User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 26

Old versions

Hi. I moved a bunch of files today (Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by MGA73bot) and there is an old version of all the files. Perhaps your bot could move the old versions automatically? --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated my tool to list all the files; you'll notice on the right next to each file it says "old versions". If you click on that, you can move it over by hand. Right now, I no longer have the ability to do this via command line, so it would be quicker just to do it by hand by clicking on the links. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Link: tools:~magog/commons_images-1.htm. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There: I did half. You do the other half! (PS. If you try to do several all at once, there is a bug wherein it doesn't properly mark your name in the log: this can be avoided by only doing another one every 4-5 seconds; not a huge deal, just saying). 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thank you. Seems I was too slow - or you were too fast... All done... --MGA73 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Air VIA logo.png

Hi. I do not see this as a "Keep local" but more like a "Be carefull". You see this differently? --MGA73 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion the other way. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay :-) In that case I think we could delete the local file if the file on Commons survive a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As you can see I'm tagging with NowCommons again. Last time I excluded a lot of files. This time I exclude less. I have stopped for now (somewhere in letter B) so we can see if there are too many files that should not be tagged. I know some should be deleted on Commons instead but if it it not too many I think it would be ok. --MGA73 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 03:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:AndyTheGrump

Hi Magog, this is worth a look if you have some time. I'd recommend an extension of the block and maybe preventing talk page access (given that they just posted another personal attack). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And given the admission about using the IP maybe autoblock as well? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to let things cool down a bit. Of course my decision is by no means binding and you can ask on ANI or elsewhere. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No that's fine, thanks for weighing in. If I see Ironholds around I'll let him know what's going on, but assuming nothing else happens, I think it's fine with your comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mail Art

Hello Magog,

You helped me sort out some image permissions with the Mail Art Wiki page a while ago. The Mail Art page has recently been vandalised for self-promotion purposes by a George Kasey, aka 'Dr Nada', posting as Heartcalm22 . He has added a self-promotional paragraph (third para from the end of the 'Range of Activities' section), stripped away References and added Kasey ones, and also junked most of the External Links. It would take rather a lot of manual Undos, can I request a Revert to the most recent, pre-Kasey, 7 June 2012 version?

George Kasey is not a significant Mail Art figure, I've never heard of him before, and Vittore Baroni, the co-author of the 2010 Mail Art Wiki page, has confirmed it by email this morning, "It is certainly a prank, probably this guy inserted himself in several art related Wiki entries. It reminds me of the mysterious agent provocateur that a few years ago tried to sabotage the mail art network by circulating fake invites to fake mail art shows, but it's probably somebody else (the thing smells a bit of Neoism gone bad). The damage could have been worse if he had altered considerably our text, but he "only" inserted - as far as I could see from a quick reading - a whole paragraph (that makes no sense and is not related to mail art at all) with several footnotes and links (to stupid more or less fake resources). What to do? I do not know how it works, but there should be a "Wiki Police" to which we can send a message saying the simple truth regarding what happened, signaling "George Kasey" as SPAM and asking his parts to be removed (and his name black listed to prevent future retaliations). This is the beauty of open democracy, any idiot can throw a wrench into the gears... Will you be so kind to see what can be done? I can testify on the unreliability of "George Kasey" if necessary."

Thanks in advance for any help you can give. I'd appreciate a notification when you respond. Keithbates51 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keith. I'm not very familiar with this subject, so I don't immediately feel comfortable performing the revert myself. However, I will show you an easy way you can do it: go to the history of the page, then click on the date before Heartcalm22 made any editions (in this case, 9:27, 7 June 2012‎). When it pulls up the page, click edit, and you will be editing the old version of the page. If you go to save it, you will have restored the page to its former content. Now Heartcalm22 will probably be a bit upset if you revert all of his/her changes, so you might consider instead just taking out the parts you find inappropriate, if at all possible.

I also definitely advise leaving a message at Talk:Mail art or User talk:Heartcalm22 explaining any action you take. I suggest composing that message when you are calm and level-headed; people immediately tend to get that rush of adrenaline that makes them defensive if accused of acting in bad faith (even if it's true; Wikipedia even has an essay on it which you don't have to read but you can if you want: WP:MASTODON). This all only leads to flaming that doesn't alleviate the problem.

I hope I've been clear enough in my explanation. Please feel free to ask for clarification if I've been unclear anywhere, and I will provide it when I get home from work tonight.

Cheers. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 15:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Clear and helpful, many thanks again Magog! Keithbates51 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Drawing own similarity

Resolved: Action apparently taken by Blade of Northern Lights Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to check... Wikipedia editors can't draw their own comparirsons between two things and put that in an article. For example, a Wikipedia editor can't take a UN resolution, reference that, and then say it's similar to a quote that a person said (the quote is referenced) in an article, drawing their own comparison between the two? An editor here doesn't appear to understand, and not sure how to get through. He can believe whatever he wants that they are similar (which is of course not true...), but as far as I'm aware, can't put that into the article that they are similar, by referencing the text of the resolution. I can't violate 1RR, and removing it would be doing so.

Thanks. --Activism1234 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just take it to ANI, unless you feel it should go to ARBPIA since he has been blocked for 6 months in the topic area before. --Activism1234 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#AndyTheGrump

hI - [1] - Youreallycan 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Magog the Ogre for taking me to the right way of uploading a file as I was giving wrong information. --Twiter is the best (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)LakshyaTwiter is the best (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)--

You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Please

[2]. I wanted to delete the file here because it's already on Commons. But it's still here, with the bot transfer notice. Why? I am confused now. The file should be gone from here, no? Doc talk 08:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's not on Commons. Not under this name, and not under this resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

NowCommons helper?

Hi Magog, do you really have a tool like the one mentioned at Commons:MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js#use "Process Duplicates" for NowCommons? Regards, --Flominator (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

Hi Magog, I'm writing about two issues regarding Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States.

1. I was wondering if you could give your views regarding the current talk page discussion about the heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Another editor wants to change both of them. Thanks!

2. I saw you changed the title of the article. I posted this comment on the talk page about it, in the hopes that you will consider renaming it (again). Btw, I really liked you edit comment: "mildly improving this monstrosity of a name". It made me laugh. Anyway, I'm hoping you'll agree that my suggestion for the title would improve on yours. Thanks, again. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about this issue, and neither am I particularly knowledgeable. May I suggest opening a request for comment? The instructions are here: WP:RFC. If the instructions are too complicated, feel free to ask me for help, or ask at help desk. Also, glad I could be of amusement! Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean you don't feel strongly about issue #1, correct? How about issue #2, changing the article title slightly so it sounds more logical? I strongly feel that "Heights of United States presidents and presidential candidates" sounds much better than "Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States", because the "presidential candidates of the United States" part sounds really odd. But, yeah, the original title which you changed was definitely a "monstrosity." ;) So, can you change the title? Thank you. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the editor who wants to change the heights of those two presidents said he will not do an RfC. I said that he'd need consensus before he could change well-sourced content like that, but he's said (3 times) that he's going to change it anyway in six days even though I laid out, in detail, why it shouldn't be changed based on what all the sources say. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your message yesterday over the one below. The answer your questions one by one: I am fine with the first change of name. To answer the second question (assuming your characterization is correct): it's called being stubborn, and it's more common on Wikipedia than poorly written fancruft. Unfortunately the only way to proceed is to just barrel through with the RFC (note I didn't say edit war and barrel through with the RFC). If you are correct, it will probably come up in the RFC; ditto if you're wrong, and ditto with a good compromise. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no problem... thanks for finding my comment. Haha. Anyway, I'm not going to start an RfC about his edit proposals, at least not right now, because there are many reliable sources in the article for the current content, which has been there a long time. And that editor has only a couple of outlier sources that contradict what's there. For one of his proposed changes, he has a single source. But about the article title, you said the "first change of name," which I guess means your change. I started an RfC for that issue to see what others think between the two. I'm totally fine with whatever others say. And I really appreciate the fact that you noticed the original article name was bad and needed some type of change. ;) --76.189.110.167 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Are you still using the categories showing up in Category:Wikipedia images? They are all empty at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. What do you mean am I still using them? Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 21:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I mean't the ones used by OrgeBot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those two categories are still in use on occasion. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 21:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey man can you help me get this image uploaded for Carson Allen's page

[3] is the image [4] and thats where I found it.

Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

Yes! Sorry for the confusion so far. I'll give two different ways you can go about it; you choose whichever is easiest for you:

• Go ahead and upload any files for which you have permission via this page. When you do so, make sure you add the text " {{subst:OP}}" (without quotes) to the "additional fields" section.
  Then have the rights holder (usually Mr. Allen, but if someone else took the picture it might be theirs) send an email as described in this section , with a link included for all the images you've uploaded (or with a link to your username, saying any images you've uploaded are OK). The link above has the text of the email that should be sent, as well as the address. He should send the email from an official address, if he has one, just so we can verify it's really him.
• If you would rather, instead of uploading the images yourself, have him send exactly the same boilerplate email I mentioned above to photosubmission@wikimedia.org, and include any images he'd like uploaded as attachments.

When you're done, let me know and I'll work the queue. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you are active just now...

Can you look at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#PD-Worldwind_-_sourcing? Bulwersator (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:Drewbeer.jpg

Re:File:Drewbeer.jpg

This file is not tagged as keep local. Bulwersator (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Either you're missing the very obvious, or you're being coy. Stop that. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will elaborate, just to be clear: NardTheBard made it clear on numerous occasions he didn't want it moved to Commons; it is thus ineligible for F8. Please take the issue up with him directly if you think it's no longer an issue. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added keep local template to inform other people that have no knowledge about this case Bulwersator (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Late 50s Aggie Bonfire.jpg

Ok dude, what the heck? I brought this image from the given source from the original post on TexAgs and got permission from the author through a webpage. I have no e-mails and that user isn't active on the site anymore. I could just as easily posted it and said it was my own and I bought it from the author or that it was my photo. Instead, I went to the lengths to obtain permission through that website, properly credit the author, and secure a proper license. I no longer have that message and do not have access to it, but I would imagine WP:AGF applies in spades here... Buffs (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you forward it to OTRS? WP:CSD#F11. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 04:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Forward what exactly? You really don't seem to be reading my messages: "I no longer have that message and do not have access to it" The only correspondence I have was on a chat board, not an e-mail. I have nothing to forward. You ask why I didn't forward it to OTRS at the time? Perhaps because that wasn't policy/procedure at the time (5 years ago). This is boiled down to WP:AGF. Buffs (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's go one step beyond that though. As I've learned over the past years, it seems pretty obvious that the image is also probably free of copyright as it was first published without copyright notice (required at the time) and no subsequent copyright existed on the photo. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand why we ask for permission? We do not want someone to reuse the content, and have the copyright holder later come back and say "no, I didn't agree to that license" and then be held liable. Are you entirely sure that the rights holders are OK with cc-by-3.0? And we absolutely did require permission at that point; it may have only been on Commons and yet not Wikipedia (I'd have to do my research to get you a better timeline). Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 00:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly why we do what we do. And I'm entirely sure that the rights holder was ok with it. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. As for "...we absolutely did require permission at that point; it may have only been on Commons and yet not Wikipedia"...well, that kind of proves my point, doesn't it? I uploaded this image to WP, not the Commons. Buffs (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will respond further to this later tonight or early tomorrow. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, it looks like the criterion was added to English Wikipedia on August 10, 2008.[5] I can't possibly say how much of a bad idea it is to upload an image to Wikipedia which fails Commons' licensing criteria, criteria which are quite likely in the near future to be implemented by English Wikipedia (as it turns out, they were); all you had to do was forward the thing to OTRS. But do what you will with the permission tag on the image on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20, but if I could see the future, I'd be in Vegas. Buffs (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, there are LOTS of images that are hosted on EN that are not hosted on Commons. Buffs (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Image use permission

• File:Bit Magazine (First and Last Issue).jpg
• File:Ultrasoft - Video Game Covers Example.jpg‎

As suggested, I made a request for feedback at WP:MCQ. I see two issues with these images and would appreciate your thoughts. The uploader has created a collage (derivative work) of images, claiming to own the copyright, but no evidence is provided. Then a claim of fair use of cover art is made. It is my understanding that cover art may only be used to visually identify an item for which critical commentary has been offered. The images are of magazine covers and video game covers, but used in an article about an organization (see Ultrasoft), which provides no critical commentary of the magazine or videos. Use within an article where critical commentary is not offered is not an appropriate rationale for fair use. I understand that it would be appropriate if the images were used in articles about the subject (offering critical commentary) in the specific images claiming fair use, but this is not the case here. Thanks, Cindy(talk to me) 12:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I appreciate the guidance. I got conflicting feedback at WP:MCQ. One individual said it was a clear F7 CSD and another thought it was "iffy" or something to that effect. They suggested that I send it to [[WP:FFD], which I did. Thanks for your help. Cindy(talk to me) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't fit the definition of CSD#F7 for immediate deletion, or at least doesn't fit the criterion the way it was originally envisioned (I took part in that conversation), which was to nip in the bud images from places like AP or People magazine being improperly used as fair use for people. I suggest trying WP:FFD, or if you'd prefer, just using {{subst:dfu}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:A. G. Leonard on horseback in North Dakota.png

You said it is not F3-able. However, I am confused as to how it isn't. I asked on IRC and was told that I should f3 it for conflicting description and licensing. So, what I'm asking is: exactly HOW is it not F3-able? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

F3 says absolutely nothing about conflicting license and description. The closest I can think is that maybe you're referring to F7: "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag" - but this isn't a fair use image, so it doesn't apply. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

F3 does, however, say "Improper license". Conflicting license and description can count as improper. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what it means in that context. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello Magog. Your name has been mentioned in a discussion at User talk:Skäpperöd#Your request at WP:AE needs participation. Apparently you were close to blocking Volunteer Marek for a 3RR violation around August 1. By discussing the issue with Skäpperöd, I'm hoping to get ideas for how to close Wikipedia:AE#Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount. If there are any mis-statements at Skäpperöd's user talk about your past actions, please let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is correct; I did find that he'd violated 3RR, and I would have blocked VM if I'd seen it earlier. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please may I understand the rationale

Hi MtO, I'm not questioning the rationale for keeping File:Shri Sudhir mungantiwarsig.png‎ so much as wanting to understand how a signature is different from any other piece of the written word. Would you take a moment or two to enlighten me, please? It was uploaded by a user on a rampage of uploading a swathe of files with bogus rationales. No articles link to this file. I wonder of you'd mind dropping a talkback note on my talk page when you reply. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#US law. English Wikipedia (unlike Commons) accepts works that are free in the US but not in their home country, so we can host the file here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Intellectually that seems peculiar, but I understand it now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you erased my file?

Look I made I mistake on the license tag, You could have just warn me so I corrected it. I'm not violating any rights. Don't be so radical. Why you act like this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted your file because it blatantly violated our image policies. We do not use fair use images for living people, especially if they are from a press agency. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand

I undesrtand ok. Can you please erase your marks on my talk page. If you want to comment do it on your own space. I already deleted it but it came back. I am free to add or erase on my own talk page. Please let it be. Thanks you.--FR9 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs)

You can remove it on your own. If someone restores it again, you can take the issue to WP:ANI and ask for an administrator to tell that person to stop restoring it. In the meantime, please read commons:COM:L, and stop uploading content that you did not 100% create on your own, or you are liable to end up with all your contributions deleted and (eventually) yourself blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone's favorite lighthearted summertime topic, ... Rape" in Pakistan

Please see the talk page of User:Salvio Giuliano regarding User:Darkness Shines.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

His indefinite 1RR restriction was removed at ANI a few months ago. I suggest taking the issue to ANI again and asking an uninvolved admin to impose sanctions on him per WP:GS. I would strongly support any sanctions placed upon him. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Baltimore Ravens Alternate Logo.gif

As uploading the image twice to Commons would be rather pointless, what purpose is keeping the image? Or rather, what should be done so that the local copy is deleted? Regards, — Moe ε 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Go through WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Too simple for copyright

This comment gives me reason to why this file was deleted since "The mural at the back would fall under copyright" that was the only delete vote is this logo. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

The item is clearly too simple for copyright. I also know that Jim would not delete something like this logo based on copyright grounds (at least for US-based works). Perhaps you should ask him for clarification on why that image was deleted. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:Brock House plaque.JPG

Re:File:Brock House plaque.JPG

There is more of files of this type - see User:Multichill/top self uploaders/Iota 9. If it is 2D work than you may want to nominate also others (but it may be a good idea to wait for decision on Commons) Bulwersator (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tawang.jpg

Hello Magog the Ogre,

You recently marked for deletion this file, here and on Commons, because of no license and no source. This seems dubious to me: when I look to the original version here ([6]), I find a license (GFDL-with-disclaimers), and a source (Self taken picture). Croquant (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually that information is from a previous upload by another user. The text is a remnant from a history split.[7] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand; are you saying that, even if the last version lacks license and source information, at least one of the previous version is OK? if so, just restore it. Croquant (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened is this: User:Katochnr uploaded a photo and gave it a source and a license. Then User:Windrider24584 came along and a completely different photo at the same name (which s/he should not have done). Windrider never then changed the text of the page to indicate who is the author of the new photo, or what license is has. For all we know, s/he got it from somewhere on the internet and the author isn't OK with the license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Now, what about the Commons version I uploaded from the original en wiki image? Will it be kept under the same name or another one? Croquant (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Commons version is the same one as at English Wikipedia, so I've marked it as unsourced also. If the uploader returns within the week to give it a source, it will be kept, otherwise it will probably be deleted, unfortunately. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 07:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to insist, but the license (GFDL-en|migration=relicense, following the original GFDL-with-disclaimers) and source (Self taken picture) were present in the file before you erased them (see diff [8]). I do not see any reason not to believe in the good faith of the first uploader; I just see what seems to me a mistake of yours. So, please remove this undue request. Croquant (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The uploader of the second image didn't change any text on the file information page. When you do that, you don't click on any button anywhere which says that you approve the present licence. Unless an editor changes any text on the file information page, I prefer to treat text on the file information page as belonging exclusively to the first upload. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the text of the page as it appeared before the upload, and this is the text afterwards. Compare the difference between the two: you'll note there is none.[9] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at EXIF data and comparing with the user's other uploads, I would say that it is a likely {{own}}. However, still no licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I had mentioned you and felt notification was needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The missing manual

Hi. I moved a lot of files to Commons:Category:The Missing Manual. Files need a cleanup so they will look like shit to start with but they should end up much nicer after a few bot runs. --MGA73 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! They really do look like hell. My bot would fix it up to some extent, but they might need some work with AWB. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My bot should fix most of it now... :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My bot can do the rest tomorrow. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My bot stopped working now so it should be ok... I expect your bot to finish the job as usual. If you find any problems let me know - unless ofcourse you fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

tools:~magog/oldver.php bug

You should check the "delete the original image" link which appears after uploading a file. The namespace in the log summary is wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Gettysburg East Cavalry Field3.png

Do you have an opinion on this image? It was copied to Commons under the same name per {{Do not upload Wikipedia thumbnails}}. However, more importantly, the first revision is {{PD-release}}, the second is {{cc-by-3.0}} and the third one is "Same license".

First, what does "Same license" mean? Same as the first upload, or same as the second upload? Do we have a clear licence for the third upload?

Secondly, if the first upload is more free than the second upload, is it really a good idea to keep the images under the same name, or should they split up so that reusers who need a more free file can find the PD one more easily? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done - the files are clearly different representations anyway, so I split them. Also, the third version's license is clearly referring to the second one's license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just home from deployment

Any particular area that needs attention? Otherwise I guess it's back to the grind of moving stuff over. :) Kelly ^hi! 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Stefan2 has been going through images on Wikipedia which shadow images on Commons, and he's found quite a lot that were poorly transferred. Some had thumbnails uploaded, others made minor modifications before upload, still yet others didn't make any changes but there's a new version on Wikipedia, and most didn't properly copy the information over from the file description page at Wikipedia. You can go through the NowCommons category, or you can view my quick and dirty version (updated daily) at tools:~magog/commons_images.htm. It would be a great help if you could clean those up and mark them for deletion; I've been doing the work but frankly I can only get so many. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And there are more of those to be tagged. The ones tagged today will appear in the "on Commons as of unknown date" category due to the deletion of {{subst:ncd}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at File talk:Meir Ariel.jpg.
Message added 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Origins 700.png

There is a file on Commons with the same name which is claimed to come from English Wikipedia. Are you able to see if the file is identical to any earlier revision of the current file? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

commons:File:Origins 700.png is identical to the first revision (2008-03-24 09:54:28 Slovenski Volk) of File:Origins 700.png (which has been lost on Wikipedia due to a bug). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you can tell that too by running old versions on it; see for yourself: [10]. Even when the file is lost, a lot of times the metadata is kept. The hash code for each image is right about 99% of the time (occasionally it will be wrong and will report the same hash code as the previous upload under the same name). Just make sure you don't purge the page or the information becomes lost. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that only the hash was kept. I thought that you might be able to see the other revisions using some administrator tool and then revdel some of them as F8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hi Magog! I'm not usually one to turn down a translation request, but I'm in a messy situation right now trying to find a job while working evenings full-time with overtime and no days off, and it's a really hectic schedule. As such, I'm on WikiBreak until further notice. Good luck finding someone who can do this! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Magog the Ogre. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Al-Ahbash. Thank you. -- McKhan (talk)

Channel lineups in Wikipedia

I was going to ask your permission about mass deletion requests on channel lineups, like List of channels on Sky and List of Dish Network channels (United States). However, I realize the amount of channel lineups is heavy. Therefore, I've discussed this in WP:village pump (policy). I need strategies and plans first. --George Ho (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and make a deletion request. I wasn't even aware you were under restriction for listing items at AFD! Anyway, you'll probably be quoting something like WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Whether you do it as a single deletion request or as multiple requests is your choice (people will probably criticize you no matter which of the two you choose; don't worry about it when they criticize you). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Revdel/source

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

Not sure where to ask, but maybe you could take a look at File:Straight.jpg? The old revisions by User:Devadasigyrl need to be deleted as F9. See upload summary for reason. Also, could you check if File:BmoreWashMon.jpg ever had a source? If not, then we have a problem with File:BmoreWashMon.JPG, File:Baltimore Washington Monument.jpg, File:Straight.jpg and File:Converted.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BmoreWashMon.jpg was uploaded by User:ScottyBoy900Q, and the only content of the page was 8 characters in length: {{GFDL}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Baltimore Washington Monument says that "I took this image". We have a source. I didn't notice this at first. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Heritage Bells.jpg

Got an opinion about this? High-resolution copy on Wikipedia is licensed as GFDL+CC. Low-resolution copy with the same name on Commons is licensed as GFDL+CC+FAL. Same uploader on both projects, so the choice of licences is valid. Should the high-resolution copy be merged with the low-resolution one, or should they be kept separated because of the different licensing? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I say copy the high resolution version to Commons, and change the licensing there to match English Wikipedia. BTW, it would make things a thousand times easier for me if you'd clean up the Commons image after OgreBot'ing it; you can use CommonsHelper, or the lazier, shittier version which is tools:~magog/fileinfo.php. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1a) I think very mechanically; I'm a computer programmer. As such, I prefer to do things en masse (think GIGO). NowCommons fits perfectly into that mold; I take a very brief look at the image description page by use of a tool I've written, and mark it for deletion. With my tool, I can probably do things 10x as fast as anyone else, and with better accuracy too. Probably 99% of my deletions are done with some sort of automatic tool.

1b) File namespace deletions, particularly NowCommons, is the primary work I do here. I also occasion other areas, but this work is my primary.

2a) I've written my tool to take away most of the tedium in deletions, so that problem has been fixed, at least for me (FYI I made the tool public at tools:~magog/commons_images.htm). I also proposed a change in the waiting time of WP:PUF from 14 to 7 days, which took away some of the tedium in that process. One thing I'm not fond of is haphazard way in which disputed fair use images are processed for deletion. Some of the time, people use {{subst:dfu}}, but some of the time they just use WP:FFD instead. Worse, the outcome heavily depends on who closes the discussion, so there is a lot of somewhat contradictory precedence.

2b) There was a proposal a while back which said something like "for NowCommons images, they will not be eligible for deletion until seven days after tagging, and unless the uploader has been informed." The idea was panned, and rightfully so, IMO. That would be a disaster.

3) It takes a particularly type of person to want to work with media in the first place - that person must be extremely familiar with copyright law, must have a close attention to detail, and must be willing to endure some tedium. That already disqualifies probably 90-95% of admins. Just look at my RfA coaching on media files before I was ready to take on deletion: User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3.

A suggestion: perhaps a how-to page should be created for all things media deletion related, or one just for NowCommons. I'd even be happy to start such a page.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll keep the how-to page in mind; feel free to make one yourself. More importantly, I'll try to think of ways to make RFA more friendly for technically minded people. I've had two people approach me in the last month about RFA and while I'm certain they would be great admins, they are so technically minded that I am certain they would fail for lack of content. Recognizing the need and ability of those types of people would seem to help get us more mass-action oriented admins. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not particularly strong on content, and I passed. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MCQ

Hello, Magog the Ogre.

Just wanted to give you a heads up about a discussion here in WP:MCQ which might interest you; it is about a disputed matter in which you were involved.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Chris Bambery.jpg

Thanks for fixing my mistagging on this image. That's what I get for trying to mix different flavors of copyright/non-free content review. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't get as many edits and log actions in the file space as I have without becoming quite familiar with the processes. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
Message added 14:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:1 K zone.png

Own work, noted it on the file's page. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted photo

I see that it was you who deleted a photo that I posted and then brand me a liar, demanding proof that I have rights. Aside from the fact that if you knew the subject matter you would know that I had written a book about it, and then you would know that the images are reproduced therein. Why are you and others constantly challenging my images. Some other self-important "editor" has deleted a whole slew of photos if paintings that I posted for the article. I own the copyright of the photos which I a my photographer take of paintings that I own and whose catalogue is under my supervision. It is hard to imagine a clearer entitlement. Yet sone person has arbitrarily removed them, just as you dud with photos of decorations that I own and photographed myself, making the respective articles far less interesting. What is the point of contributing when vandals then censor them? GuyStairSainty (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You ask if I ave proof. If you look at www.constantnanorder.org you will see that I hold one of the highest offices in the Order. Why do you accuse me f dishonesty in respect of decisions made about what can be published. The director of communications reports to me and all mages are under my authority. It really s incredibly rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStairSainty (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker comment:) GuyStairSainty, about the paintings, the thing is that we are not dealing with the copyright to your photographic work, but with the copyright of the original painter. Speaking of File:Federico B-M Joan Crawford.jpg (I don't know if all the others are the same situation, haven't checked them all yet), the painter Federico Beltrán Masses lived until 1949, so his works are still copyrighted, and since owning the copyrights and owning the physical object are not the same thing, we do need to ascertain that it's really you who is entitled to give out such a license. About the photo, I have no way of knowing what file you are referring to, can you please name the specific one? (Here's a list of all the ones you uploaded: [11]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Harlem map.png

You say "I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear," and have queued the file for deletion. In fact, the description already says "Drawn by Stern, 2006.", and has for the last six years. What additional information do you want? Uucp (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is Stern? Are you Stern? If not, then in fact a better message that I should have given is here: {{Di-no permission-notice}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Soccer football

Hello. When you get the chance, could you please respond to the anal comments I have made over at File talk:Soccer football.png. Thanks! Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:NFCN-Throwback-Uniform-CHI.PNG

I see that you tagged this as replaceable. Do you think that it is sufficiently similar to File:American football uniform template.PNG to qualify for {{cc-by-3.0}} + {{PD-ineligible}}? There's also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fma12 about similar images which might interest you. I didn't notice that there were more of them than the ones discussed in the deletion request on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It could go either way, whether the changes his the threshold. Based off the precautionary principle, it's better to just get the uploader to agree to cc-by-3.0. As for the other ones, feel free to nominate them for deletion too; I'm a bit busy otherwise on here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My plan was to wait until the Commons discussion ends. If that discussion closes as delete, then all images should go away as replaceable. However, I'm not sure about the threshold of originality here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Legobot's talk page.
Message added 08:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Legoktm (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

De-merging files

Hi!
I recently moved the file File:Indian Institute of Science - Electrical Engineering Department.jpg to Commons. But after moving i noticed that it's history has two more files. I hence tagged it for de-merging.
Now i am assuming that admins don't have any special tools to de-merge files. They would just be saving the old file separately under new name. But in such cases, when we save a file, how do we decide the license? And when i save the file, and set a free license to it, won't someone question me whether i really own it to set any kind of license?
In case there is any easier tool to de-merge files without saving on hard disk, please let me know. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For your information, I moved the other two images to Commons too. This was previously sourced as own work by the uploader, but this information was removed in September 2011. However, based on the EXIF, I think that it is safe to assume that all of the images are own works by the uploader, regardless of the date of upload. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! But whats EXIF? And i assume you did it manually. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

EXIF = EXIF. It's the information that you find in the "Metadata" section at the bottom of the page, indicating the camera model, date of photography and other things. I used WP:FTCG, which also allows you to transfer historical versions of a file. However, the tool won't provide you with historical versions of the file information page, so you need to be extra careful when transferring historical versions of a file so that you don't get the source, author, licence, date or description wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominating more channel lineups for deletion

Category:Lists of television channels by company

Template:List of Astro Channels

There are too many to list. Which ones must I nominate first? All or some, like Sky channel lineups and other Asian channel lineups? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, George, I'm not very knowledgeable about this area; I'd suggest asking another one of your mentors. Sorry; I just don't know the answer. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:520px-Provinces of South Korea Txt.PNG

Is this the same as File:Provinces of South Korea Txt.PNG? It says that the latter was deleted as I8, but it doesn't say what the file name on Commons is. Are you able to identify the filename somehow from the file information page? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It appears to be a naming mistake; it's now on Commons as File:Provinces of North Korea.PNG. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, too bad. The file name File:520px-Provinces of South Korea Txt.PNG sounds like a thumbnail for a Wikipedia file and I was hoping to find the full-size original.

Another thing: could you check File:Alpina Sherpa .JPG? It was deleted in 2008 following a PUF discussion but a new file was uploaded by the original uploader under the same name about a month later.[12] Are the images the same and should the file be deleted from Commons? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly the same; can't tell how similar, because the oldest version has been eaten to the WMF servers. Marked as NPD on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:SumatraPDF Logo.png

I'm just just starting to contribute to Wikipedia and Commons and I'm still learning about licensing habits on Commons and localized Wikipedias. You tagged the above image with {{KeepLocal}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Poland}}. Can you tell my why you think it should be kept local? Only for licensing reasons and if yes, can you explain me the meaning of the second tag?
In the program's source there's actually a file called AUTHORS, which clearly states the icon is licensed as GPLv2. Therefore I uploaded it to Commons with this license and thought it would be safe to substitute the file on the English Wikipedia with the file on Commons. Did I get something wrong here or was it just a misunderstanding because of the (possibly wrong?) license tag on the English Wikipedia? — Patrick87 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no you didn't. It's a bit complicated, but it has to do with the fact that a lot of licensed not explicitly licensed as free can be uploaded to Commons based on the threshold of originality doctrine. However, that doctrine changes by country, with some hardly applying it at all (like Austrlalia), and others applying it very leniently (like Germany). I had thought that this item wasn't licensed as free, and seeing as we are unaware of how Poland applies the threshold, I sought to make sure it wasn't moved to Commons. But since it's explicitly licensed as free, then it is OK. I'll go ahead and delete it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, You blocked me 2 days ago here unfairly, unfair because my first edit wasn't a revert IMO. but it's OK, I just want to explain why I came here now. I have problem with this user for a very long time. I know I couldn't discuss with him, that's why I didn't discuss this time. we had this discussion for the same subject back in February and I asked help in WP Football Project here, I thought it is not necessary to bring up the same subject again. OK maybe I was wrong.

this user can't understand English, you can't talk with him, I understand his language and I can but I don't want because he does personal attacks. once again I edited that page by addressing that old discussion and this time this user comes to my talk page and threatens me to revert all my edits unless Wikipedia blocks him. so you tell me what I have to do with this user ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't matter if you had three reverts or four, it's still edit warring, and it's still not acceptable. You had James say that on your talk page a few days ago. Secondly, you didn't bring any of this up in your AN3 post or your unblock request: this is all relevant information and should be included. Thirdly, please see WP:DR for dispute resolution methods. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's very hard for me to figure out who is being stubborn and who isn't if you haven't linked the original discussion for me. By all means do. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)