User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 28

Bot doing license migration stuff for GFDL files

Hey

The license migration for GFDL files is probably a never ending story. So my bot have been doing some checks on en-wiki and Commons for a while.

Your bot is also doing some stuff and I do not know if the bots do the same tasks or they assist eachother or they conflict.

Anyway since you are a much better programmer than me I was thinking that perhaps I should stop my bot and let your bot do all the work.

On en-wiki I have been doing some tasks (all in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates):

• Change {{Template:whatever}} to {{whatever}} to make the rest of the script easier
• Marking new files as not eligible date > 2009
• Marking as redundant if there is a cc-by-3.0, cc-by-sa-3.0 or a cc-by-sa-all
• Marking as ineligible
• If that did not fix it then mark it for manual review

On Commons I have been doing something similar but with some differences /all in Commons:Category:License migration candidates):

• First do a query to see if it is an old upload. If it is then mark it as review (licenses should not be changed so there could be a problem)
• Do some cleanup like (to make the rest of the scripts easier)
  • Change {{Template:whatever}} to {{whatever}}
  • Change {{kettős licenc}} to {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5}}
  • Change {{Гфдл}} to {{GFDL-sr}}
  • etc.
• Cleanup in files with {{Bild-GFDL-Neu}} and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}
• Cleanup in files with a {{GFDL-user-en}}
• Marking as redundant if there is a cc-by-3.0, cc-by-sa-3.0 or a cc-by-sa-all
• Marking files with an original upload log and an old date as not eligible
• Also marking {{ashipilin}} as not eligible
• Marking new files as not eligible (doing some exceptions in case something went wrong above)
• Trying to clean up if there is more than one GFDL license tag
• Getting a list of files where there is a cc-by-3.0, cc-by-sa-3.0 or a cc-by-sa-all and marking those for review (in case bot could not find the files before)
• Marking the rest for a manual review

I'm sure you could do this much more cool so it would be nice if your bot could take over. My bot sends to many files to the review category. --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Right now, my bot is definitely not fully redundant to your bot. Yes it copies a few functions but for the most part yours does a better job. Even though I'm a better programmer. (jk) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a few hours in school learning COMAL 80. So it is very limited what I have learned about programming. So mostly I do copy paste and "Oops that did not work. Lets try again." or "Oops that broke something. I didn't do that." :-D --MGA73 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make you a bad programmer, that makes you a good programmer. Plagiarizing snippets of code and tinkering with them until they work is how we make our living. (pedantic note: I don't actually recommend real plagiarism in any shape or form... it's a saying) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate file

Magog, you removed the ncd for File:ElectionMapPurpleCounty.jpg stating that it was in a different format, but it is a duplicate of File:ElectionMapPurpleCounty.png, except that it was uploaded as a png image with the jpg extension. Shouldn't it be deleted or "moved"/redirected to the title at File:ElectionMapPurpleCounty.png? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A file is only eligible for speedy deletion as a NowCommons duplicate if it is the same file format: see WP:CSD#F8. In all other cases, you should go through WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Oops World Tour Poster.jpg

Thanks for correcting. Pressed the wrong option by mistake.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright quirk

Hey, Magog. I saw that you recently declined this file, and I was wondering if we could talk about it, because GM claims copyright on it on their website (as well as all other photos being sold there), and the person who has been uploading the images has had a litany of issues with copyright. I was wondering that since he could have pulled it off of the internet (although it is also possible that he has a brochure), should we treat all instances of issues where he might be pulling them off websites as a possible copyright violation, or should we assume that he isn't blatantly lying to us. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. The best course of action, when there is doubt about a copyright claim for an image being pd-old, is to take it to WP:PUF. No permission is really for files where the uploader asserts to have received some form of permission from the original rights holder. But in the case of an image falling out of copyright due to a failure to comply with formalities, then there is no permission that can be, or needs to be given. Does that make sense? I believe these images have already been tagged once for PUF, but given that you have new evidence, there would be no problem at all taking it there again.

Hope that answers your question. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm generally very laid back about keeping things on this site, but I'm taking of an extremist hardline approach to these images, since a lot of what he put on the site that isn't his have been uploaded under various lies. I've taken more of the approach of "When in doubt, delete it," since he was that prolific, but I see your point here. At the same time, what he has uploaded have often fallen under more than one criteria, so I guess it all depends on what I feel would be the best criteria at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is an obvious copyright violation, you can just mark it as {{db-f9}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage license templates

Hi!

All free licensed files used on Wikivoyage should be uploaded to Commons and if some are uploaded to Wikivoyage they should be moved to Commons.

So only unfree files should be on Wikivoyage. And that leaves us with a question about which license templates to use for these files.

So far they have added a cc-by-sa-3.0 or a KeepLocal. I suggested to use some non-free templates like on Wikipedia. The reply was that the photos should have a license like cc-by-sa-3.0 because the photographer has the rights to his/her photo...

I suggested to use {{Photo of art}} or similar templates. That way we can tell that the photo is free but the building/statue/sign/whatever is not.

I would prefer that files with a {{Photo of non-free building|cc-by-sa-3.0}} does not end up in the same category as free files with a "cc-by-sa-3.0" so we either need some fancy code or else I should just accept that the files end up there.

So what should we create on Wikivoyage to cover all cases?

• "Photo of non-free building" (for buildings in countries that do not have FOP for buildings)
• "Photo of non-f art" (for statues, signs etc. in counties that do not have FOP)
• "Fair-use" (for logos and everything else that they might want to use)

--MGA73 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well we need to keep the license for the person who created the file for attribution purposes, unless it is PD-author (although we should keep it anyway). I haven't seen any fair use logos. I do not know what wikivoyage-wts plans to use for derivatives of non-free files, but Wikimedia policy says they must be in use on a Wikiproject. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it wts will be closed once all files are deleted. From now on all free files should be on Commons and only unfree on xx-wikivoyage. It would be nice if all free files were moved to Commons shortly after they were uploaded to wikivoyage so that they would not get used to have free files locally.

I hope they can clean up the files themselves if we help them by adding the license templates they need. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Example http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Template:Photo_of_art does it look ok? --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. In addition, I recommend we follow the new guidelines of FOP (*cough* that some of us have been talking about for years*/cough*): namely that if it is non-free in the US, it should be treated as non-free. While it's unclear how a US court would treat copyright renewal of a 3D-item which is subject to FOP in its home country, it seems the precautionary principle says we should treat all works erected post-1922 as eligible for restoration (rather than, say, all post-1977 works). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you... Yeah the unclear situation with FOP sucks :-( --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian flag icons

Your recent August 2012 deletion has caused problems with Canadian flags not displaying properly when uses with the various flag templates. See Template:Country data Canada for examples. Any idea why this is? Maybe you'd restore the images pending a fix? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I can surely fix it, but you'll have to tell me which deletion it is you're talking about. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It may have been a temporary problem. All flags on the linked template are now displaying properly, as ar presumably all other uses of those flags. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahbashism_campaign

You are more than welcome to help with Ahbashism_campaign as Baboon43 (talk · contribs) keep on pushing his Al-Ahbash POVs on all the Al-Ahbash related pages. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Please consider this process to get other participants: WP:RFC. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I have started the process but I admit that I have no experience with this process as this is the first time I am using this process. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

The RfC bot has removed the Template. Should you kindly look into that then I would be greatly thankful. Best regards, McKhan (talk)

If you need help with starting the RfC, please visit the help desk, as I am not an expert. Also, please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~), not three, so as to timestamp your posts. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind help. Let's see whether RfC helps or not. McKhan (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mckhan's Conduct

this user has a habit of personal attacks and continues to post my location even after i had told him to stop a few months ago.. [1] Baboon43 (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How does he know where you're from? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

probably from my ip during my early days of editing...other then that i didnt disclose any information to him so he's making assumptions Baboon43 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked him to stop. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never used these before, so here goes

My attempt to use those "You have a message" things failed, so I'll do it this way. I replied to you at my talk page.

PS, I posted that answer on Commons too.

Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea party movement probation

I notice you wrote the editnotice for Tea Party movement; was there a probation page created like at Sarah Palin here, or Men's rights movement here? Thanks in advance! KillerChihuahua 13:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, well I sort of just imposed it by fiat, because people kept edit warring over it, but then there was a discussion endorsing the probation on the community noticeboards. You should find it if you look in the AN/ANI history some time not so long after I created the probation page. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find such a page, and the sanctions entry just links to the editnotice. KillerChihuahua 01:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The main archived discussions are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive219#Sanctions on Tea Party movement and Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 12#Sanctions + full protection. Maybe my memory serves me wrong (I'm too tired to read the thread tonight). You can remove the sanctions if you want, but I'm not sure you'll want to deal with the massive edit warring, disruptive sockuppetry, us vs. them stupidity, etc. that will ensue. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed that I filed a massive arbitration request on this article. I don't want to remove the sanctions, I stronger sanctions. Thanks much for your time, I was just confirming that there was no probation page. KillerChihuahua 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally did. It is my opinion that, when an article becomes contentious, all edit warring sides should be permanently banned from the page. I bet such an approach would do more good than harm. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/George Ho

I created a request of editor review on me. Just to let you know. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Good move; I may add something at some point, if I can get my terrible motivation in line to do so. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

From the deep watch

Gee, regarding an arbitration case that I'm peripherally involved in, I see at the bottom of User:Jokestress/Sexology/Editing outside Sexology that I'm characterized by "[his] conduct has led to conflicts and blocks"

Well, it wouldn't be be "blocks" if there weren't at least two, and there are -- exactly two. One was by some poor credible and not-too-bright mook who was acting on 180° false information posted by a troll on Wikipedia Review (he was reprimanded by ArbCom for that and immediately left the Wikipedia), and the other was you, a couple of years ago. I'm sure you don't remember, but it wasn't justified IMO.

It's the gift that keeps on giving, I guess. Since I have to reminded of it forever, I thought I'd spread the joy around and remind you that I'm still mad about it. Objectively I know it's trivial, but still. (I wrote WP:HURTS after, too. I don't suppose anyone's read it, or maybe should.)

I'm not sure what all this means. It's a fast-moving website and admins have to act fast, and you're clearly an intelligent, thoughtful, and good administrator. So it's OK really. I don't want to discourage you or anything. I'm just sharing. I'm not sure what my point is.

They shouldn't have given us typewriters, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Who in the world are you and why are you on my talk page? (I kid, of course). I remember the block, and if my memory serves me right, you were clearly edit warring, but you were actually doing in the pursuit of a higher principle that was not self-serving of your POV (namely, you thought that version of the page ought to stay for technical reasons, and would have been willing to capitulate if the situation had been reversed). In essence, your intentions were good, even if the result was less than stellar. Unlike literally 99% of the edit warring blocks I've ever performed on Wikipedia, I genuinely regret having blocked you for this reason. Rather than a block, you probably should have gotten a real hard trout to the side of the head. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD

You may want to check out Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 5 for {{Images with no copyright tag subcategory starter}}. I know you didn't create it, but you're the only recent editor who's been at all active lately. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your mentorship with me

In the past years, I had very little interest in improving Wikipedia. In fact, I've hurt people more than I did not intend, and I was a fanatic deletionist. However, since I was unblocked with mentorship agreements, I thought I could do anything I want, but then I realize there is more to helping the cause than just stand there and do nothing except nominating for deletion. In fact, I have to reluctantly agree with terms, and so far I have interests in improving pages about topics more than just deleting material. Lately, I have requested renaming of Chandra Levy, and I created season pages, like Cheers (season 6), and improved Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal.

However, I haven't used User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions for half a year (or something like that) because I no longer have interest in recklessly requesting deletion on things that need a lot of improvement. Neverthless, I think that List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors must go. Lately, I've not been receiving replies. I would hope that the page is in your watchlist, isn't it? I wonder if you want to continue as my mentor. If not, then surely I can find your replacement if necessary.

Note: This post is intended for only active and semi-active people. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, George, of course it is on my watchlist. However, I will be honest with you, I spend almost no time on Wikipedia anymore doing anything but image maintenance; I don't really even read my watchlist much. Part of this comes with the fact that I spend quite a bit of time at work now - much more than I did before. So please don't take it personally - it's not that I am too lazy to help out, it's that I spend almost no time on Wikipedia doing anything except the quick stuff I know how to do well. Nonetheless, I will try to take a look at this shortly. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA _talk^edits 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Update a map for me please :-)

File:USBankfootprint.png is old. Assuming a city with at least one branch gets one dot, Albuquerque, N.M. should have one (it has at least two branches). Thanks! 67.164.156.42 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem updating the map! Unfortunately, I can't do it right away, because the lousy FDIC changed their bankfind page layout, and they don't provide an API that I know of. You should see it in a week or two! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks much. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Safesubst

Hello,

Following the change you made to {{A note}}, I went and read Help:Safesubst, and to be honest with you, I can't make head or tail of it. Could you explain what it does, maybe using that template as an example? It'd be good to know. Thanks! :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You use safesubst in a template so that the given parameter or subtemplate becomes substituted, the same as if it were subst. However, just throwing in subst in the template will cause the parameters as written in the template to be substituted in the template, rather than on the page as desired. So if I want to say {{#if:{{{1|}}}|one|zero}}, and want that to substitute but only when the user subst's the template, the easiest way to do it is with safesubst. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

I realize that this was a while back, but about 3 years ago, you apparently implemented a 1RR restriction on the Tea Party movement article.[2] This implementation of 1RR only applies to the same content. The standard definition of 1RR applies to any content on the page. Do you happen to remember why we're using a non-standard definition of 1RR on that page? This seems to be causing some confusion. Please see the following discussions:

• Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Evidence#A quick comment on goethean's evidence
• EW#1RR

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember for sure the exact reasons, but I do know how I think, and why I would have made such an arbitrary-sounding decision. It is almost certainly a combination of the following:

• 1RR not being placed on different content allows for greater leeway to follow the WP:BRD cycle. BRD is not a policy or guideline, but it is a very good rule of thumb for keeping edit warring parties in check.
• The disputes almost always centered around the same passages. Thus a 1RR restriction on the article would have done almost nothing to prevent additional edit warring, but it may have caused collateral damage in the form of people not being able to revert on a good faith basis.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Green Park Stadium Kanpur.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Green Park Stadium Kanpur.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Image source

Hi Michael. If you created this image, please indicate as much in the {{Information}} template and fix the licensing accordingly. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I created this image, but looking over the template for a minute or two I wasn't able to see how to do this. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done it for you.[3] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

License help

Hi Can you help to create a valid license of the material ? Ashishlohorung (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What material? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This, Fatalism_and_Development_by_Dor_Bahadur_Bista.jpg as you mentioned it has got false license. Ashishlohorung (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Thank you so much for all the hard work you've done over the years regarding transferring images to Wikimedia Commons and doing the legwork on making sure the sources and licenses are valid. I really appreciate your recent work on the Community Memory image I transfered to Commons, but it is just one of many, many things that I need to thank you for cleaning up or generally improving over the years. Thanks so much and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; it is appreciated. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

Dear Magog,

I am sorry for placing my message here but there is an issue with some new images and I would like to invite you to join a conversation about it on one page. SInce you moved some images from the same collection (based on an extensive procedure) to Wikimedia and since new images uploaded to Wikimedia are mostly taken by the same people and in the same situations, then there is no reason to believe that there would be an issue. Many of these images are from Flikr and that was approved by the person on them. I explained some things on the talk page and informed participants that there is no issue and that I will invite you because you are familiar with the old images mostly taken by the same people at the same time as those before. This is the link for the talk page: [4]. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.svg

Unless I misunderstand the map I think you jumped the gun here - the article you link to for your upload mentions only that a bill for decriminalization has passed two readings in one house of the legislature. To become law it would have to pass through the House, pass the Senate in identical form, and be signed by the Governor. Looks like this is all still up in the air. Hekerui (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, then you can revert it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

edit warring with no discussion

mckhan has been edit warring for a few days on a article & he refuses to discuss his changes to my input. summary [5] Baboon43..i see you had warned him about edit warring on his talk page a while back. Baboon43 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Tom thumb peter coopers iron horse 6092027.jpg

You tagged File:Tom thumb peter coopers iron horse 6092027.jpg for speedy deletion for having no source information (criterion F4), however it appears that there was both a source "Baltimore County Public Library" and a url given on the page when you tagged it, so unless I'm missing something it should not have been deleted?

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Tom thumb peter coopers iron horse 6092027.jpg, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

On Al-Ahbash, you recently reverted to a pre-dispute version, citing WP:PREFER. Did you mean to protect the article at the same time? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think he had this in mind as opposed to protecting the article. - SudoGhost 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've always seen WP:PREFER used in the context of a page protection, so I was wondering if maybe it got missed on accident. But that approach seems good to me, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You always saw it that way, because that's really the only way it's usually used. In my case, I was thinking outside the box and making up the rules as I went because I thought a block or protection would be unconstructive. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 11:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you help with two files?

File:ElectionMonthlyAverageGraphSpain2004.png should be deleted as a duplicate of File:Opinion polling monthly average leading up to the Spanish general election, 2004.png, but I'm having trouble using tools:~magog/oldver.php. The tool is timing out (or something) and doesn't seem to want to upload the old revisions. Also, the uploader uploaded a new revision after I moved the file to Commons, so Commons currently has the second most recent revision (so remember to ask the tool to include an updated original upload log). There seems to have been some general toolserver trouble lately, and it has sometimes been impossible to access toolserver pages (not just your pages but all pages), so I had to move an old revision of another file manually a few days ago. I'm not sure if the trouble I'm having today is related in some way.

File:ElectionMonthlyAverageGraphSpain2008.png should be deleted as a duplicate of File:Opinion polling monthly average leading up to the Spanish general election, 2008.png and it is currently correct, but the uploader uploaded a new revision after moving the file to Commons (which I managed to copy using oldver.php), and I don't know whether any additional revisions might be uploaded before the file is deleted as F8. Please check the revisions carefully. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Done - yeah the Toolserver was being a pain. I'm trying to migrate my tool to Labs but I haven't a clue how long it will take. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

bombing removed picture

• File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg

not sure what is wrong with ownership of this picture i drew it directly from the parent article Boston Marathon bombings where it still exists even today - can you please tell me the difference on my talk page thanks--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 19#File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

yes i see the discussion by why is the parent article exempt?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the image was mostly decorational in 2013 in the United States; it did not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It did in those other articles. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to explain--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing the tough cases

Thanks for stepping in and closing the Bombing Suspects discussion. I argued the other side of the issue, but I know it was a tricky and contentious case. Wikipedia benefits tremendously from experienced editors stepping in in tough cases and explaining the reasoning behind the decisions. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Magog, thanks very much for your well thought out reasoning. Can you please take a look at the NFUR on the file page – is it adequate? Thanks again, Grollτech (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I closed three of them! Which one are you talking about, Grolltech? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

oops! File:Two_suspects_wanted_by_the_FBI_for_the_bombing.jpg Grollτech (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good but it needs another rationale for Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi. Fair use files need a separate rationale for each new article they're used on. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not convinced it's necessary (or even justifiable) on that article, so I'll let another editor try to justify it... Thanks again! Grollτech (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Query for you. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Unipol Tower 1.jpg

Could you undo your deletion of this image? The building is from 2012, so the architect hasn't been dead for 70 years yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Already done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OgreBot image replace

Replacing a commons image with another one. Why? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 08:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

[6] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

tools:~magog/oldver.php

Your tool doesn't seem to support Meta. Would it be possible to add support for that? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 17

You closed the discussion on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 17#File:Flowersign.jpg saying that there was reasonable permission from the author of the original work. Are you going to close all the other discussions that relate to the same author on that day's list? If you're busy was your decision based on the discussion on the same page on File.Embed1.jpg? If so, I'll use that as a rationale to close them all as keep. NtheP (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My decision was based on the fact that the uploader gave a compelling explanation: that the artwork creator himself uploaded the content to Flickr. We don't generally require special permission for Flickr, so that seems good enough for me. Also, see this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flowersign.jpg. I didn't close the other images because I lack the reading speed, patience, and time to do so. I recommend closing others by the same artist as keep. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll take care of the others. NtheP (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Check transfer 2 commons

I am not sure if this file was correctly transferred to commons. The video seems broken, so could you please upload the version from here (en) to commons again? --McZusatz (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The file on Wikipedia is bit-for-bit identical to the version on Commons, and suffers the same encoding problems. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thx anyway. --McZusatz (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Diako1971

Hi Magog. This user's last couple of messages (including an unblock request) seem to me to indicate that it would be safe to let him back into the fold - if you agree, I'll be happy to lift the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Nfur not needed

A tag has been placed on Template:Nfur not needed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Tragets template not used in a useful manner

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

License dispute in File:Microsoft-Office-2013-lineup.svg

Hello, Magog

I spotted this rather controversial edit in File:Microsoft-Office-2013-lineup.svg, which is not only a stealthy revert of your previous edit, it is a controversial one that at the very least should not have been marked as minor.

I have no comment on who is right and who is wrong here at this time, but I noticed that you did not take any action on Commons side.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for Samesex marriage in USA.svɢ should SCOTUS decide H.v Perry on standing

I have made a proposal regarding the stripping of California, should the court reject Perry on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal, in which case, as I understand it, there could be much legal‐wrangling in California courts, and in the halls of Sacramento, over whether Judge Walker’s District Court ruling should apply statewide. I would much appreciate your comments on my proposal on the talkpage of Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. ― many thanks, Info por favor (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi. What's the point of the WP:HITLER shortcut and reference in the last line ("In short, if you're in a content dispute with someone...worse than Hitler...") at Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals? The way it reads to me is that you are saying "don't think this way", a point which is already made clear by the rest of the article. Hitler doesn't seem to be related, other than being an example of an ad-hominem attack, which isn't necessary to make the point of the article (and has been mis-understood, somewhat understandably, by someone to whom it was directed, to be calling them Hitler). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I created the redirect because it was a clever (IMO) way of remembering the essay. When arguments devolve into the realm of poor reasoning, personal attacks, etc., there is bound to be a reference to Hitler. In retrospect, it is kind of a stupid redirect; it would have been better suited to an essay on personal attacks. Do what you'd like with it; nominate it at RFD; but if you do, you might want to update the redirects. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If I were you, I'd call it WP:SUZY. It's as easy to remember. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It really only has had a handful of references to it by that shortcut (many by you) and almost all of them in talk pages, so I doubt an RFC will get any attention. As such, I think I will just remove the shortcut, the redirect, and the last line of the article, and fix the more permanent mentions of the shortcut. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wow, that was quick. There was only one non-talk reference (Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Civility). I guess I don't have the ability to delete it, so I did create an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 21 § Wikipedia:HITLER. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@CL: I see you re-added two ELs to articles about arguments that degenerate into someone being compared to Hitler. Why focus on this particular ad hominem attack? Every day, many such attacks occur on WP and elsewhere, and I'm sure the vast majority of them do not include a comparison to Hitler. Do we really need that particular example, a name which is disturbing on the face of it to so many people (including me, which is why it got my attention)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. I didn't know you don't like the link itself. I was acting on the guideline that "See also" section is to broaden the coverage. Godwin's law, IMHO, was abused in the essay but I think a "See also" link to it is neither more nor less ad hominem (= personal attack) than the rest of the links in that section. (Or wait a second, is "Godwin's law" as confrontational as "Don't be a dick?")

If you feel horribly uncomfortable with them, I think I can cope with you removing them. But in the end, I think as long as we do not use direct comment on contributors ourselves, none (including ourselves) can hold us responsible for others using them or others being encouraged to use them. Because frankly, personal attacks were invented before we were ever born.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that there are many, many things that people are called every day and Hitler is maybe a tiny percentage of them. I see no reason to pick that particular insult for broadened coverage, particularly because of it's inflammatory nature, which far outweighs any exemplary value it provides. I think the article is clear as it stands – this is stuff people are supposed to learn in grade school. If we really need broader coverage, a link to something more comprehensive would be more appropriate. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please move further discussion to the TFD page or to Wikipedia talk:HITLER. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I should have started it there to begin with. Sorry. I'll copy the discussion over there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SCAS Logo 2006.svg

Hi Magog the Ogre,

the deletion request on the file above should be perfectly fine.

• File:SCAS Logo 2006.svg is no real SVG but only a PNG embedded in an SVG (probably to avoid automatic down-sampling which is automatically done by a bot for non-free media).
• File:SCAS Logo.png is exactly this PNG image extracted from the SVG.

Therefore it is an exact copy of the original file and it is the same file format (only extracted from the useless "container"). It therefore satisfies CSD F8 (which asks for same file format but not same file extension if you're afraid of somebody nitpicking). --Patrick87 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Deleted Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for IP Block Exempt

I have just request for IP block exempt at my talk page and I would be very grateful if you can set aside some time and take a look at it. Thank you. --William915(discuss with me) 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --William915(discuss with me) 14:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. See WP:ANI#IP block-exempt request. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! What the hell? It was flagged with the template for <don't delete despite copy on commons.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=File:Jerry_Rosenberg_1424049c.jpg

What the hell? It was flagged with the template for <don't delete despite copy on commons.> undel, please. Inappropriate deletion, period. And way the hell out of process if intentional. --Elvey (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the image was no longer tagged as keep local, because someone removed it. I have blocked said someone for disruptive editing. I apologize for the inconvenience. That said, saying "what the hell" and that I'm "way the hell out of process" (with a tiny note about if it was intentional) is far too personal, and borderline offensive. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it got personal. Struck. I had no way to tell. Thanks again. Thanks to Quadell too. BTW, your 'someone removed it' link doesn't work. The log of the deletion by Ed veg didn't get restored/made visible.

I'm glad that at least my criticism was of the actions, not the persons involved. So you could have read it as me saying the overall deletion procedure was "way the hell out of process", even though your role in that was exemplary and not at all "out of process". But yeah, criticism accepted and appreciated. --Elvey (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason my link no longer works is because Quadell deleted it since I wrote the text. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see - you restored 35 versions, then Quadell (talk · contribs) restored just 34, I guess so that the keep local tag would be in the current version.--Elvey (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. The image was tagged for deletion as a Commons duplicate, so I deleted it... but the note on the talk page made me realize that the issue was not simple. After I figured out what was going on, I restored all versions but the last, so that the description would show the last valid message. Perhaps it would be a better process for me to restore all versions when I undelete an image, and then revert the latest edit if needed, so that non-admins can see exactly what happened. I'll do that in the future. Sorry for any confusion, and I'm glad it turned out alright in the end. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

another broken image

Hi, it's me again. File:NorthwestSavings footprint.png seems also broken at commons. Could you please check if the original version (on en.wiki) is not broken? --McZusatz (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Looks like the bot malfunctioned when transferring it over the first time. Feel free to contact me any time you see a problem; it's appreciated. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:BBC.svg

Hi, according to the logs you deleted File:BBC.svg. Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30 it should have a local copy. Did I miss something? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The file was kept on Commons per Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BBC.svg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

A pity you've put images up for deletion which were genuinely sent to me by email after I requested them. Obviously now I can't remember where I asked or found them so wikipedia loses valuable images just for the sake of OTRS.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Equally a pity that you couldn't be bothered to forward the permission to OTRS in the first place, let alone keep a copy of the permission. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for keeping File:The Yellow Card.jpg. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I see they're still debating about whether or not to keep this file at NFCC. Can they do this after it's been "kept"? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally, no. In this case, yes. You'll notice in my closure of the discussion, I said that they could bring it to the noticeboard because the nature of the discussion was now different than it was before. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the change in the discussion last time I checked but I will return there today. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-India}}

Hi Magog! I note that in 2010 you added to {{PD-India}}: "In case of the text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports, these are free from copyright." However, I'm not sure that that's true; the Handbook of Copyright Law to which the template links seems to indicate that the government is the first owner of copyright in government works, and a simple reading of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 says that:

• The government holds the copyright for sixty years, and
• "No Act of a Legislature can be reproduced or published without any commentary thereon or any other original matter. Even so, no such reproduction or publication should give the impression that the same is an official version, or that it has been done under the directions or authority of the Government of India, or that the Government of India is responsible for the accuracy of the text of the Act."

So to me it looks like Indian governmental works' copyright is incompatible with even CC-BY-SA, but I wanted to check this with you before removing the language from the template, in case you knew something I didn't. Thanks! — madman 17:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I just copied the text from {{PD-India}}. You should probably bring up your concerns at commons:COM:VPC. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the PD-India rules are awfully messy. There are several pages on Wikipedia and Commons which describe the copyright terms but they contradict each other. Also, if you try the language links at the bottom of {{PD-India}}, then you'll find that the template indicates different terms in different languages. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletions

I believe that File:Khoekhoe ǁnau.png and File:Khoekhoe words ǂae ǂʔui.png had 'keep local' tags. Could you restore them, so when someone goes deletion-happy on Commons we won't lose the files? Thanks! — kwami (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Y Done [7] [8]. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:1889 Bridegrooms.png

Could you check what's wrong here? You deleted this as F8, but then it was deleted on Commons due to lack of essential information. I assume that you checked that all essential information was available before deleting it as F8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

commons:User talk:Hedwig in Washington#File:1889 Bridegrooms.png. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Upstairs/Downstairs

I plan to nominate it for deletion on grounds of failing WP:Notability and WP:NM. I tried searching for reliable sources, but found none except one. Also, I don't think I need to discuss a need to improve the article, do I? I also want to nominate other works by The Ergs! for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you made a good faith effort to establish notability, and couldn't. I suggest nominating all of the Ergs! songs and/or albums that you want to nominate in one nomination. That should not be a problem. If anyone complains, let me know and I'll try to sort it out. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Album titled after Chor Lau-heung (1979 TV series)

Should I split the "partial soundtrack" section? Does the album meet WP:NM, even if it might fail WP:N? --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Try asking at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't; many voted to close the noticeboard down in WP:VPPR. Therefore, going there is pointless. --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't closed down yet. You still might find some use of it, even if it does close. Give it a try; we'll go with something else if it doesn't work. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Requested move September 2013

Some guys think my rename requests have gotten more ridiculous, like this. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he's quick on the ad hominems, and short on substance. I suggest you ignore him unless he gives you something concrete. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Studentwiki5784

I accused this user of using another account without verifying oneself as the same person. Shall I file WP:SPI or WP:ANI? --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks likely to me that it was not malicious sockpuppetry, so I'd say neither. It was probably either a) the person forgot the username or password to their first account, or b) the person told a friend about the article, and that friend decided to edit.

Almost all malicious sockpuppetry falls into one of two categories: a) it is someone pretending to be separate people when they're not, or b) it is someone trying using lots of accounts so they don't have to worry about warnings or blocks. If it falls into neither category, then it's usually OK. (If you want the list of rarer cases when it's not OK, it's here: WP:ILLEGIT.) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Restrict my move requests?

People, like Begoon, Binksternet, IndianaBio, and JHunterJ, think I should minimize my move requests from now on. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Are they all telling you that in the same place? If so, can you point me to where it is? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

talk:Madonna (entertainer) and Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album). But JHunterJ wasn't involved in either. There are more. Actually, I just implied; they put negative views on my rationales and deem them as a waste of time. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Try asking them specifically what they want you to change. You might want to explain that you aren't being purposefully dense, but that you need things explained very explicitly. Keep in mind, they might get angry or not answer your question, because sometimes people behave irrationally. Let me know how it goes. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi expresses negative perspective on my using the "question mark" in Talk:Belinda (entertainer) and Talk:Madonna (entertainer) and recommends that I must prepare. But I don't have to prepare, right? I thought I am always prepared, but I get scolded for lacking preparations, like sources and statistics. But preparing is a waste of time because researching is too excessive. If research is necessary, others can do them for me. Why inserting all research into less convenient templates? --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this talk about a question mark. Can you clarify what In inctu oculi is saying you did wrong with it? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

He says that I should prepare more and propose one title rather than make alternative titles possible, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like he might have a good point. When you propose a move, try to come up with one specific names where you think the page should be moved to before making the request. If you need to make an occasional exception because you're unsure, maybe come up with two or three names at most. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)