAla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it looks like I'm a bit late to the punch here. I read a lot of the text, and I'm certainly not sure of what occurred. In fact, I had an answer all prepared out, only to find that commons policy is considerably more difficult than I thought: see commons:COM:L#Country-specific laws, which talks about four jurisdictions applying. Really only two are important: where the work was created, and the United States. This is confusing for me, because I sure was under the impression commons went by where the item was first published. In any case, here are the factors:

• The item was created in Afghanistan. Thus it was {{PD-Afghanistan}} - it is free. Factor #1 satisfied.
• if this policy statement is wrong (as it seems quite probably to be) - then we need to establish where the item was first published. If it's anywhere but Afghanistan, then it's non-free. Factor #2 unclear.
• The item was created in Afghanistan. It is only free in the US if it was also published first in Afghanistan, and created by a resident of that country. Thus, it is possible, if not likely, that the item fails #1 and #2, but not #3. Nevertheless, it seems commons is applying {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and allowing the uploads anyway. Factor #3 unclear.

Hope this helps, in retrospect. If we can establish all this, perhaps you can request undeletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort, Magog! Very much appreciated. A friend has contacted Ina directly, let's see what they say. JCAla (talk) 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the following came out of the correspondence with Ina. The video footage is indeed the work of Ariana Films, an Afghan entity which held the rights over the footage. In 2002, however, Ariana Films transferred the rights over the footage to Ina, a French entity. BUT, Ina wrote in explicit reference to the two screenshots: "For your information, screenshots of Ina videos are allowed only if you keep the logo on them but mentioning the link is even better". You have more experience with such issues ... do you think it then would be okay to upload the two screenshots with the logo of Ina to wikipedia (not commons as they seem to have other policies) as non-free content with a fair-use rationale for Afghanistan-related articles? JCAla (talk) 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you planning on using them in? You probably would be good with one; two would be questionable unless you had text describing both of them in the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The following question was asked to Ina: "Would it be okay for Ina if the two screenshots were uploaded as non-free content for fair-use on Afghanistan related articles with the logo included and where possible a link to the Ina-video below the image?" The answer was: "That’s ok for us". If the copyright holder (Ina) is fine with using them on all Afghanistan-related articles where they fit (and stated so), isn't it okay then to use them on two or more? One of the images is especially precious because it shows Ahmad Shah Massoud (the Tajik leader) and Haji Abdul Qadir (important Pashtun leader) shaking hands and being in peace with each other. That is a very precious irreplaceable image for many Afghanistan-related articles since both ethnicities have been involved in terrible bloodshed (you could witness some of the tension between some editors for yourself). How can it be done the best? JCAla (talk) 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, getting their permission to use the content on a Wikipedia article is actually a non-starter (see WP:CSD#F3), so it doesn't affect the fair use status at all. Fair use stipulations are here: WP:NFCC. In particular, you'll want to note #1 (irreplaceable), #3 (as little of the item in question as possible), and #8 (has to add significantly to the text of the article). Go ahead an upload the images in question, and give me a link to the images, and I'll take a look at them one by one for you, if that's OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If have uploaded them under the old form and names here and here, so now they are present in the articles where they once were and where they had not been removed yet. I did not have the time as of yet to provide a fair-use rationale for all of the articles in which they are being used. I am also having a problem with the resolution. Since the Ina logo should be displayed on the image, it is not possible to make them smaller. JCAla (talk) 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie AN/I

Are you in agreement with the early closure and hatting of the discussion you opened? OhioStandard left this message on my talk page but I'm not inclined to revert the hatting, especially if you think there is nothing more to say. DeCausa (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I don't have any problem with it because there is a discussion still ongoing at AN3 and I don't like it when discussion spreads out over more than one page. Unless your concern was that the thread on AN3 would no longer receive proper attention (in which case, we could consider an alternate method, like not collapsing the discussion, just closing it out). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was raising a broader point about his general behaviour - not just this edit-warring incident, so I don't think it would be appropriate for AN3. But if you don't think the thread should be kept open, I won't push it this time. It wouldn't surprise me if there are further incidents which will mean this is raised again. DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Magog. I thought about this a bit more, and decided I wanted to comment at AN/I about this myself, so I did go ahead and reverse Berean Hunter's hat. I also don't like to see the same issue discussed in multiple venues, but AN3 isn't really the place to discuss misuse of admin tools, either. Also, please note that per WP:RTP, any talk-page refactor (which includes any form of hiding text or closing a discussion, imo) must be reverted if any user objects. I doubt there will be much or any additional comments coming in, but I'd like users to have that opportunity, at least. This incident seems much more serious to me than just edit warring, and I think attempting to suspend discussion of it sends a pretty unfortunate message. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid the "greater issue" in my response; I don't like creating arguments, although sometimes I don't live properly by that axiom on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Calendar5's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Calendar5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frank (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:All Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons

Hi!

I changed the NowCommons template to get all files into one category. Some files are in red categories and therefore harder to find.

I hope that helps us get the old files deleted :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK! I have either deleted or properly categorized all the images. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, almost all ;-) I found a few missing. Did you notice that File:York Castle Museum.jpg was in use and is on Commons with a different name? --MGA73 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes I did, but the history of that file is more complex than it seems at first blush [3]:

• September 2007 - image #1 uploaded to English Wikipedia
• October 2009 - image #2 uploaded to commons at the same name; not accessible to English Wikipedia
• November 2010 - image #2 uploaded over image #1 in order for it to be accessible, while the information was not copied over. This was, of course, a terrible way to get that image transcluded on Wikipedia.

Originally I set all the links to be to image #1, but then I realized that a user (specifically, User:GuillaumeTell) wanted those transclusions to be of image #2, so I reverted myself [4]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oki. :-) I renamed the file on Commons so I noticed some of the "mess" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

—Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at File talk:TATA power Jojobera.jpg.
Message added 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at File talk:Tatanagar railway station jamshedpur.jpg.
Message added 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at File talk:Mango bridge view.jpg.
Message added 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at File talk:Bistupur nght.jpg.
Message added 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Devx101 (talk • contribs)

Re: File:Aerial view of Hagfors, Sweden.JPG

I'm pretty sure this is the uploader's work. It was originally uploaded under a DSC name, it still has the metadata, and it's a pretty high quality (not web quality) image. Is there something I overlooked while reviewing this image? Because otherwise I think it's legitimately the uploader's work. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I tagged it that way because the uploader never indicated where he got the image: he said "Brian Bjørn," but never indicated who Brian Bjørn is (this is pretty big oversight; not one that I would ever have made, but understandably one that someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia and copyrights might). I'll mark it as free; if anyone disagrees they can nominate it for deletion on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: File permission problems

• Conversation continued from User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 11#Re: File permission problems
  
• File:SM Lal Khan, 1-8th Punjab 1937 full2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have deleted "File:SM Lal Khan, 1-8th Punjab 1937 full2.jpg". This despite all the to and fro above. May I ask why? Beloochee (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that; it looks like an administrator just went and deleted it based off the fact it's been a while since we've worked on that (admins don't usually do that so I'm a bit caught off guard). Sorry I've dropped the ball here, but I didn't get back a satisfactory response from the OTRS team, and I've been nulling it over, although I took way too long. So let's proceed and hopefully we can get this matter settled so we can get that image deleted. First off, would it be possible for you to send a letter in the mail all the way to the US? The direction we proceed from here will depend on your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts

Magog, Thanks for addressing the 3R report made here. However, the same content is getting re-inserted by User:bijuts using IP in [Kerala page]. Please help to block the user or/and semi-protect Kerala too. Regards, Samaleks (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- you can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address. --Bijuts (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I locked the page because I was unable to firmly establish if it was you making the edits, if it was meatpuppetry, or if another editor altogether. However, one of the first two seemed most likely; so while blocking you would have been unfair, locking the page to avoid surreptitious editing was not, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after semi-protecting the page, User:Bijuts is edit-warring in the article, Kochi:

• [5]
• [6]

Moreover he just copy pasted the same warning from his talk page to my talk-page : [7]

Your attention is requested. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Samaleks was blocked on February 28 for edit warring in Trivandrum article. See [8]. And i reinstated the "Commercial Capital tag with solid reference". Administrators can check the references Bijuts (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not edit-warring in the article, which is evident from the article history. Even after the page was semi-protected, User:Bijuts is continuing to push POV without consensus in talk pages. The evidence is given in my above message. --Samaleks (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TD update

Here is an article that might interest you. I think your map is accurate given the specifics.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already combined the branches on the maps, haven't I? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So I guess there's no more to be done.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle matter

Hello again. I know that we haven't been much of agreement since November, but I think I am ready to return to handling the gadget once again. I've addressed the matter here and here and am ready to accommodate my use of CSD tags, as well as take any responsibility should I step out of line. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I simply ask that you would take care to not bite the newcomers or perform incorrect actions. Hopefully having used the original templates will have been a good education. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Miranda Raison

Thank you for bringing the Problems with the Miranda Raison photo to my attention can you provide me with some simple easy to follow rules for future reference? thank you! Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; any image of a living person must be free (read the first half section of commons:Commons:Licensing to get an idea). This means the vast majority of images that exist on the internet or elsewhere are non-free. Only images specifically released by their authors under a compatible license are free. Sadly, this means many people don't have an image on their article at all; we do this for two reasons: one is legal, and the other is ethical (we don't want to leech off someone else's copyright unless there is no possible alternative, ever). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well if those are the rules those are the rules! Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

24

Magog, I am unsure about this discussion regarding the 67 IP. It seems as though 97 and CA are now being connected to 67. I really do not want to continue all of this, but I thought I ought to just mention that. I want to note that 24 has in the past created a vast list of my possible sockpuppets (a list rejected by an administrator for having no teeth). Perhaps this connection to 67 was born during that time and accepted as truth? I don't know. One can view the list of "possible sockpuppets" here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CAtruthwatcher/Archive 97.77.103.82 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you maintaining that you're not CATruthWatcher? Because, with all due respect, I know you are. In fact, when I blocked CATruthwatcher, it placed an autoblock on your IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Magog, thanks for the response. I am speaking only about other connections, like this 67 one that is now being discussed by 24. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for the clarification; we now know that you're saying you haven't edited from that IP. On the same matter, can you explain why you, someone originating from California and living in Dallas, have such a keen interest in things New York? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. Would it be possible, then, to remove the unsubstantiated references on this 67 IP to CATruth? One could use this incorrect connection, as 24 is currently doing, against me. Editor DC (currently blocked forever) and 24 (currently blocked) tried to connect me to any and every editor who has ever created a disturbance on Wikipedia. And, to answer your question, I have diversified interests and would like to visit New York and Washington one day. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed it. To be fair, we administrators are, on average, a rather bright bunch of people. We don't make decisions based off whether the sock tag is currently applied to the page, but rather look at the overall behavior and circumstances behind why the page might (or might not) deserve the tag. Which means me removing it really doesn't change anything in terms of how process in the future might be carried out. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. I was not worried about administrators' own judgment; I was more worried about non-admin editors who could lob accusations against me with incorrect information and perhaps influence an administrator. Any purported connections could be used in a list of grievances, as 24 has compiled in an attempt to appeal a block. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Magog -- 24, just off block, is literally re-making the St. John's page. He refuses to discuss any of his major changes, many of which are factually inaccurate, poorly written, and disingenuous. I ask for your immediate assistance. I left the same message on Eagle's page; my hope is that one of you will see it soon. Thank you. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2005-terry-speaking.jpg

Hi. This file has an OTRS ticket so please hold on until you have the information you want from OTRS. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem; you can probably just ask at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have time right now. You're welcome to follow up on this yourself. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully we don't need access to the webpage, because it's locked except by invitation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bother you, but would you mind taking a look at this? Does it make sense to you? Is it easy to follow?

Also, if you don't mind, do you think that {{Talk header}} would look better above or below that notice?

Thanks for your time. – AJL^talk 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense. And I think it would look better below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! – AJL^talk 16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting blocked editor's edits

Hello, Magog the Ogre. I have just been reading up the history relating to a block of 24.239.153.58 for edit warring. The user cites statements by you to the effect that it is acceptable to repeatedly revert edits by a blocked user. However, I can't find anything anywhere saying that. It is certainly not in the list of exemptions to the edit warring policy, and I can't see it in the blocking policy either. In fact this is actually listed in the banning policy a part of a list of differences between blocks and bans: it applies to banned users, but not to blocked users. It seems to me that you made a mistake here. Or have I missed something? Pleas let me know if I have misunderstood. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog, here's another suspicious thing about 24 being related to that sockfarm. He made an AfC, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. John's University Lacrosse Rape Case, and in the references section, lists 1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case, which was an article created by Uconnstud. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: James, I have no idea how I got that wrong. I could have sworn I saw it say blocked and banned.

Re: Eagles: it looks like we have two blocked/banned/whatever editors at war with each other. No wonder they can't conduct themselves in a half-civil manner. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: James: I must have been thinking of WP:CSD#G5. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Note: this is in your inbox, but I couldn't wait)

New twist: 24 is suspected of being a sock of that huge sockfarm. One of those sockpuppets is Armyguy11 (talk · contribs), who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned user Mykungfu (talk · contribs) per User:Armyguy11.

One of the suspected sockpuppets of Mykungfu is 24.239.149.9 (talk · contribs), which matches up perfectly to 24.239.153.58 (our 24) see [9] and [10]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Want to open a(n) SSP(typo) SPI to put it to centralize a formal investigation, or just block outright? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

CheckUsers can't link IPs to registered accounts, so it would be pointless to start an SPI. More evidence just for reference in the future: Freakin Fool (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of Mykungfu, edits Dominican Republic [11], an article 24 and that side of the farm have edited multiple times. GreatChimp (talk · contribs) edits a Dominican Republic-related article [12]. MrDouglass (talk · contribs) edits Dominican Republic [13]. Finally, a common theme to Mykungfu's socks' edits is fraternity-related articles, which has also been edited heavily by 24. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I did say SPI, but I didn't specify it would be checkusered, rather to "centralize a formal investigation." iMHO, the evidence sounds pretty damning, but I admit I haven't looked extremely closely yet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case, 24 will certainly be appealing the block, so you might want to point him to the evidence you've compiled in order to make a valid defense. I suppose this could be a wild coincidence, but color me mightily skeptical. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I found some gray area. Mykungfu is not formally banned per [14], so I'm not sure that's a valid reason to block now since the policy has changed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)