User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 20

Re: File permission problem with File:WestwoodJr-1-.jpg

Hello, I'm a little confused on what liscensing I should use for File:WestwoodJr-1-.jpg. The image is mine and belongs 100% to me, however I let another site use it awhile back (the site mentioned in the source on the page). So what liscening would be appropriate for the image if I own it yet have allowed another website to use it? ---StevenBjerke 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you took the image, then it should be OK. For my reference, do you have any proof of it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof that I own the image? Well, I asked the website yesterday to remove the image and they did, so that means the only place the image exists on right now is Wikipedia. ---StevenBjerke 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. . You don't have to make them take it down to prove it; if you're still in good standing (i.e., not becoming a pest) with the website, maybe you could have them put up a caption when the mouse hovers over the image which says something like "created by Bjerke". Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool Collegiate School page - Len Horridge photographs fail to display on iPad

The three photographs below by Len Horridge which accompany the page Liverpool Collegiate School are no longer showing up on an iPad, though they did so originally. I've tried unsuccessfully to upload a newer, optimised, smaller file size version of the first one. The picture seems to be have been 'moved to Wikimedia Commons from en.wikipedia using a bot script'. I'd like to re-upload these three files again and hopefully make them display on iPad, how best to do this? Collegiate_after_cleaning_1973.jpg Collegiate_hall_as_walled_garden.jpg Collegiate_hall_firedamaged.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Bates (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's working just fine for me when I look at the mobile version of the page [1]. Sometimes the mobile version of Wikipedia is slower to update for me as well (I don't know why). Try clearing the cache on your browser and reloading the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Magog, but the cleared cache on the iPad browser didn't help. The issue only affects the three images that were transferred to Wikimedia Commons, these are still failing to show up on the article page on an iPad. However, they DO show up when viewed on an iPhone which is most perplexing. I'd guess this is a technical issue, can you point me to someone at Wiki who can investigate this strangeness? Keithbates51 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; WP:VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-India POV stance of Right to Exist#Pakistan.

Hi Magog,

I came across this debate when I saw on Darkness Shines page that he had got blocked for the above section. I do not like to get involved in the running arguments in the talk page of the above article which are in my opinion missing the woods for the trees. However, I do feel in my view that the text is completely misleading and the sources mis-represented. Imo the section is OR and needs deletion. I have detailed my views on the talk page and request you to please weigh them as an impartial third party. I have provided what I consider a neutral and accurate version of Indian stances about Pakistan's right to exist. I can also provide references after doing some more work. If my version is substantially accurate, it however demotes the thesis of Right to exist#Pakistan as an unimportant, non-mainstream view. Hence it arguably may be deleted. No matter what, I'm conviced that this anti-Indian POV nonsense should not remain in its present form and an impartial view be present in Wikipedia even if they are not exactly along the lines I have suggested. AshLin (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; it's a poorly written and outrageously anti-Indian POV section that needs to be heavily reworded. I do not want to comment further on it on the talk page though, as I am trying to remain uninvolved in the dispute itself unless necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Commons Barnstar

		The Commons Barnstar
		For all your work for Commons you decerve a promotion and a big raise... But all I have to offer is this small barnstar :-) MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File talk:Trumbo and Cleo 1947 HUAC hearings.png

Oh damn, is this a new rule? I've been G8'ing talk pages of transferred to commons files for years! :x -- Luk ^talk 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

wow... Well I'll stop doing it immediately then... -- Luk ^talk 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined delition of File:FujiInJapan.jpg‎

The description of the image says that it is a photo of Mt. Fuji in the heartland of Japan. To me it seems a little hoax-ish for there to be 2 black lines drawn on the mountain (I assume to look like eyes). Is that not enough for a CSD G3? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We have no idea why those lines are drawn. G3 is clear it has to be an unambiguous hoax. Try WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Still?

Do I have to get all my edits approved from Darkness Shines before making them? This is obvious hounding where I reverted a vandalizing IP and made some edits [2]. There have been previous instances of him tagging articles I edit for deletion (including a former FA Muhammad Iqbal for CSD) which was speedily deleted by Fastily and later restored by Moonriddengirl and other (many) areas where I can provide evidence for that he has entered to hound me and is disputing my edits everywhere. I can file a report at ANI if you want but as I said I'd ask you before taking this further as my report might be taken as a bad faith report due to the loads of WP:SOUP. I do understand if you will want to recuse yourself at this point but an advice will still be appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that is not entirely accurate is it? Magog, I should like to report another instance of sockpuppetry btw.[3] It does astonish myself that whenever TG gets into an edit war IP editors always come charging to his rescue. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edits when IPs were already warring over it. Be careful before making that allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TG: yes, I've noticed before that I think he hounds your edits. But hounding in an of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (e.g., if you're introducing poor content). But if he's being a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass or giving you more scrutiny than he would someone else who made the same edits, then it is a problem. In this case, it initially seems like a legitimate case of BRD (without looking at the changes further). If you have more information, please compile it. I might even sign an RFC/U, as long as you keep it to things that can be proven (i.e., not IP sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry).

Anyway, DS: you accuse TG of sockpuppetry when there is also an IP making edits on your behalf. Are you seriously unable to step outside the situation and realize that I have no way of knowing if the edits for the IP are editing on your behalf anymore than the edits for the other IP are editing on TG's behalf? If you say "but in this case isn't wasn't me", don't you realize you're doing the exact same thing you sneer at TG for doing (claiming the IP wasn't you)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I have enough evidence for him following my edits and disputing them at as many places as he can. You are right, and I told him I don't object to the issues themselves being addressed but he's the one doing it all over wikipedia at a faster pace than it can be resolved. I'm certain that he is doing it because the edits are made by me, what would you recommend? Ok, I'm adding it here for you to see and recommend if it is enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope I don't cause another edit conflict. But you are right, the issue becomes very SOUPy. The right course of action might only be an RFC/U. I say that because by the time you post all the information on my page, you've probably got enough information to file the RFC/U. You might ask TParis, an administrator with whom you agree on things, if he sees things in the same light as you. He seems to be very level-headed and would probably tell you straight-forward if he thinks you're in the wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) but no problem... I want to know before hand if it actually is enough for your suggestion. I guess TP's watching this page but I'll ask him to respond too, he's been pretty fair.

Evidence to check

1. [5] You've seen this and recognized it has a hounding revert.. there was no way he got there by himself.
2. [6] Got here through my contributions list; the stub was only edited by a few users before. On a BRD revert (with a good explanation he couldn't object to - he then tagged the article for deletion - well known story ahead).
3. [7] I'm one of the starting users of this article, definitely accessed from my contributions and the dispute spilled over his BLP, now at DRN at length wasting time I could use to edit articles.
4. [8] Got in to make some edits here and there where I was having a dispute (and an old editwar) with a really rude IP editor who was reverting 3-4 users. then posted on the IP's talk to ask him if there was anything he needed to be edited so that he could do that on his behalf [9].
5. [10] Tagged a former FA for CSD just after I edited it and this turned out to be a bad tag (the article actually got deleted and then restored [11]). This one was ridiculous as the criteria he gave for CSD (12) was incorrect since even in case of violation all 3000 revisions of the article would not be copy vio.
6. [12] Very obvious: added a POV tag to the main country article on which I'm working with a few users to get it to FA and just had a peer review. The version was of right after the peer review. Then started inviting conflicts on the talk page - strongly rebutted by many users there.
7. [13] Came here to edit and started massive disputes (still on) after I reverted a confirmed sockmaster whose sock was blocked but was given a chance to discuss his dispute instead of a block. I really really tried to help him resolve here (all on talk page) but no use.
8. [14]
9. [15] An old editwar but I quit the dispute and left the sources on talk page since he didn't let me add a word to the two line section for which I had sourced info.
10. [16] Very obvious: and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk even when two editor told him he was wrong. Continued to add verification failed tags to verified sources.
11. [17] An RFC !vote (rather vote); something like "whatever JCAla says".
12. [18] I simply restored an unexplained removal by a vandal who first blanked and then CSD'd the article as "hoax"... nevertheless DS comes to revert and to talk page to discuss my habits.

Now all these might not be bad edits by him but they all do confirm that he's following me while others are clear evidence of hounding. There must be more that I don't have in mind at the moment... are these enough to prove the hounding? The current one at Right to exist was the latest which was really irritating. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason I've been distancing myself from these issues, TopGun. Your behavior has not been exemplery and I don't want to see it reflect on me. Any RFC/U you open on either Darkness Shines or JCAla will reflect just as poorly on you as it will them. I recommend you spend some time addressing your own behaviors, like edit waring, before you ask for community scruitiny of theirs.--v/r - TP 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this was strictly in administrative capacity for you and I've previously made it clear that you don't 'side' with me so that it doesn't reflect on you. The concern with me was editwar which I'm handling much better than before... feel free to specify if there's another... as for the disputes, I discuss them after a revert now. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I have blocked Darkness Shines for 48 hours. I warned him about this hounding stuff before, and he's continued with it anyway. IMHO that is blockable, and if ArbCom doesn't want to take the case, then someone has to police conduct. Anyway, TopGun, you need to stop edit warring; I have considered blocking you today too, and I wasn't too far from doing it. And while the people edit warring against you have at times acted more poorly, the fact remains that you are much quicker to hit the revert button than to legitimately discuss an issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I accept that the second revert was clearly out of irritation as the edit summary specifies. I think the hounding is a clear explanation (while not my excuse) for driving me into editwars on different occasions. I've been discussing edits lately without further reverts but I can do with advise on how to handle ones such as these. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just let them revert. Time is not of the essence. Then use the talk page in the meantime. You quoted some OMGWTFBBQ essay on it (can't remember the acronym). And if you get a WP:MASTADON reaction, then leave for a while. Remember, there are far far worse injustices in this world being committed in the name of a cause (take a look at the good causes section of my userpage... has a laundry list of dictators with the blood of millions on their hands). Getting mad about something on Wikipedia is, in the long run, kind of stupid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@TopGun: I haven't been watching your editing at all so if you've made improvements on the edit warring then I want to commend your effort and I wouldn't want to admonish you for something that you're showing improvement on. I don't want to be responsible for ruining that progress by making it seem like your efforts arn't appreciated.--v/r - TP 03:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou both. I'll keep those in mind. I can always agree to disagree and let the consensus decide. I guess opening issue is resolved for now unless/until DS finds me at yet another article just to revert me. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Magog, I suggest you set up a page somewhere to deal with this dispute. Then recruit six to twelve administrators with experience dealing with ethnic conflicts to help. When complaints are posted there, it will be luck of the draw which one responds. You might borrow ideas from: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. You need support, and it will be very useful to have a place where long, complex discussions can be held without the drive-by, superficiality of ANI. It will also be beneficial to have the ongoing involvement of administrators who are familiar with the actors and the script. Jehochman ^Talk 10:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I think it would be sufficient to move these disputes to ANI, your suggestion is generally also a good possible solution. User:Bbb23, User:EdJohnston, User:Bwilkins and User:Basalisk have previous knowledge about this case from ANI and AN3. User:TParis certainly has also monitored the situation first as someone involved, now from a greater distance. I am fine if Magog is one of the administrators if he refrains from taking any unilateral actions on requests by TopGun to do so against me, and lets me discuss the issue with other administrators first. On a note, this is not an ethnic dispute. It is a political content dispute. Although both TopGun and Mar4d are Pakistani, I am not Indian and I think Darkness Shines somewhere wrote he is not Indian either. Also, I really don't care what nationality or ethnicity people are from. I am interested in the content. JCAla (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Would you recommend seeking general sanctions and thus Wikipedia:General sanctions/Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, setting up a page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts/Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, or something else? That's a stunningly good idea on your part. . My feeling is that general sanctions would only be effective in dealing with the socks, as the parties involved have shown mastery in avoiding a technical break of the rules, while ignoring them in spirit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Originally posted at DS's talk but posting it here since he reverted). I think he has accepted in his comments inspite after JCAla tried to 'clarify' on his behalf that he's following my contributions on the basis that he believes and that my edits are not acceptable to him. Exactly what I stated... I do not have to get all my edits approved from this user before making them. That is exactly what hounding is. And just to clarify... it is he who thinks my edits are biased which does not make it a fact since at many occasions I did get conensus (and many times a wide consensus from RFCs) on my edits. I can provide evidence if Magog requires that. I don't think reverting all my edits accessed from my contributions list (not RC patrol.. he must be kidding me... check his contributions how often does he revert vandalism in that case?) just to revert because they're made by me is constructive in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, it is funny how JCAla only quotes admin comments out of context who have mistaken me to be asking for a block where I asked for blocking an already blocked editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

They can't be quoted out of context since these comments are referring to your general behavior. JCAla (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are acting stupid. With both of you, why all this bicker bicker? It's all WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Right to exist

@Darkness shines: I see you've understood nothing about why I unblocked you. It had nothing to do with sources, and everything to do with bias, and that (unbelievably) you can't tell the difference between the two. Either stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality NOW or you will be subjected to a topic-ban. I'll tell you the same thing I told JCAla, who didn't listen me, and will be probably facing the consequences soon enough: I know what I'm talking about here. I'm even on your side in terms of the content. Stop, now.

@TopGun: so bring it up with that administrator. The fact that you are trying to defend the a text which literally states that "[i]t is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist" speaks horribly to your ability to view things neutrally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Those lines were not my additions, I added something different which I actually can defend on basis I'm discussing at the article... I objected to editwarring. Well I've informed that administrator for that purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but you ought to have removed the bias too strong in favor of Pakistan. Non-neutral is non-neutral, and it's bad. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.png

There is an svg version of this file on Commons so the png version on Wikipedia is not needed, nor is it used anywhere. Would you please delete it? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hey Magog, I have one more Katharine Hepburn file that needs to be deleted please: File:Tracy Hepburn Desk Set.jpg Thanks very much --Lobo512 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

F8

F8 barnstar

"(Deletion log); 07:06 . . Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Voyager OF5.png" (Deleted because "F8: now available on Commons under the same name ". (TW))", again! Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Good cause(s) -> "I seriously hope no one would consider any of these a poltical issue (I don't; see below);"

Well isn't that sweet of you. It's nice to be appreciated; and to have someone read my userpage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Vc46.jpg

Why did you reinsert this tag on this unfree image? This image is from the Philip Samuels Fine Art gallery and one of its early versions was published in 1988 [25] after Samuels bought that pair of ruby slippers. Can you provide evidence that the LOC ever said that this image, which they used by special permission from Samuels, was released to the public domain by its copyright holder? If so, could you please mention it in the description page? If not, could you please remove the misleading tag? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that without a copyright tag, we won't host the file, per policy. I misunderstood the content of your post; if he did not release the image as free, by all means I can nominate it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry, I made the mistake. Searching some more, I can't tell if there was a copyright notice in the original booklet. If not and if it was not registered, the image might be in the public domain as a pre-1989 work. That is not certain, however, because with such an artwork, the copyright holder would normally have taken the precaution of a notice or registration. Maybe we can tentatively use an appropriate public domain tag, without placing the "blame" of the statement on the LOC. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You know more about this subject than I do. However, there appear to be two copyrights involved: the 3D art in question, and the photograph of the 3D art in question. Both must be free in order for us to host it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

IP sock

Has returned Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thought I explained all this before magog ? 31.52.189.228 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be back in the morning british time so before blocking etc leave a note explaining because I know I will have to repeat what I told you a while back 31.52.189.228 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC) You were blocked for one week [26] That has not yet expired. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re IP: I realize that you explained that you believe you have a legitimate case. However, editing warring while logged out and across multiple IPs, and avoiding a block while at it, is disruptive. This is because a) you should not be editing while blocked and b) it makes discussing issues with you nearly impossible. Please know that the ends do not justify the means. Policy specifically allows me to take certain measures to prevent you from editing in such circumstances (Wikipedia:SPP#Guidance for administrators). Please register an account, or you'll continue to see your edits reverted and the articles you edit locked down.

Re DS: You can report this to ANI or another admin if I'm not around. Also, it's rather pointless to give warnings to editors who have been warned multiple times before (WP:DTR). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Had not thought of ANI truth be told, I thought it would be better to wait on you as you are familiar with the issue :o) Shall use ANI next time. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Academic block I of IIM Lucknow.jpg

I have provided the source for the image that you tagged for deletion:Academic_block_I_of_IIM_Lucknow.jpg please have a look if it is enough or any more information is needed. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichillT

Hi! Except for User:MGA73/Sandbox all files in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichillT should be deletable. The images in my sandbox have more than file in upload history. --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh nice. We can get to work by using oldver.php until they're all fixed. However, I've also noticed quite a few images in there with potential FOP problems. One thing you might do is take a quick scan of images by loading my daily updating script: tools:~magog/commons_images.htm, then making a note of the offending files by hand and uncheck them from the Twinkle delink box. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I move these files to Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by BotMultichill to make it easier to delete the other files :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey; no fair having your Twinkle conflict with my Twinkle. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You too... I stoppend my Twinkle... I noticed the same problem :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What does "stoppend" mean? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

AS you have dealt with the IP editor evading his block I am asking you to look at this SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive bot thingumabob

Mine does not seem to work? I notice you have one. If you have a free second would you take a peek at mine and see if it can be fixed please? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, connection is acting weird. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So thank you for fixing the bot, much appreciated. I do however have a question regarding your statement on me on your Indo-Iran page. You have written same as my comments on JCAla. Has performed textbook hounding of TopGun, meaning he followed TG's edits to revert even perfectly OK contributions. To begin I am not pro any nation, I am pro factual accuracy and pro historic accuracy, if you wish to have me as pro something. I also, to the best of my memory have never, not once, reverted TG if the edit was OK. Now if you have a diff please share it, but I can honestly swear that I have not done that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated on his page, I don't currently have the diffs to prove anything. You would be wise to ignore the issue until TP and I actually come up with something. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Darknesshines

You may tell your friend that my block has expired and I am back editing before he floods your page moaning about me and trying to persuade you to block me. MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No need; now please behave. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Map request

Hi, would it be possible to do a footprint map for Starbucks? At least in the United States, if worldwide is excessive. Thanks. Calwatch (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the branches? http://www.starbucks.com/store-locator only gives allows the user to search by location, which I can't parse. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK; I'm currently downloading the data from their site on all 19477 branches (that I count). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Were you looking for a specific country or region? Because I'm sitting on a ton of data right now for many different parts of the world. I compiled the US map but it was pretty boring: basically there was a dot anywhere there was a city. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I think it would be interesting to take the countries where there are the most Starbucks - US, Canada, UK, China, and Germany - and plot them on a map. And the US map would not be any less boring than, say the Wal Mart or Target map, since there is a lot of blank space in the middle of the country which may be Starbucks free. Where did you find the data? Did you use your script or was it downloadable elsewhere? Calwatch (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I poked around the site a bit and found that each store has its own page (with metadata handily attached!), so I checked the robots.txt file and found it to be clean, and then I used a script and downloaded every single page in http://www.starbucks.com/store/x/, where x is a number between 1-19477 (e.g., http://www.starbucks.com/store/19477/) . Mining that data turns out to be pretty easy. But you're right: the Walmart and Target maps are also pretty boring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To me the Walmart map shows how dense and thick the concentration of Walmarts are in the rural south and midwest. I'm not sure how you did the concentration points on the Walmart map because that may show footprint better in larger metro areas. Overall, great work on the footprints. Calwatch (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well here are two different scaled down maps: they're both correct; one draws a circle over the other (thus suppressing urban areas), whereas the other just makes a super big circle instead. [27] [28] Which one looks better to you? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The map that has a circle over the other looks better than the super big circle, because it may distort metros. Showing the outline of the metro area may work better.Calwatch (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Cloudbound's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Cloudbound (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Cloudbound (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PD US-only

Hey. Perhaps you want to comment on Wikipedia:File_namespace_noticeboard#Semi-free_media? :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Help finding an image for article

Hi Magog, Sitush suggested I come to you for help. Birthstones really needs a modern stone chart. It looks extremely deficient without one. Can you help with this? I know of endless charts and some interesting weird ones--but not ones I know for a fact we can use here. Cheers for any help, please alert reply my talk or the article talk.--Djathinkimacowboy 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be better off asking at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. I am very familiar with files and their policy, and even who you could ask for something in particular, but I don't create much myself (aside from some maps - see banner at the top of my page). If you don't get any response there for a while, I can float you a few names for people who specialize in vectorized editing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-USonly

I (and some others) are a little confused about this template - does this template mean we can happily ignore any other counties FoP, and just keep the image on en-Wiki without having to resort to fair use? If so has that been confirmed by the WP legal team? We were partly confused because the template links to commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - which to me looks like it's referring to images taken in the US.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Our talk is at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_6#File:Toys_R_Us_Philippines.jpg if you want to chip in.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Preempt the editwar

Refer to this section started here by DS: [29]

The neutrality tag was removed by DS engaging into a useless discussion:

I've explained this to him properly here and just when things are about to settle... he's attempting to engage me into an editwar over the neutrality tag. I reinstated it once he removed it. He's now removed it again in clear violation of WP:BRD. Tired of discussion about discussions. 50% of my time on wikipedia is being wasted now a days dealing with disputes DS has engaged me into. [30] Just another example of false claim of BLP issues even after the discussion was tagged resolved with no BLP issues. I don't go around looking for something to dispute with DS and he should not either. I think he should revert the tag back here which was placed rightly on the disputed content (now about to be solved). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, I am following policy. If magog decides for once to do due diligence instead of just blocking me he will see I have asked you A LOT to discuss what you think are currently the POV issues, you refused to. See here and here I was not even going to bother you with this. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP issue, see Here Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DS: I've looked into the issue, and TopGun is 100% correct in this instance. You should not have removed the tag; he is clearly discussing the issue on the talk page. It does not matter if you agree with the reasoning or not, or if he isn't saying it in a way just to your liking; he claims to have said it before: that is enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you blind? [31] He refuses to discuss the issue. He is basing adding the tag based on a RFC which is about proposed content. I even said I would self revert if he would discuss what is currently POV about the article, he refused. I give up Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I looked at the thread, and he says he's willing to discuss. The problem at this point looks like no one can even agree on how to discuss. If he is engaged in any discussion on the page whatsoever, that should be enough to keep the POV tag up. If he is filibustering and making excuses not to discuss, then it becomes an issue of disruptive editing, which is separate from the POV tag. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, in my experience, if I get frustrated to the point where I say I give up, I usually give it a day or two to calm down and then I'll feel better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked him countless times what he thinks is currently POV in the article, he will not discuss it. He says an op-ed is OK for statements of fact, but scholarly analysis must be attributed. He says equal weight must be given to a political press release over hundreds of academic sources. He defends the misrepresentation of sources and accuses me of edit warring when i remove said content. He reverts in content even when he is told there is a BLP issue. So, yes. I give up, I give up on you, and on any article related to the region being either factual or remotely accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. If you change your mind let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for record... I'll prefer lies not be written on my behalf. I'm pro-attribution in controversial cases. But forget it since he put the tag back. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are you calling a liar? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like I was wrong about forgetting it. The self-revert has been removed again. Anyway, I remember you drew a red line for the minor personal attacks and all? [32]... does that still stand? Isn't this "overview of RFC (read reassertion of support comments)" [33] by an involved editor a disruptive attempt to highjack the closer's views? As far as I knew overviews were given by uninvolved editors. This one is blatant [34]. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as two other editors supported me and said I was correct, one being TP who is entirely neutral on the issues. Telling you to reread the sources is not a personal attack, as you seem to not actually read them. I do not see how my assessing the RFC is against any rules? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys: while I appreciate that you both see the need to defend yourselves, you should know that the constant chatter and bickering on my page gets kind of old after a while. I'll freely admit that it may have played a part in previous blocks that I've handed out before (after a long day at work, my patience and ability to assume good faith are sapped, and editors who I already think should be blocked receive no second chance from me). I don't mind a little chatter, but I am quite capable of reading a situation and even recognizing unfounded accusations, so not every point needs to be rebutted in full. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Would you mind keeping an eye on the Taliban article, DS first added an WP:MPOV "overview of the RFC" (which should have been done on closure by an uninvolved editor) reasserting his views and now reignited the editwar by ramming the content in while the RFC is still open asserting an "obvious consensus" in his favour. I've reverted it once per trivial reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree, you reverted for trivial reasons. Are you sure you meant this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@TopGun: if you could keep a handle on your temper and avoid reverting another editor when they make a poor out of process edit, you would be left blameless, while the other side is to blame. This would leave you in a much better place when it comes to administrator/arbcom action. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a cool headed single revert. But I get your point. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Just expired from full protection yesterday. Given my acknowledgement to not reverting editwarriors I'll explain any edits I made as fully constructive. I've made two edits; 1) added back two adjectives which DS removed which were never even discussed/mentioned on the talk page in turn letting his edit remain (even though, after discussion, he did not get a consensus for it rather just a suggestion from an IP), 2) Sourced the content he had requested to be sourced before + added back sourced content he blanked in this edit. To explain my revert along with sourcing the content in the second edit, I discussed with him the content he removed on the talk page during the protection, there was no consensus formed how to rephrase it not to mention remove. He has now blanked about half of sourced content from the article under false pretext of BLP like before even after being explained to on talk. Only one word comes to my mind from this, "reckless". --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see both of you are at fault. Darkness Shines for using BLP as a sledgehammer to edit war for topics it was never meant to cover, and you for consistently accusing the other of bad faith which is of course against policy. Why is it so hard for you both to assume good faith in the other side? Your arguments wouldn't devolve into this stupid back and forth if you would all just stop accusing each other of bad faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations? Hounding me to every article I ever edit... can't assume good faith really. Sorry, but no, not for DS. [35] [36] [37]. Do read the last comment here [38]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboards

I realize you have siad we ought not use notice boards on each other but due to TG calling me a vandal and refusing twice to retract the statement I felt I had little choice but to take it to Wikiquette assistance. I hope this will not be used as further "evidence" against me, but I will not take such an accusation laying down. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already stated that the rules that I laid down before are null and void, because they're unenforceable. I stated the reasons before, but I'm not going to say them again because I don't want people filling up my talk page; if you want an answer, look through the history. So yes, feel free to report anyone for these violations, although you will quickly see that people will quote WP:BOOMERANG at you a lot and that no one has any more patience than I do for this endless back and forth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Finnish statue

You made this change to File:German soldier memorial statue 1918 in Lahti of Finland.jpg. From what I can see, Urho Heinänen died in 1977, so any year earlier than 2048 looks wrong to me. Also note that I can't find any year of death for Wila Martin, so it might be copyrighted even longer than that. Isn't the previous {{Do not move to Commons}} tag better, considering that the year of death of one of the sculptors is unknown? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Fixed Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I thought I'd point this out to you, as we've been here before. [43] Same articles, nearly one year later... weird. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the substance of the original block at all. Just let it sit for a bit and report to WP:AN3 if the issue persists and the editor still isn't discussing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:TopGun. In the block log your reason is given as "Edit warring: Pak Watan". TopGun correctly points out that he/she made only two reverts, and those reverts do not look by any means unreasonable. It also looks as though the edits that TopGun reverted may perhaps have been intended to be provocative. However, it is clear that there is a history to the interactions between the two editors involved, which you are aware of and I am not, so I thought I would consult you. Is there some feature of the history which makes these two reverts into an unacceptable "edit war"? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Same here. The editors were beginning an edit war, true, but a block was premature, in my opinion. I'm partially aware of the history between the two editors, having blocked them both for edit warring before, but I believe you jumped the gun, in this case. I think a better way to handle the situation would be to ask the community to impose a revert restriction on both editors or getting an interaction ban... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tried all of this before. I am 100% willing for my blocks to be overturned in this case; you do not need secondary permission from me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, I really think you should reconsider before unblocking Darkness Shines. This user has taken it upon himself to hound TopGun (as JamesBWatson noticed immediately above), and is 100% unrepentent, even claiming "I have not edit warred" (he's incorrect; he made three reverts, not two). It would be a bad unblock given the history of hounding and tangential and battleground editing IMO. And frankly, look at the history of my talk page for the past two months, and the history of the interaction between these two editors, and tell me you still think the block was a bad idea. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As for TopGun, he is still guilty of hitting the revert button too much, as I've told him before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate hor you feel with regard to these editors and I believe your block was understandable, considering their history; however, as I've stated before, I think you may have jumped the gun, here; two reverts each is the beginning of an edit war, but is not enough to warrant a block, in my opinion. I agree the interaction between the two has been sub-optimal so far, but I think this should be handled through an interaction ban or a revert restriction instead of a block, which, by definition, is a blunt instrument. That's why I have proposed Darkness Shines an unblock conditional on his accepting an indefinite 1-rr restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for your empathy, although this isn't about my feelings, but at about the editors involved. Anyway, like I said, feel free to unblock without my permission; treat it as if I had never blocked to begin with. An indefinite 1RR restriction for all editors involved might be a good idea. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been unblocked but TG has not? Would you be so kind as to unblock him. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is no comment on what I think should be done (I intent to stay out of this), rather I like to clarify one thing for the involved administrators which TopGun has been falsely claiming. TopGun's block was not because of WP:SOUP, as he proclaims on his talk (I wrote that to him there, but he removed). Everything that has been said at ArbCom to Magog about the dynamic between TopGun's "reports" of others on Magog's talk and Magog's actions fully stands. His block was rather a case of WP:BOOMERANG because he kept running to Magog's talk and bothered him endlessly in order to make him take action against others. Magog acted upon TG's "report" - the only difference this time it included actions against TG. JCAla (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should have found a better excuse for blocking me than a non imposed 1RR and then not checking the article history or that I left it there and went to other contributions, that's getting old. It is bickering like above that does this - should have dealt with the reports earlier. And for your record, I did go for mediation the only thing that did happen at there was a personal attack by DS and mediators request to remove that, on which he withdrew. You should really read the replies to your block. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  There is nothing I can do to help you guys further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Republican 2012 Maps

Can you adjust the color tones on the maps to be color-blind compliant? A user has requested this. Message cced on other map editor talk pages.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well gosh, can't said user edit it himself to make it color compliant? Have him paste at the talk page on Commons, and suggest which colors to use, because the rest of us aren't color-blind and as such don't know which ones will be the best. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)