Jump to content

User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Barnstar!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for taking a stand against vandalism and edit blocking User:Mindbunny. THANK YOU!!‎ Bped1985 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome? I would be remiss not to point out it's not actually vandalism (see WP:VAND#NOT and WP:Hitler); it's inappropriate edit warring. But yes, you're welcome! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alas I didn't have a barnstar at the ready for that one. So you got an Anti-Vandalism barnstar :D. Speaking of which, thats quite the war going on at Mindbunny's talk page. And I kind of want to know if I had done everything right? I was one of the RC patrollers he speaks so highly of. I joined in kind of late in the game so didn't really engage in the full-out edit war. Thanks!

No; frankly you didn't do everything right. Page or section blanking is only vandalism when it's done with the sole malicious intent to harm the page. An editor who is trying to improve a page should not be ever be warned for vandalism or auto-reverted. When I run Huggle or a similar tool, I always check page blankings with the following:
  • Did the user provide a coherent edit summary? If so, no reversion.
  • Did the user provide an explanation on the talk page? If so, no reversion.
  • Is this one of the user's first few edits? If not, I'll check out the page history and the editor's history really carefully before reverting and warning.
Hope that answers your question! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well now I know! Thank you! Bped1985 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

I am trying to understand SL copy right laws. From my understanding This is usable in Wikipedia. Is my understanding correct ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because the clocktower was constructed in 1915, it is {{PD-Sri Lanka}}. If it had constructed within the previous 50 years (for pseudoanonymous/anonymous works) or within 50 years of the death of the author, then the image would have to be deleted on commons as a violation of the artwork (i.e., the building). However, in the US we don't recognize freedom of panorama on buildings, so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia. That's my take, but I might have missed something; I suggest opening a thread on commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

so I think it could be held on English Wikipedia for fair use but not in commons. Now I understand. Kanatonian (talk)

No, it could be free use, because English Wikipedia pays attention only to US law (e.g., {{PD-USonly}}, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), and US law wouldn't recognize a claim of the building owner over the photo. Like I said, though, IANAL so I'm not entirely sure on that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what do I have to do to this file to make it legit ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Prove that a) there is a known author, and all known authors of the work died 50+ years ago, or b) there isn't a known author and/or it was pseudonymous, and it was put in the public square 50 years ago or c) prove it is substantially the same as an older work (i.e., there was no creativity put into it) or d) get an OTRS ticket from the city or whoever owns the copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK but from my understading is that that is needed only in Commons but in English Wikipedia we do not recognize freedom of panorama. This is a Wikipedia file not the commons one. Kanatonian (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, the same file is up for deletion on commons. You would have to show that file is applicable for fair use, which it would be IMHO if there was text describing the statue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mfwitten and ActuallyRationalThought

Hi Magog, not sure what you were trying to do with Mfwitten (talk · contribs), but it wasn't the right thing. Wikipedia:Block#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_username_change only applies if the user has retired one username and started editing under a different name under Wikipedia:Clean start. It's not used for tagging socks - that's what sock templates are for. If you ever have occasion to use it for an editor that has made a clean start, you must not record the old username in the block log entry. In this case, it's made worse because it now seems unlikely that Mfwitten is connected to ActuallyRationalThinker - the CU evidence is more equivocal than appeared at first sight, and there's no behavioural tie up at all.

This means that there's no evidence of ActuallyRationalThinker operating socks, so I have had to unblock him - although I've warned him that it's not a free pass if he keeps up the aggressive editing. Incidentally, you need to be careful about this good hand/bad hand thing. If a disruptive editor keeps well behaved personae to argue on his behalf, or carry out more subtle disruptions, that's good hand/bad hand. If an editor creates an alternate account to edit in a different area, say to edit on a topic he'd rather not associate his main account with, that's a legitimate use of an alternate account, and only becomes an issue if one of the accounts gets blocked for something else. At that point, he should treat both accounts as blocked, and must not use one account to lobby on behalf of the other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out that I had two CU's confirm this, and I specifically asked a CU to perform it, but received a response indicating that it would be better for me to do it. There was no clean start here - the CU was quite clear it was illegitimate socking. If you have a request, fine, but please don't tell me what I must and mustn't do; it's not your right. If you want to have a talk with the other checkusers about interpreting data wrong and giving false signals, maybe you should do that instead. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that post of mine was inappropriate. I didn't mean to talk to you so harshly; it was wrong (I signed at the wrong time too; I should not sign in when in a grouchy mood). I reserve my frustration over the affair, however. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I'm telling you what the policy says, because if you don't get it right, someone is going to drag you before Arbcom and ask that you be desysopped.

Even if the ART and Mfwitten accounts are connected, Mfwitten is not a cleanstart of ART. Apart from anything else the Mfwitten account has been around longer than the ART account. Think about it. Therefore there is no way the policy can apply to them. I share your frustration with checkusers, but even if they had been 100% bang on right and Mfwitten had been caught red handed, it would still have been against policy to mark the blocklog in the way that you did.

I am concerned that you still haven't grasped what the policy says.

  • Marking someone's block log is only to be used where there is a cleanstart. It is not to be used for socks.
  • When it is used to show that a cleanstart account had a previous block log, you must not mention the name of the old account in the blocklog tag. You can notify Arbcom and they will record the two names if necessary. Think about it - if the person abandoned the old account because someone had identified their real identity, if you tie the two accounts up, you have outed them Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I grasp it quite fine. This was a case of a good hand band hand account, as even the other checkusers agreed. That is absolutely not a legitimate use of a sock. As far as I'm concerned, Mfwitten could have been blocked for 24 hours for this offense alone. However, I chose not to use this route. Someone cannot get away with using a bad hand sock and not have it notated in his block history - nope nope nope, it doesn't work that way. And if it does, then it's a poorly-written rule, and ignoring it should cause no problems, save with the accused. I cannot imagine ArbCom would be unhappy with an administrator for ignoring a rule (per policy) that allows a perpetrator of illegal sockpuppetry to get away without a punishment. Think about that - a clean start account would get a notation in the block log, but an illegal sock account shouldn't have a notation at all?
If it had been a clean start account, I would have proceeded as such. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, you don't grasp it at all. There is simply no policy which allows you to do what you did with respect to the block log. None. Nada. Admins are required to adhere to policy in this kind of action which leaves a permanent record, and your continued refusal to recognise this is deeply concerning. If you want to indicate that one account is a sock of another, use sock tags on the talk and userpages. Don't mark the block log like this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Mfwitten hasn't done anything wrong. The SPI was because it was thought ART and Drealgrin were the same person, editing the same article at the same time, to votestack. Mfwitten has never edited any article on male genitalia ever. What on earth offence has he committed that would warrant any kind of a block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I have to second Elen's opinion here. Whether this is something that should be changed is another matter, but right now the wording is fairly unambiguous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I grasp it quite fine - that policy is written for legitimate sockpuppetry. This was illegitimate sockpuppetry. How hard is this to grasp guys? The policy is only written for legitimate sockpuppetry. Of course you know he (allegedly) did nothing wrong - but I was told he likely did. If a checkuser comes up for positive, I will not allow a user to get away with illegitimate sockpuppetry. If need be, i'll just throw down a 24 hour block in the future at which point I'll put a notation in the block log (apparently you'd rather I give a block than just notate an account). If you don't like it, I'll ignore the damned thing because it's a shitty rule, so you can drag me to arbcom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
And again, what an obnoxious statement: "aditionally he hasn't done anything wrong": as if I knew that from the checkuser. I cannot understand why you seem to think this should come into account - unless from henceforth I am to ignore checkusers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, the policy isn't written for sockpuppetry at all. when you cleanstart you RETIRE one account and edit with a different one. That ISN'T SOCKPUPPETRY. In addition, operating two accounts, even if you don't acknowledge them, ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES. You weren't told he likely did anything wrong, you were told he was likely the same editor. That ISN'T THE SAME THING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen has a point here Magog, and I'm pretty confused as to why you did this. You meant well, no doubt about it, but in future if you do not understand the process clearly, please don't carry out irreversible actions. You've been lambasted enough though, so I think we can put this to rest. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:GHBH. To borrow your capitalized text, that is AGAINST THE RULES. Against. Punishable. Not kosher. Unclean. Bad. For chrissake how many times do I have to say that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain why you think this is a case of good hand/bad hand - noone else seems to be seeing that in these two accounts. Shell babelfish 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Shell. Throwing around essentially racist allegations for long enough to get you blocked for almost a month? Giving half-hearted apologies that were weak enough that the unblock request was denied three times before only one admin finally assumes good faith anyway (an act which frankly went against consensus and is bad enough it's nearly led to the admin's recall - see here). I didn't oppose the unblock, but I certainly don't think that race baiting and making 6 reverts in 48 hours is anything but a bad hand account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely understandable and two checkusers did initially state that it was likely the accounts were the same person, however, after further review by some more experienced checkusers, it appears that those initial responses may have been incorrect. The initial responses were based on technical evidence only and on looking at the whole picture, it seems unlikely that the same person is behind both accounts.

Anyways, I think the initial point here was that block logs shouldn't be used for making notations and there are a variety of sockpuppet templates for user/usertalk pages that are used for this particular purpose. Have you had a chance to take a look at those and see how they're usually used? Shell babelfish 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but what you're proposing is placing the {{sockpuppeteer}} template on his userpage and then locking the userpage (just as harsh) or allowing him to remove it (rendering it useless). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not proposing it actually, it's listed in the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Blocking_and_tagging with some other guidelines. Usually locking the page isn't necessary, but it's not a bad idea to watchlist the page just in case (probably good practice for any block really). Shell babelfish 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, standard practice for socks is to block socks indef and either warn master or block master for a relatively short period of time (1~2 weeks seems to be the popular choice) on a first offense; second offense or serious socking violations are generally indeffed for all accounts. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

IPs

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Egg Centric's talk page.
Message added 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yo

Just to be clear, did you misunderstand me or not when it came to those edits? Don't want to be doing anything wrong. Egg Centric (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok cool. BTW where I went to uni there were very nearby the gog magog hills... you didn't do the same by any chance? Egg Centric (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the more immediate reference is Gog and Magog. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Do ya see yourself more as a gog or a magog? Magog one assumes ;) 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see myself more as an ogre! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

*Runs away* Egg Centric (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate images to be deleted

I see you've eliminated some duplicates of images I've submitted to the commons. That's good, but there are still others I'm waiting for. These include five in Category:Images of Orange County, New York, four in Category:Images of Rockland County, New York, one in Category:Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District images, two in Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana, and one in Category:Images of Valparaiso, Indiana, and perhaps some I can't think of right now. Can you delete these soon? ----DanTD (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A matter of bad timing - I only got the ones tagged up to a certain time of day (around when I signed off). I'll get the others now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh actually it was because I was only clearing out images with a different name on commons. I'll clear out the ones with the same name though. `Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Following up on LAEC's enemy list

Since you were involved on at least two levels, I'd like to ask why LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is allowed to keep an enemies list at "Anti-LAEC anon editors"-- specifically, listing my name without further justification. I have asked him to remove my name [1] but he refuses, rejects request to provide diffs, and repeats old arguments. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am rather exasperated by the whole affair, which is just more arguing about arguing. I suggest you just ignore him, as he's blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I won't bother you again about it. I'll just ask another admin for some advice on how to proceed since I don't think it's fair to allow the list to stand. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we archived it, would you still be mad? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the list. It's not so much that I was mad or offended -- I can disagree with an editor without taking it personally. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I was wondering whether you would be willing to create a map for the footprint of Planned Parenthood health center locations.. I think it would be a very good addition to the article under facilities, what do you think? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get on that ASAP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. If you get a chance, I think it would also be very interesting to have a footprint of the two major CPC chains for the crisis pregnancy center article but I'm not sure how much time making the maps take so I'm loath to ask for more. :) WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I'm not going to lie, I like creating the maps, but I think that PP, despite doing some good work, is a very sleazy organization, so I too am loathe to create the map for them. As for the crisis pregnancy centers, I would need some sort of way of identifying where they are, like a list of plants or something. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, please do not feel obligated to make a map. I think it would be a nice addition to the article but if you are not comfortable I would hate to impose. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you though, I am a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood and their work and think that the anti-abortion groups attacking them are much more sleazy. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me why this was deleted? --Rskp (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you about this. Just been checking my download log and now see the file name has been changed. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you help with an image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Bellgrove_rail_crash

The image for this page was apparently deleted, is there a way to track down who deleted it so it can be discussed.

Thanks--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done I've undeleted it for you; but it'll need to have a fair use rationale added within one week. The link is here: File:Glasgow-Bellgrove-crash-1989.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
YesY Done Actually I just went right ahead and put the rationale on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks!--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File talk page

Hi Magog-- Just to explain what User:Valfontis recently told you in an edit summary, regarding what's been going on here, the blanking was not vandalism on my part (I would never do that). Rather, it was cleanup of {{WikiProject Oregon}} on Wikipedia file talk pages corresponding to images on Commons that I was told to do here. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I don't know if it was your intention, but your changes broke some transclusions, like here. Notice the {{{1}}} after the icon. Just FYI. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed I must just have been that stupidly distracted this morning. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the problems at ANI

Thanx We all want the headache to be reduced The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WikiManOne

You need to be aware of this post by WMO. I deleted as an NPA, but this was after he started editing after he came back from his 48 hour block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor WMO, he just can't quit digging. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I have emailed his mentor, User:Kubigula, but WMO hasn't been responding to his emails, so I am not sure what good Kubigula can do at this point. I am beginning to think that WMO is a lost cause. He doesn't seem to be responding to mentoring or admins telling him to back off, blocks don't seem to be giving him the "slap up side the head" to get him back on track. I really don't know what more we can do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ChuShogiPromotions.png

This is a screenshot of a freeware game program, as was File:ChuShogiBrd.gif before it was deleted. (I've restored it for now.) They do not compromise the integrity of the software, and wouldn't make any difference even if it were for profit. Are such things really not allowed any more? — kwami (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what the license of the freeware is. A lot of freeware pre-2000 didn't explicitly choose a license for itself. What happens is this: any creative work at all is automatically put into copyright by the owners, even if the owners don't claim their rights or put a copyright symbol anywhere. So, on all Wikimedia projects, what we need is an explicit declaration by the makers of the software that is compatible with GFDL/CC-BY-SA. That includes a declaration that the software (or, should it specify, any images of the software), can be reused by anybody (it can't be limited to non-commercial or educational usage), and anybody can make derivative works thereof. I couldn't find anything on the website; maybe if you still have the software you can reproduce the license from your hard drive? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I even have that hard drive any more. I'll take a look. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Abrar Husain.jpg

Dear Magog, I had indicated the source of the 'File:Abrar Husain.jpg' as Abid Husain, when I first uploaded the file. Mr. Abid Husain is the son of the late Major General Abrar Husain and the owner of the painting. The digital copy of the painting was provided to me by him on my request as I am the Regimental Historian and Archivist of the Baloch Regiment to which the late General belonged. As such, I have full authority to release the image in public domain. Furthermore, the picture was uploaded with Mr. Abid Husain's knowledge and permission, when I created the page 'Abrar Husain'. I have now added the information on file's description page. I hope that would meet your requirements. Regards, Beloochee (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011. (UTC)

Yes, that's quite helpful. If there are any other problems I'll let you know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bobthefish2

It appears numerous editors found User:Bobthefish2 to be disruptive and an offender of WP:CIVIL. If he proves to be a menace to the Senkaku Islands article, my position is that we would certainly benefit from his removal from the page as per User:John Smith's suggestion. Since you have some past experiences with the Senkaku Islands issues, you may be interested in the recently opened RFC on his misbehaviour. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI that is a Wikiquette alert; WP:RFC is a different process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What? WP has such a convoluted system.

By the way, I do appreciate your response. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't expecting you to speak in my favour. I just thought I'd like to give the accuser the best shot at what he wants to accomplish before making my own move. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

Re: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2

In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.

I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance.

This makes me sad. I didn't understand.--Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're posting here. Are you asking something or informing me of something? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Stuck: My words at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute are vulnerable to derision; and if I had tried to contribute in the Wikiquette thread, my words would have been subjected to a kind of "spin" I don't understand.

In this context of regret for what I have not done, the focal point shifts away from me and my words to WP:BAITING and to what can be done to mitigate our problem. This mildly-phrased, open-ended optional comment seems to be the least I can do. --Tenmei (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Basically, he considered my reference of that Gibraltar example to be baiting and started complaining about it. I told him to quit it and he came to you to complain. If telling people to stop is considered a violation, then you guys can open an ANI on me and get this over with. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright; thanks for your comment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Consider this: Wikiquote explains here that the following is misattributed --

  • I am only one, but I am one.
  • I can not do everything, but I can do something.
  • I must not fail to do the something that I can do.

I learned these word as a Helen Keller quotation, and I think of her each time I read them.

It is very small, but I can say "no."

No -- my intended objective of "zero tolerance" for WP:BAITING requires that I rebut Bobthefish2's marginalizing words above.

I don't have to be a Nobel laureate in literature to explain that mentioning Gibralter was "poking", baiting, "in your face". At the same time, I acknowledge that Bobthefish2 is much better at wiki-victim/blame games than I understand. I admit that I don't handle this well enough, but silence only causes the problem to grow. I tried to understand as John Smith's exchanges with Bobthefish2 developed since October. These are lessons learned the hard way.

FACT: Bobthefish2 is a Canadian with a sufficiently sophisticated grasp of English that he can argue here about differences in American and British English language usage in Canada.
FACT: In the context Bobthefish2 alone is responsible for creating, Gibralter has one and only one function in any thread at Senkaku Islands dispute; and -- bluntly, harshly, indisputably -- that was WP:BAITING. There is no obscuring this.
FACT: I did not post my carefully constructive message on your page because of Bobthefish2's derision in the edit summary "some people complain just about anything" nor in the text "Sigh... this is getting incredibly stupid. Can you please stick your conspiracy theories elsewhere? Thanks."
FACT: This is about WP:BAITING and it must not be an elephant in the room.

In practical terms, this is about harassment and bullying. I can't do much to avert this problem, but I can give it a name.

In real world terms, I can't manipulate words as well as Bobthefish2. It took days for me to figure out his diff above.

My goal is to remove this one weapon from the arsenal Bobthefish2 employs.

In the Wikiquette venue, the tactics and strategy of Bobthefish2 were displayed for a wider audience than in Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. This seemed like a good thing to me. In my hope, the warning to Bobthefish2 was made more resistant to trivializing by cross-posting it here. Here on your talk page, I emphasized regret for the inability to do more; and at John Smith's talk page, I apologized here. This was both seemly and practical.

Bobthefish2's diff above manages to "spin" attention back to me and my words. No.

The core issue is WP:BAITING and what can be done to mitigate the harm it causes. No, this is not about me. Magog the Ogre -- You don't have to do anything; but it's up to me to figure out how to keep a spotlight on WP:BAITING in order to stop it. This thread was a little bit like a step in a longer journey. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: File source problem with File:WhiteHouseComplex.jpg

Hi, I thought I had 48 hours to reply, looks like you or someone deleted this file in less than the promised 48 hours. I created the file myself – drafting it on information available from Google Earth, and the White House visitors' guide. The drawing was made by me. CApitol3 (talk)

Hi. You usually actually have a week; but in this case, if you look at the log history of the file [2], I deleted it because there's an identical copy of it on commons. You can see it at File:White-house-1984-overview-nw.jpg. And I think you're remembering a different item; this was a photograph taken by the Department of Defense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:European empires.png

TES hasn't edited for two years, but with the lack of a response, I'd be glad to pick up any requests you have. To address each one:

  • It looks like someone else mentioned Patagonia on the talk page.
  • Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Iran, so I can make this one equal?
  • Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Thailand?
  • Can I get a map or in-depth description of the Russian influence on Xinjiang?
  • The Ottomon/Russia parts are probably something to take to the talk page. FYI, I am probably going to move it to commons, along with the whole attribution history.
  • That's something else to take to the talk, as international law doesn't recognize any claims to territory below a certain latitudinal line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

- The Russian and British zones in Persia were fixed according to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The article has a map attached to it.

- Here's a (partial) description of the French and British demarcating "zones of interest" in Thailand/Siam, but a proper map is harder to come by. I'll have to get back to you on that.

- Here's China at the maximum absolute extent of European influence (Tannu-Tuva is missing however). These areas decreased in size somewhat in the lead-up to WWI in 1914 (only the British and the Russian zones, the rest of them remained virtually unchanged), but they reached their height in 1911. The other ones would also need fixing though.

Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so long to respond to this. I'll get to it soon enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Questions: what exactly is the function of the neutral zone? If it means "split 50-50 between Russia/Britain" or "under no one's control"?
Does this mean that Southern Manchuria was only partially under full European control, and that the Fujian province was never under European control? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I can gather Persia maintained national sovereignty over all of its state territory, but the British and Russians merely established zones of interest in their respective regions of Persia, basically amounting to economic and political predominance (and presumably the assumption of direct control if both parties decided to partition the country outright). The zone in between can best be described as both a fully independent country and a buffer state, but it wasn't under either British or Russian control, no.
  • Manchuria was entirely under Russian control until 1905, when they were knocked out of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese War. After that point the Japanese came in to take possession of the South Manchuria Railway.
  • Fujian was Japanese-influenced, so no.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I demand to see the American consul

Well, this block (of me) was sure an error.

I know you are busy and I'm sure that you mean well, but that is absolutely not an excuse. I was an admin for several years and I would have disemboweled myself with an oyster spoon before I made a block like that.

I still haven't more than scanned WP:DRNC although I will when I get a chance. I'm sure its an interesting essay, but I'd still strongly recommend that you not include essays in the body of block remarks - it looks like you're citing the essay as a reason for the block. Instead, I'd recommend writing it in a separate note on the talk page.

Anyway, it's hard enough just keeping up with policy, and the operative policy here is WP:CONSENSUS.

WP:CONSENSUS opens with "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia", and then goes on to describe this in more detail.

But what if no consensus can be achieved? WP:CONSENSUS talks about this too:

  • "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." There's a flow chart too.
  • "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.
  • "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."

To be fair, there's also a lot about edit warring and not doing it. However, honestly, what the hell are you supposed to do when the other editor won't engage on the talk page? Just throw up your hands and say "well I guess he gets his way"?

OK. The question of the image in the article is a contentious one, and has been for some time. Looking over the talk page archive and the talk page, I see a lot of back-and-forth over a long period, but looking over more recent history, we see this:

As of January 10, 2011, the image had not been in the article for some time. It was in the article on November 22, 2010 - for three minutes, after being inserted by an editor as his third (and so far last) edit to the Wikipedia. (It's very, very typical for new users, usually anons, to edit this article by adding the image. We generally call this "porn trolling".)

Before that, it was in article on November 8, 2010. It was added by an anon editor as his first edit (he has made one other edit, so far). It was in the article for a little under three hours.

Before that, it was in the article on September 5, 2010. In this case, though, it was added by a very long term well-established editor (User:Exxolon). Nevertheless, it was reverted (by me), and was in the article for about four hours. (I think that's far enough to go back.)

Upon this revert, Exxelon went to the talk page, which is of course exactly the right thing to do, and opened an RfC, which was also good. The RfC was never closed and I guess is technically still open. FWIW the "headcount" is now tied at 9-8 against including the image, by my count. "Strength of argument" is particularly hard to assess on this issue since it mostly comes down to what one considers appropriate editorial standards for a popular general all-ages encyclopedia, and positions (including mine) tend to be entrenched. (But the point that image is, in addition to its other problems, not even accurate is also in play.) So let's say that "strength of argument" is even. So no consensus.

So. You have a situation where

  1. The image has not been in the article (for more than a few hours) for at least several months.
  2. There is RfC on the image which is either open and stalled at no consensus or, if one considers it to have expired, expired with no consensus.

OK?

But in spite of this, on January 10 2011, an editor added the image to the article. This was by User:Valknuter, and it was his 14th edit to the Wikipdia. The justification in the edit summary was "image adds to article". So I reverted the edit, with a summary of "no consensus to restore image".

If I understand the policy correctly, and also per WP:BRD, the next step would be for the other editor to go to the talk page. (I could have invited him to do this in my edit summary, but at this point I figured that this was just another drive-by.)

So at this point, User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval all decided to support Valknuter's edit. The next edit was Cyclopia again inserting the image, with an edit summary of "no consensus to remove it either, it seems"

This was a spectacularly bad edit, and Cyclopia, who is an experienced editor, knows better. "No consensus to remove it either, it seems" absolutely violates the spirit (and the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS. If Cyclopia's logic were followed, all situations where consensus cannot be achieved would devolve to an endless string of "Reverting, no consensus, and I prefer my state". Right? You can see how this would follow?

So this edit was edit warring, and an open invitation to chaos.

Anyway, at no point did any of these users go to the talk page. At no point did any of these editors respond to my messages on their talk pages. At no point did these editors engage in the thread that I opened on the talk page, until after I was blocked.

They all knew that there was an RfC which was either open or, if one considered it to have expired, had expired with no consensus - they knew this, because they had commented in it.

They had all commented in it, and they had all wanted to include the image, and they lost. Sometimes you lose, and move on - we've all done that often enough. But they couldn't accept that. "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute", it says at WP:AN3. If these users weren't doing that, I don't know what you would call it.

Yes, I was a little bit snarky. Yes, I was tardy in opening a thread on the talk page (which was their responsibility, not mine, anyway). Yes, I was little bit slow in realizing that I was being tag-teamed and set up. I'm not perfect, and these were manifestations of imperfection. But they were not blockable offenses.

I was enforcing the policy. If no one enforces the policy, you have either chaos, or simple victory of the most determined in a purely political war of all against all. Right?

And so what was your hurry? If you had taken 15 seconds to look at my user page, you might have said "Hmmm, here is a person who has been editing since 2005, has 20,000 edits, 100 articles created, 29 barnstars, various other useful contributions, and a clean block log*. Perhaps this is not someone we want to throw to the dogs, I could drop him a line and find out what's going on here".

*Well, I was blocked once - but by mistake, and the person was admonished by ArbCom for doing it (not at my instigation, I'm all for letting mistakes go).

I'm sure you admins are overworked, but would that have been so hard? I would have done it. If you don't have time to do something right, don't do it at all. Especially if the something is blocking people from editing the Wikipedia. I mean, the Wikipedia was not going to collapse over this if you'd left it to someone who did have time to assess the situation. Blocking established editors wrongly is not good from an organizational development point of view and absolutely not the way to build and maintain a volunteer organization like this.

The material result

Well anyway. Beyond alienating me, the material result of your action is:

  1. Article existed in state X.
  2. Discussion over going to state Y was extensive, but no consensus was reached to do this.
  3. Article is now in state Y anyway. And nothing can be done about it.

It's maddening to see edit warring succeed in this way, and depressing and demoralizing too, for everyone. It's certainly a slap in the face of the editors who took the time to comment in the RfC.

Resolution

Well, I would like my name to be cleared. I can't erase my block log, but if it's acknowledged that it was a mistake, at least I'll be able to point that out when Cptnono taunts me with some variation of "We had you blocked, and we will do it again if you don't let us get our way" (and he will).

As far as I know, the only way to do this is go to ArbCom and ask to have the block reviewed. This depresses me on many levels, because I hate the idea of digging up all those diffs, I hate to bother ArbCom, I hate the idea of contentious proceedings, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your volunteering to be an admin and all the good work the admins do. I'm sure you're a good admin, and everyone makes mistakes, and I commend you for being polite, which some admins have a little trouble with.

However, I guess I'll have to. However, ArbCom is busy and they probably won't take the case anyway.

It'd be neat if you decided to consider the issue, cowboy up, and admit your mistake. Christ knows I've had to do that enough times. I would do it here if I had made a mistake (beyond the minor ones I allowed to). Then we could go to ArbCom together and much time and trouble would be saved. Hope you'll consider this. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to your query shortly. There's a lot there so it will take me a bit to get back. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time. I appreciate your willingness to consider the issue, which is very important to me. (FWIW at Wikipedia:Administrator review/Beeblebrox#A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid (just go to near the end) Beeblebrox and I are undertaking to go through this edit by edit to try to figure out what, exactly, happened). Herostratus (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait! Stop! I have been going over the entire history of the article edit-by-edit, and I found that the state of the article as not having an image may have been achieved improperly. Not necessarily - I am still looking at this - but maybe. What happened was, the image was deleted from Commons in spring 2010 - not properly, I think, and it was immediately restored, but CommonsDelinker, like a good efficient little bot, had meantime removed it from the article. And after that it gets confusing - still looking at this - but it looks like this might have been leveraged to set a new default state for the article. And not only that, at this point I was involved, and it looks like I may be legitimately faulted here. (I don't remember any of this, and I don't recall gaming the system, and if I did I hope it was unintentional, but still). I'm actually kind of interested in figuring this all out now and will continue and will provide a full report soonest - just didn't want you to work on this unnecessarily. Not necessarily withdrawing anything I said at this time.Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I can wait. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC close

Finished!

I was wrong, there were no shenanagins in the spring - everything was on the up and up. So everything I wrote above stands.

In order to continue, we first need a close on the talk page's RfC, here: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion. I asked at ANI for someone to close it (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Request for RfC close). But no one would. Well someone has to, and it can't be me since I was involved, so I nominate you.

If you would close this RfC or get someone else to, I would consider this a kindness, and we can move on. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, first off, I want to respond that I'm sorry for not getting back to you on this in a timely manner. I had a good deal typed up in response a while ago, only to lose it all on a computer crash. This was an immensely frustrating experience for me. I will attempt to reconstruct it as well as possible. Please give me about 24 hours. I'm sorry, it's just hat I want to give a full response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's alright - I told you to to stop working on it (until I worked through the stuff mentioned above). No, I did a complete reconstruction of the article history to the level of smile-and-nod-while-slowly-backing-away detail. But that's alright. The main point was interleaving the various edits covering the incident is question, which is here: User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Events of January 2011. It should only a few minutes to go through this (it's not necessary to read any of the other material on the page, of course you can if you want to).

I'd like a close on the RfC as this is material to the situation. If you did this - should only take about 10 minutes or so, I guess - it'd possibly be useful background on the matter. If you don't want to do it, maybe you could get someone else to do it via admin IRC magic or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, ugh, I know I said 24 hours, but I have a wedding this weekend, and I totally underestimated my time schedule earlier today - grrr. What's more, I can almost certainly assure you I won't be on much tomorrow or Sunday because of the wedding. I may try to get on some tomorrow to close the RFC if you've responded below by then and I get any time to myself. At very least, I will let you know that I feel I'm inadequate, and find someone else to do it.
Anyway, to push this forward as quickly as possible: before I do any closing of any RFCs, I'm going to have to read about the procedure. TBH, I have zero experience with them. I am going to do my own reading, but any notes about precedence on them will be helpful. Now the RFC policy page seems to indicate it's a non-formal procedure: so what does closing an RFC officially entail? I once remember watching an admin close an RFC as if one side had been decided over the other (much like a XFD debate). Can you clarify this before I move in?
In any case, I also plan to put forward a "formal" response to the issue you've brought up above. You brought up some very good points. Without going too deeply in, when I last looked I walked away with a sense of regret that playing by the rules seemed to be giving your side the poor end of the stick (i.e., your version of the article is not up), and that blocking was (probably) the wrong remedy in this situation. However, as you pointed out above, there was the issue with the bot and edit warring, which sort of hijacked the whole discussion. I'll go more into depth next time though. Thanks so much for your patience - I really do feel bad about putting you off further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no, take your time, take as long as you like - no problem. Wedding == important. I appreciate your being open to discussing this.

WP:CLOSE has the info on closing RfC's. I've always figured that it's pretty much like closing an XfD. You'd decide between proposition-succeeded/proposition-failed/no-consensus, I guess. But WP:CLOSE gives more info. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and as to the bot removal thing - its described generally at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#May 7-8-9 of 2010 and discussed in obsessive detail at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Re events of May 7-8-9, 2010. How relevant any of that is to events of January 2011 I can't say. Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've only received one response to my request for assistance on RFC's (see WT:RFC; I also put a note at WP:AN to respond there). Would you like me proceed with this first or with a reasoned response to your statement above? Also, my impartial authority as an admin has been heavily damaged by a separate incident, fair or not: see the shellacking I took below from 4 different checkusers 3 checkusers and an admin (fixed). Do you still believe I'm a good enough admin to perform the close? I do think I can do it, but I want to double-check. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the shellacking. Hell, I used to be an admin and I was flat-out kicked out of the admin corps (if you read my contribution to the RfC you can probably figure out why), so, my sympathy. However, that's how it goes - one day you get a barnstar, next day it feels like you've got Vyshinsky on your case. It's a cliche, but it's really true - can't learn if you don't make mistakes. (But, God, it's a hard school. It's just hard to admit "these people that are all over my case - they're right". But Christ knows I've had to do it a few times.) Anyway - I didn't read the section you referred to - don't have to - so you made a mistake (if you did), so what. Yes sure of course you're a good enough admin to perform the close, you have my complete confidence and <advice> don't let any mistakes learning experiences shake you up. </advice>

Anyway - the RfC - well as I said WP:CLOSE has the procedure. This should be an easy close as it is (in my view) a simple yes/no proposition: it is proposed to add the image. The proposition either succeeded or it failed (or no consensus). Like an AfD: delete or not (or no consensus). So yeah go for it. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time and effort to close that RfC. I appreciate it. You put a lot of time and thought into it. It was a really really well crafted close, and I think it shows that you are an outstanding administrator.

I know you didn't like doing it; well, perhaps it was useful to learn about this. You are now a certified expert at closing RfC's, and are now eligible for the position of Senior Administrator!

That being said, may I say: arrrrrgh! I was hoping that the decision would be different. You see, the RfC was not to keep the image; when the RfC was initiated, there was no image, and the question was whether to add the image; and the "vote" was 9-8 against doing this. And normally this would give a strong presumption of "no consensus" to make the change.

However, a brave and wise administrator may disregard headcount if they see a significant strength of argument on one side. And this you did. So I can't fault you. I'm just whining.

Well, I expected a different close. And if you had closed it as no consensus, we could have gone on from there. But since you closed it as you did, we may say that the image should have been in the article all along anyway. So all that followed is moot. So that's it.

So we're done here. But thanks again, very much, for taking the great deal of time and effort you took to consider this. I'm reasonably well satisfied, if not necessarily clicking my heels. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll take that as a compliment - thank you. You are correct - I shouldn't have said "keep" the image (it wrongly implies the function of the RfC), I should have said "include" - I'll fix that. And yes, I did disregard headcount, which I don't like to do at all! That was mainly because, as I explained on the page, the weight of the arguments in favor seemed stronger than those against (I particularly worry that the main argument of the dissenters - that the depiction was inaccurate - what would they have been happy with? I worry that no depiction would have made them happy). And like I said, I'm sensitive to the offense caused, so it wasn't easy for me in that respect. I guess you can look at it like I sometimes look at a political campaign: my side lost, but at least I don't have to worry about the bickering! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should take it as a compliment. Hey if you want to have some real fun, close the RfC at Talk:Snowballing (sexual practice)#RfC on image. It's expired, the last edit was over a month ago. It's about actual sex, not pornography, so the only argument is whether the image is inaccurate and misleading. It obviously is, but the vote is about 7-2 to keep it anyway. Tough one! (You don't have to do it. But it would be interesting.)

Well, gotta go - the usual suspects are attacking WP:HARDCORE now. They detest the essay and want to rewrite to be essentially the opposite of what was intended. Let's see... I've reverted it twice, but it's (at least) two against one, so I guess I'll be blocked again pretty soon. Oh well, maybe you can be the one to block me - won't feel so bad then - I can have my own personal blocker, or something - like Steve Carlton and Tim McCarver... teamwork! Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, eh, is that how teamwork functions? - golly, I must have missed that lesson in elementary school. Regardless, frankly you are edit warring a lot, and edit summaries like this are textbook WP:OWNERSHIP (it is in the Wikipedia space after all, not your userspace).
Regarding the content: almost all of our essays are uncontroversial, in that they don't get heavy edit wars, even if the community isn't universally agreed upon them (hence why they're essays not guidelines or policies). Common sense tells me that the essay too eventually should work to general agreement, sans any possible hostile partisans. I'm tempted to take an ax to it to improve the sculpting (e.g., the essay could show considerable more tact in its claims of pornographic misogyny) - but I'm worried that would compromise my position of neutrality regarding any administrator actions (*cough*) I may act upon. As such, I might have to stick to offering suggestions on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
PS. regarding snowballing - that is disgusting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
PPS I don't imagine you would care to upload the fair use image depicting 2 Girls 1 Cup? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ajl772NonWikiExample.JPG‎

Please review my edits to File:Ajl772NonWikiExample.JPG‎ and provide advice. No personal attacks were intended, but I will admit how it may be interpreted as such, though I am unsure how to re-word it otherwise. Thank you, Ajl772 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to move this discussion to my talk page, please let me know. Ajl772 07:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Those tags really aren't controversial, normally. I'll go over all three tags:
  • {{badjpeg}} - JPEG is a lossy format, which is the technical term for it storing data like a bitmap, not in terms of shapes. You can read more at JPEG#JPEG_compression. The relevant commons template is {{BadJPEG}}. In essence, when there is a jpeg image with text, it's bad, because of the anti-aliasing; it just looks bad when zooming in. Instead it should be copied to a lossless format. The old one isn't deleted, but a new one, which looks exactly like the old, will be created: the only difference being it doesn't look as fuzzy.
  • {{Should be PNG}} - There are two main lossless formats that Wikimedia supports. Because we're dealing with a screenshot, PNG is the preferrable of the two.
  • {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} - We have a loose policy that any image on Wikipedia that's eligible for moving to commons should be moved there. The image will by no means be deleted or inaccessible here: in fact it will make it accessible to other Wikimedia projects (i.e., more accessible).
I hope that clears things up; wasn't trying to get your image deleted it calling it bad; just trying to make it most accessible and to look the best. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your quick response. I will admit I was not in a particularly pleasant mood that night to begin with, and I apologize for my... ?harshness?.

I will agree that normally they are not controversial, however I had just gotten it BACK from deletion, and it seems the standards have changed since I originally uploaded it.

I'll address my thoughts on each of the tags:

  • {{badjpeg}} - I understand JPEG are lossy, and the image was never intended to be zoomed in on. Wouldn't converting the already fuzzy JPEG into PNG just make the PNG fuzzy as well?
I just attempted converting it to a png, but it still looks just as fuzzy/crappy. Ajl772 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, apologies for any harsh actions/words on my part. Ajl772 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) You can't convert directly from jpg to png, or the quality will remain crappy. You have to start the process anew in the screengrab. Frankly, I'm not very good at that kind of thing; you might consider asking for help at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab (where at least they could give you tips).
2) Anything that's not a fair use image on Wikipedia, and is properly licensed, is free to transfer to Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I redid the screenshot, and uploaded to commons. Hopefully I did it right. Ajltalk 05:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there I see it. It's much better quality too isn't it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Go for deletion. Ajltalk 06:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Curious

File:TegucigalpaPyramid.jpg was rightly deleted in favour of the Commons version File:Tegucigalpa Pyramid.jpg, however the former was in use in Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons! Presumably there's a check for "what links here" before a file is deleted? Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Yes, there is. I always delink files (or have my bot do it) that are actively displayed, but once in a blue moon I make an error. As a note, I don't generally change links to the file; only active displays. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah well we all do that, most of us more often than once in a blue moon. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

TBH, on average I think I'm closer to 2 times per blue moon, although it's hard to say because I don't usually hear the reports when I make a mistake. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Outrage

[3]

Though it's FOX news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Took long enough! Shame that the only organization in the US that I see covering this is one lambasted for a right-wing bias. This is plainly not a right/left issue (IMHO). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_10&oldid=1143148971"