User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 14

I've sent you an e-mail
Hi Magog, I've left you an e-mail, also the feature/tool has now been misused and I have left you a link in the e-mail.-- PoliMaster talk/spy  08:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

'''Hello. Check your email – you've got mail!''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the or  template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticalmaster (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done I've read the email thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your reversion on Voltaire
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your reversion on Voltaire of Gorlack36's edit. I did this due to the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Voltaire, and the discussion on the French Wikipedia's article on Voltaire's talk page. Just wanted to leave you this message so that you were aware of my reversion, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I was performing the rollback to keep the status quo after Gorlack said he had accidentally applied the rollback button in this case. I am neutral as to the terms of the edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to Commons procedure
Just a heads-up on what I'm doing with files that have multiple versions in history...right now I'm pulling off the top version to Commons (with a different name there) and marking them as "reviewed"...I'm watchlisting them at the same time. Once I see that OgreBot has done his thing and the top version has been deleted, I'll go back and pull over the older version as well. Is it a big hassle for you to revert to the description of the older version when you delete the current one? Kelly hi! 17:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually OgreBot has a component I built into him months ago which transfers over old versions. And, if I can ever get a GUI up and running (by no means a small task), it will be available to the public. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently CoolCaesar made a habit of uploading over old images with completely new content, not with a revised version of the first, so OgreBot will have to sit that one out. But yes, I can certainly work with you on that, assuming a less observant admin doesn't come by first (cf. User talk:Athaenara). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have the files watchlisted, so if versions get deleted inappropriately I'll have them undeleted so it can get fixed. Thanks! Kelly hi! 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, a little last bit of pile-on: you might find commons:User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js to be a very helpful script. It sure has improved my efficiency. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Does that do in my commons monobook.js? Kelly hi! 18:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; or your vector.js, depending on your version. You'll want to type add this line:

importScriptURI('http://commons.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Magog_the_Ogre/vector.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
 * That way you'll get the updates I put in and it's cleaner. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

importScriptURI('http://commons.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Magog_the_Ogre/cleanup.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
 * Ack, cleanup.js, not vector. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That script is awesome! Thanks! I used vector.js and it seems to work fine, should I change? Kelly hi! 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, I wonder if I found a bug. I had File:Shellgasstation.jpg watchlisted, but when you deleted the top version it dropped off my watchlist. Kelly hi! 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me with File:Officedepot.jpg. Weird! It didn't happen earlier today with the Jack in the Box pic. Kelly hi! 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I think it may be a problem with the NowCommons function of CommonsHelper. Looks like the default on "watch this page" is unchecked. Kelly hi! 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should change to cleanup.js. It will give you the same functionality, without all my weird experimentations screwing up your editing experience Face-wink.svg. And without the (possibly duplicate) popups loading. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta
Could you please point me to the explanation/discussion regarding your last block of Delta? J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates
Congratulations! You have been selected to get a chance to help clean up in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates. To day there is 80 files in the category. My plan is to move them to Commons if they are ok and if not find a deletion template. Perhaps you wonder why you was selected to this really cool and funny task? Well the reason is your good work! :-D --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's so kind of you! I am honored that I was selected! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yay! I took a few of the "easy" ones. But I'm getting to tired to work so I have so stop for now. With at little luck there are not a lot of new files in the category by tomorrow. That is the problem. New files show up = more work. --MGA73 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Another case -- And I do not want to hit the revert button!
Alright, here is the deal: An IP user with multiple IPs in range of 117.201.*.* constantly adds POV information to Internet Information Services. I, User:Jasper Deng and User:N5iln actively argued with him. I had to ask Jasper Deng to tone it down a bit but this IP user is impertinent (calls us "Microsoft fanboy" and "Faithful Bill Gates dogs"). We have opposed all of his edits, including this last one which he stubbornly refuses to remove: "Google did a study of 80 million domains by examining the server's HTTP response headers and came to the conclusion that, even though (according to Google), usage of IIS servers is 23%, the number of malware served by these servers is 49%, same as Apache who's usage is 66%. Google suggests the cause of this could be the use of pirated copies of Windows, for which patches against security loopholes in Microsoft IIS is not available from Microsoft. [25]. However, Microsoft provides security patches to pirated version of Windows.[26] [27]" We think his source is unreliable and WP:SPS. Yet has once again added the info.

I requested a temporary lock on the article but he evaded by using User:DE logics account. Anyway the lock is now expired.

Now what should I do with this zealous anti-Microsoft? Fleet Command (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the talk page discussion, but IP hopping to edit war is a form of disruption. Fortunately, we've forced the user into his named account, which means he'll be easier to track (on another note: should he use two named accounts, he'll be in direct violation of Sock puppetry and will be blockable as such. The protection doesn't expire until Tuesday. If you continue to have problems with agreement, try other forms of Negotiation, or possibly WP:NPOV/N if you believe the editor is being recalcitrant to the point of not being able to rationally discuss. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I sincerely think no good will come out of my removing the offending text (as it will just come back) or trying to talk with the user (as I think he has grown impervious to us). But ... Hmm... Fortunately, this case is not like the Rozen Maiden case: Here, the offending text can stay there for a year, even more. But in that case... See you later. Fleet Command (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSS DalaiLama.jpg source http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/84772.htm
Hello,
 * File:DSS DalaiLama.jpg

The photo DSS DalaiLama is source : http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/84772.htm

fr:Utilisateur:L'amateur d'aéroplanes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.24.26 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Tethys 83d40m AntakyaMuseum Turkey-fix2.JPG
Couldn't find a tb template (per directions) to let you know that I replied at my talk page. Please see my reply and request there. - - - - 83d40m (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- there are other uploads of mine that were removed from my gallery and put into the commons. See my comments there, please. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied with the other files that went missing... thanks for your help. Could you also explain the proper use of the tb template? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click on Template:Talkback, you will see the documentation there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at 83d40m's talk page.''' Message added 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template.

I finished tagging the files that had been uploaded locally and addressed the Wikimedia Commons files by uploading a tiny image to my talk page for each that will remind me and provide a quick link to them. Aside from the attribution changes, I only am concerned at the moment about being able to access them readily as research tools, so I will remember your hint about a personal gallery merging both archives, but have no current plan to build one.

Will I be notified if duplicate files are uploaded to WC? I have no issue with that if they are useful in other Wikipedias and would like to know where they are being used. Thank you again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally you will not; no. It is not required by the license given when uploaded, and it is too much of a drag on contributors. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Creative commons copyright templates
Category:Creative commons copyright templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

trying to remove the isolationism from the paulite wing
a long discussion, your comments and help are needed  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I reverted my comment, because I didn't see it was a small header in a larger discussion (thus, my statement of "so what?" was kind of silly). In any case, Ron Paul qualifies as an isolationist in my book: his article states directly he is non-interventionist with some pretty compelling explanations, which I'm pretty sure is just a different way of saying the same thing, even if the connotation is less negative. Do you disagree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

no, isolationism requires protectionism. ron paul who supports ending the embargo of cuba and opposed the sanctions on iraq pre-war could neven be accused of being a protectionist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it appears our article isolationism give protectionism as a requirement. I think that is a poor way to start out the article.
 * My searches under define:isolationism gives the following definitions:
 * Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars... American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. (emphasis mine, )
 * The policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
 * a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations
 * The first one is clearly contrary to our local definition. The second and third one might or might not be: a lack of economic alliances says nothing about tarriffs, while protectionism requires it; it rather says there shouldn't be a country-specific alliance and set of rules.
 * Nevertheless, it looks like the term is vague enough that we probably should say non-interventionist in the article, although I think the term is too weak: there are many who may call themselves non-interventionist in the US for desire of not wanting to carry out foreign military adventures, but would be loathe to withdraw from the UN and NATO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, upon further review, I see the term is neo-isolationism, an entirely different concept with which Paul's ideas look (on face value) to be compatible (see also dictionary.com definition). I admit I've never heard the term before and haven't read about it outside that link, however. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

everyone i know who calls themselves a noninterventionist wants to withdraw from Nato for that very reason, we keep collateral damaging infants in countries that pose no treat to our security. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating the merits of non-interventionism. But I can point to plenty who would qualify as non-interventionist on most issues but who love the UN, including Barack Hussein Obama circa 2006. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you have a different example? in 2006 his "shipping jobs overseas rhetoric" in response to the natural course of global markets finding the lowest labor cost sound a bit more like isolationist circa 2006. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking foreign policy, not economic. Non-interventionist. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

we disagree on obama ever being a non-intervenionist, but you mentioned pointing to plenty, who are some of the others? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citizens for Global Solutions and many getting an A+ rating from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

i dont see how giving 50 democrats who support current U.S. military strikes 5 different countries an A+ in "global solutions" makes them non-interventionist  Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are degrees here. It's possible to make them more non-interventionist than the average joe in the public, but no they're not hardcore non-interventionist. Just like almost all politicians are neither purely socialist or purely libertarian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:P1010025-3.JPG
Taking Do template the regulars a bit too far, eh? It looks like you are on top of the actual issue, but do let me know if I can help with anything and I will do my humor penance. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to these two messages, which I've since removed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha I didn't even notice that; apparently self-warns don't trigger the orange bar. Silly Twinkle, messaging the first person to edit the page rather than the uploader Face-tongue.svg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:File source problem with File:Moghulistan.PNG
Hello,
 * File:Moghulistan.PNG

You left a comment on my talk page a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that the issue has been corrected. I also took took the opportunity to upload a cleaner version of the image. If you should have any further issues with the content status of the image, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Ro4444 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None at all. Thanks for coming back to clarify. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Cb1 cb2 structure.png
Your request on it.wikipedia: ✅--Guidomac (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing this block please?
Hi, sorry to trouble you but could you review this ban please. [] It seems to me very improper and outside the limits of the sanctions for the article the IP was working on. Also indefinite site-wide bans cannot be enacted without an AN/I first. Even if the editor who seems to contribute on 2 or 3 computers, was behaving disruptively (which I dispute, he/she was in disagreement with a couple of other editors and should be allowed to reply when sources he/she cited are questioned), this ban is completely over-the-top. There has been bad faith towards this editor/s by at least one other editor on the discussion page, even going as far as alleging the IP has an agenda, when clearly it is at most an IP with a pov. Their contributions have been useful in the discussion and another editor has said this. I suspect the IP did not know he was blocked from the talk page. The blocks have been very poorly explained. DMSBel (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; I've thought for a while that JzG is all too eager to hand out bans. However, policy restrains me from simply undoing it, as does common sense (which tells me the editor is probably being at least somewhat disruptive). I'll take a look at it, but I suggest opening a thread at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, I realise the IP has expressed some strong disagreement in regard to a couple of other editors comments. However they generally have responded well in the past when merely warned. The blocking seems to just be exasperating an otherwise civil and valuable editor. I too have a few concerns regarding the IPs participation in the discussion, but they are only over quite minor things. General Sanctions on Abortion and related articles limits blocks to at most 3 months. But I am more concerned with baiting of the IP on the discussion page by a couple of editors. The IP has not been deceptive to my knowledge. If they have been using computers in different locations that is not unusual, though it might have been better for them to say this (assumimg of course they have not).DMSBel (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is uncool, period. So is JzG's block (I note this is not the first time this has happened; worse, IIRC - and it's quite possible that I don't recall correctly - it may have been about abortion as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming it is the same editor (and it probably is), one IP[] opened a complaint against OM and ended up blocked 48hrs. I've been blocked too. I think in this case the IP genuinely did not know the block included the talk page, unless of course I have missed something. This IP definitely has a POV (at least IMO) but that is actually not always unhelpful for discussion and reaching a NPOV. At least thats how I look at it. Totally neutral editors on abortion are a pretty rare breed.DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Something should be done, The ban JzG/Guy has placed is well beyond the general sanctions for the article. 3 months block max. And the IPs conduct comes nowhere near deserving the max sanction. The scope of their block was not explained, so its understandable they thought it only covered changes to the article. Guy's semi-protecting the talk page of abortion is stupid, it causes more disruption than letting the IP make his comments/discuss. DMSBel (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you take it to ANI? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it being AN/Ied, but I'd prefer not to AN/I it myself. The amount of bad faith on the article in question seems to have resulted in this IP being confused with me, at least I can't figure out what is going on, and that seems to be a plausible answer, also another editor asked if this IP and I were the same editor. A WHOIS would show clearly we are not. I am in the UK, this IP is I am told in Florida. I have my own thoughts on what is going on at the article. I think that the IP simply has not known their block meant the talk page too. DMSBel (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that several administrators have already turned down the unblock request; I cannot do so unilaterally myself. Or I could, but I'd be ignoring policy, and that has bad results. Nevertheless, I'll take a further look into it later and try to come up with a coherent answer to both you and for the admins handling the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I also have asked Guy to revert his ban and explain why he went beyond the general sanctions for the article. DMSBel (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want you to revert the ban yourself Magog. I understand your reasons entirely and agree you are wise for wanting to say within policy. Also I apologise for not being online to reply more promptly to you. If Guy/JzG removes the ban/block there will be no need for an AN/I to investigate it further. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where the main discussion(s) is/are taking place? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't gone to AN/I yet, as it is better to try and resolve things first. So I asked another admin here: []. There are links to all areas of the discussion in that section.DMSBel (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion at RoyBoy's talk page, the best method to reinstate the IP in the community is to create an account. This sounds reasonable in view of the fact that edit warring to push a POV is certainly disruptive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A clean slate once they register? DMSBel (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a clean slate, no; there is a block or two in the history. But as RoyBoy said, there is really a way to move forward from here that's been given to the IP. I recommend registering and being upfront that the registered account is the same one as the IP, and then asking Guy for clarification if that is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone politely make it clear the to the IP that they are welcome back (as a registered user) and what the caveats are.DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Also Magog, thanks for giving the matter your considered opinion. DMSBel (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you have explained things to the IP about the standard of conduct wikipedia expects. I don't blame him if he wonders why this is not expected of other editors and admin. Thanks anyway for giving the matter your attention. DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is expected of other editors. The things I've asked of him are fairly common sense; the sort of thing that the average editor is doing without any effort. The fact I've required an acknowledgement from the IP is based off poor history. If we aren't expecting it from other editors, then that is a problem, not this (a la WP:WAX). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar goings-on with images
I notice that you recently had an involvement with regarding image problems, and that the contributor's page is chock-full of similar notices etc.

I have been having my own issues with a image file of that user (or, rather, an image filename, since they keep changing the image attached to it). I would be grateful for any advice because it is becoming messy, as per my message here, and my AGF is starting to become weak. I note also that of the previous images uploader by the contributor and which still remain, few if any are actually used on an article, few have a meaningful description and the copyright/licensing may well be suspect.

Am I being paranoid here or is my concern justified? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is legitimate. The problem is the user appears to be mixing the good with the bad; it appears s/he has a lot of very legitimate pd-self uploads, but that s/he is adding in copyright violations in the meantime. I've blocked the account indefinitely pending a further explanation; too many of this user's uploads have been deleted as CV's. In the meantime, I recommend opening a case at Contributor copyright investigations so someone can take a look at the long term additions (and hopefully this someone can scrutinize the commons additions as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks very much for delving into it and doing what you did. I do not work a lot with images, so it is good to have some input. I'll look at initiating a CCI, although they have one heck of a backlog there. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not enough of a backlog that it's not worth listing. Don't make me do it for you; I'm far too lazy. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Was done before your last. Something interesting has resulted from it regarding the personal connections of the user. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of that. That still doesn't answer questions about the modern pictures though (if it does answer questions about the older pictures). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here and here last May.

Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
 * This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page

Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:
 * 1) diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
 * 2) diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))

The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). IMO, we need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?

Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.

A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that edits are not


 * pro-Japan nor anti-Japan


 * pro-PRC nor anti-PRC


 * pro-ROC nor anti-ROC

In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" ....

The first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to you soon enough, but I'm not going to lie: I'm tired as heck of dealing with the stupidity in this issue and I'm ready to start throwing down sanctions (or, where not applicable, to ask the community to support them). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Since I mentioned your name in a thread on ANI, regarding the "sanctions" at Senkaku Islands, I figured I should notify you about it. The comment was made to support your action and try to get broader community approval so that the sanctions "stick". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I had been planning to open up an ANI thread today. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied to you on Feezo's talk page. But simply: ArbCom normally don't rule on contents since... quite a while, in fact. Even the current version of WP:DR has "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration." (emphasis original). That particular text has been on that page since this edit, back in Feb 2007. So ArbCom not ruling on content dispute isn't a recent occurrence. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they do rule on who was acting like a pain in the rear end, and are willing to throw down blocks/bans/sanctions, correct? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. But on the islands article, due to the full protection there (For 4~5 months), the focus wouldn't be on the editorial actions there. It'd be purely on the dispute article. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the players who've acted badly are consistent across both articles; with the partisans and incompetant gone, perhaps the sane could work out a reasonable middle-ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -points out that you managed to typo "incompetent"- Eh. The problem with the Islands article is the fact that the contested tag is the sole reason the page got protected. Why haven't people done RfC on this thing; or did they do that already? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfft. Mediation has been attempted, and RFC's on at least two members (IIRC). Can't say any thing further for the RFC's. Also, not my fault: stupid Google spell check got stuck on Spanish, and it won't go away unless I clear out all the app data (which I'm not doing). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC can be for contents too... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. But my point is only that the history of the page is so vast and ugly that we might as well have gone through 10 RFCs and it will not have made a difference. I find it quite likely that at very least one has been tried on the content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied to ANI and gave my few cents. The thing is, while Pinnacle Islands would be the most neutral name used, it would make a whole set of people unhappy. And the fact that this discussion isn't being resolved means the validity of the NPOV-title tag is in place. I merely replaced the tag because it's the de facto situation at the moment. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Alexander bronse police.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Alexander bronse police.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. [...]Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the source article. It says "This image made available on Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010 by Greek police", so it is obvious that Greek police released the image into the public domain. Innab (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely not correct; you're confusing publication with public domain. Unless the Greek police specifically state that they release the copyright for the document, it is still copyrighted. Please do not upload files that fall into this category. If you'd like clarification on the difference, you can ask any questions at Media copyright questions‎ where they will certainly clear up the difference. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article states "image made available ... by Greek police". It is obvious that it made available to the public. Also, the image is "Fair use" as historical figure. Any copyrigh to the statue belong to Lysippos, but he died over a thousand years ago, so the copyright has expired. Innab ( talk ) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see commons:Commons:CB for why the Greek police currently own the rights to that photograph. And because anybody could take a photo of that artwork, we cannot use it under fair use either; see Non-free content criteria. Am I making sense? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated deletions for Eric T. Kool
Research by scientists that is relatively new may not yet be well known. Thus research by these scientists often gets deleted because the research by these scientists are not well known (yet). This problem can be expected to occur repeatedly, even if the scientist and his research are the leaders in the world. This is the case with Eric T. Kool. Please note, I am not a relative or a member of his "fan club".

The new topic of synthetic biology deals (among other things) with synthetic DNA, synthetic mRNA, synthetic aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, synthetic codons, all of which (once mediated by ribosomes) can code for synthetic amino acids, to modify the field of proteomics to create synthetic proteomics. In addition, the field of synthetic biology Dr. Kool specializes in research that focuses upon synthetic DNA. Other, researchers specialize in the other areas of synthetic biology (P. Schultz, S. Benner, H. Murakami and M. Sisido, etc). These new areas of research touch upon more traditional areas already found in Wikipedia, which must also be modified accordingly. Thus in addition to modifying Synthetic Biology, other related areas must be modified, such as xDNA (already entered in Wikipedia, though the research was done by Eric T. Kool, the very researcher whose work was deleted from Wikipedia, and xDNA was not put on Wikipedia by me!) Also, the research by Dr. Kool affects Genetic code, codon, proteomics etc. The work by E. Kool, P. Schultz, S. Benner and others also affects material science, the creation and use of new materials, as found in nanotechnology.

I would like to make entries under several topics, and for several people, etc. as outlined above. Once again, I have never met or spoken to any of these researchers. I am not particularly biased in any direction, but it would be nice if Wikipedia editors allowed new information and new experts to be entered, as encyclopedias function best with correct and new informational updates. I am finding it frustrating to have Wikipedia editors remove the information faster than I can add it. If Wikipedia prefers not to keep abreast of scientific milestones, just say so.

Furthermore, as references are needed, rather than entering about 50 or more references, if a book exists that describes and explains these things with references already entered, isn't it a little smarter to reference such books, rather than make Wikipedia an encyclopedic list of thousands of references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only deletion of which I'm aware is the one I performed on Eric T. Kool. I did this because the page did not specifically state how the subject is notable per WP:BIO; this does not mean that the subject isn't notable, but rather than the page didn't explain how he was notable. I also deleted the article as lacking enough context to understand the subject. I will break down the two sections which you wrote in it:


 * The research by Eric T. Kool is in synthetic biology with applications in biotechnology and medicine, such as the development of synthetic pharmaceuticals. His work has included studies that focus upon bases in DNA and RNA other than A, C, G, T, and U.
 * This was the only wording about the subject, and only essentially only told us he does research in synthetic biology. The wording is a bit circumspect, but it basically comes down to Eric T. Kool does work in synthetic biology and biotechnology, specifically DNA and RNA. This isn't really enough context to identify the subject.


 * For example, xDNA. These new bases do not utilize the standard Watson-Crick bonds (and if extended, do not use Hoogstein bonds. By increasing the alphabet of bases possible in DNA and RNA, it may be possible to increase the possible genetic code with new synthetic codons which can also code for new amino acids to create a library of synthetic proteins, thus impacting proteomics.
 * This probably should go in a separate section about his work; it works poorly as the lede (see that link for an example on how to write a lede).


 * However, upon further review, this was probably a poor decision on my part, even if the article had significant structural issues, for the simple reason that both the context and the notability of the subject was in fact located within the infobox. Really, a lot of that material should be explained in prose in the subject's article.


 * What I'm going to do is undelete the article and put it in your userspace, as it really isn't ready for live action yet (among the reasons I've already listed, there is also the fact that it is an article about a living person that doesn't cite any reliable sources); however, it does definitely show some promise. My recommendation is, at this point, that you improve a bit on the wording and expand the article a bit, but also that you take a good look at WP:FIRST, which has a good set of guidelines for how to write an article.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions, or feel free to ask at the help desk for a more immediate response. Once the article is ready to go live, feel free to move it back into the article space.Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! You are correct that not enough information was entered under Eric T. Kool. It takes time to research; thus, the information I had entered was incomplete. I also wanted to upload a photograph of him. I didn't have time to enter more information or upload the photograph because the article was deleted. Please be aware that someone else already entered a reference to xDNA in Wikipedia, whose sole citation points to an article by the research group headed by Eric T. Kool. There are quite a few more articles, as well.

I have previously attempted to add new information under the topic "Synthetic Biology". The work By E. T. Kool, and work by other researchers such as Steven A. Benner, is absolutely essential to understanding the subject of Synthetic Biology, which is actually a rather large study at this point. One might question how well-known Steven A. Benner is, but he is considered one of the founders of synthetic biology. In case of fear of conflict of interest, I have never spoken to or met Steven Benner either.

I believe I have started a "Talk" discussion under Synthetic Biology, about the difficulties of dealing with these subjects because there is quite a rats' nest of links to closely-correlated subjects. For example, synthetic biology is obviously related to DNA (thus the attempt to start an article about E.T. Kool), RNA, tRNA, codons, genetic code, synthetic amino acids, etc.

Because of the many links due to the many interrelated subjects, there is a problem with citations. There are many scientific articles dealing with correlated subjects, but there do not appear to be many books on the subject matter. I would prefer to use the few books that exist, rather than making an extensive list of individual references at the end of each article. I hope Wikipedia editors will find this acceptable; otherwise, if they can suggest reference books to be used, I would be pleased to utilize them if possible.

Thank you for undeleting my article on E. T. Kool. I will take you up on your offer to check over the article when I think it's ready to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Beer cans
I was thinking that most of the files in this Commons category are probably copyrighted derivative works...wanted a second opinion before I went to the effort of a mass deletion request. Kelly hi! 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah those look non-free to me. Let me know if you need help tagging all the images with the deletion tag; I have use of autowikibrowser on commons, and I use I for that purpose. Or you could just apply for usage yourself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, I'm discovering that Commons is lousy with copyrighted product packaging, there are thousands of them, I think. I am AWB-challenged, if I start compiling a list, perhaps you could eventually turn AWB loose on it? Kelly hi! 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could, yes, but I'll need to know which deletion discussion to link to which file. I can even start a deletion discussion if you want, and because I'm handy with regular expressions, I can actually just paste the list of files into a deletion discussion if you want. You might want to put something in your userspace then i can move it into the mainspace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably just start compiling a list in my userspace...it will probably take a while. I wanted to finish moving Coolcaesar's images over to Commons first (almost done). It's likely to be contentious - I've tagged a few of these images on Wikipedia and Commons both and people are already getting emotional about it rather than writing fair use rationales. I'll never find all the copyrighted images at one whack but I guess we can deal with them in batches. Kelly hi! 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, they can get pretty snippy at commons; it's a very toxic atmosphere at times. I think it might partially be due to cultural differences in communication and norms. But I've gotten a bit sick of it myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - User talk:Brendandh
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Brendandh's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 28 July 2011.

1bc3d.png -> 1bc36.png on Duployan shorthand
There are several pairs of pictures that are currently identical on this page, including the two that your bot attempted to conflate, but they actually represent different entities (Unicode characters). It is distinctly possible that at a later date, these images will be updated to indicate distinguishing characteristics, so they need to be retained as distinct files and distinct names. Is there any way to block or warn bots like yours that the current status is not accidental? VIWS talk 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was more of a human factor than it was a bot factor. Originally, User:Sreejithk2000 tagged the page for WP:CSD, and I specifically marked it approved for deletion. As such, if you don't want the file to actually be deleted, you might want to upload it to Commons and put a note on the talk page that you don't want it to be deleted, even if it's identical, while explaining the reason why. If the reason is valid, Commons will handle it properly. However, your reasoning saying that it was the wrong stroke direction is wrong - I'm looking at the deleted revision right now, and they are exactly identical in appearance - as such, it looks like the problem was uploader error to begin with. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the uploader, and it's not an error. Like I said, they represent two completely different script entities that are distinguished only by the direction they are written, (they connect to adjacent letters, revealing their direction) and they need to be two separate files so that when someone uploads new versions that actually show the subtle difference - say, an arrow to show the direction of the stroke - you don't have the new image showing in the wrong place. I need to know how to keep people like you who don't know the back-story that even though the images are currently identical, they absolutely should not be substituted for each other. How can I port images over to commons and mark them so they won't be removed like this? I tried before, and gave up because I couldn't navigate the commons process. VIWS talk 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did it for you, as that was easier: see commons:File:1bc3d.png, commons:File talk:1bc3d.png, and commons:File talk:1bc36.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brega to Gaddafi
I belive Brega shouldn't be blue anymore but green, since it has been confirmed by the rebels themselves that they had been holding positions 20 kilometers from the town since the battle ended a week ago, were only on the eastern and southern aproach to the town, the west is still an open supply route for the loyalists (so in fact the town is not surrounded), there are over 1,000 loyalists in the town (and not 300 as the rebels claimed initialy), the top rebel commander commanding the front there has been killed, and following his death the rebels have retreated today an additional 10 kilometers from the town. So in essence they are 30 kilometers from the town now, only 10 kilometers closer than they were before the battle. All the information has come directly from rebel commanders on the frontline. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * commons:File:Libyan Uprising.svg
 * Which page are you maintaining is incorrect? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The main map of the civil war which shows all of the towns under loyalist or rebel control. EkoGraf (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will work on it later if it's still not changed. Real life calls me at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Libyan Uprising.svg
Hi, you recently altered the above image to show that Brega and Zliten are under Gaddafi's control, yet I did a Google search (under the "news" section) and couldn't find any news article to verify this. In Brega, it seems the rebels have control of the city, but are struggling to defuse several landmines that have been planted throughout the city. Would you be able to provide me a link to a news site that published a report on the current situation in Brega? Thanks. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * commons:File:Libyan Uprising.svg

...Ironically, it would seem, immediately after I posted this question I noticed the subsection directly above mine. So now it is moot.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. I also left a note on the talk page with a fuller explanation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Confidence trick on Spanish Wikipedia.
I realise that what goes on to Wikipedia in non-English speaking countries may not be your responsibility but I felt I should draw your attention to a completely fraudulent "biography" of a non-existent person, evidently designed for some mysterious reason to fool readers somehow.
 * María Melchora de Braganza

The link here at es:María Melchora de Braganza may no doubt be imitated elsehwre and provide "authority" for the existence of this non-person.

She is described as the youngest (4th child) of King Carlos I of Portugal, assassinated in 1908, but there is absolutely no record of any such person in any published source./ the supposed biographic support cited in support of this person's existence, along with her pretended titles, is entirely fictitious. Reference to the contemporary published sources of royal genealogies (such as the Almanach de Gotha) as well as online sources demonstrates that no such daughter of the last king ever existed.

This is the kind of entry that makes wikipedia's editors look inept and serves to put in question the reliability of much else written on the worldwide wikipedia.

For online sources you could look at this excellent site: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/portugal.html or here: http://www.geocities.com/henrivanoene/genportugal.html or indeed the English language wikipedia at Carlos I of Portugal

GuyStairSainty (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Thanks for bringing that up. This is what I've done: I'm not at all familiar with Spanish Wikipedia, but I've left a message at es:Wikipedia:Informes de error (along with a minor rant about how I was treated last time I did any substantial editing there). However, it's pretty backlogged so I'm going to place a note at their administrator noticeboard (es:WP:TABM). Magog the Ogre (talk)


 * And it's been deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BRD on SI
Hey Magog, I am not planning to engage in the futile practice of making content changes, but I am wondering how this BRD rule would work in SI. Suppose hypothetically a user decided to a filibuster a change and refused to agree under any circumstance, is the content in question blocked indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not; hopefully we can move beyond that stage, just as is done in cases with page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering... does your BRD policy apply to talk page edits? I collapsed a sub-thread started by Tenmei because it is not constructive (as per his standard operating practice). He then reverted and added another chunk of nonconstructive text. I would like to collapse his text again because it is lengthy, distracting, and offers nothing of value, but a wiki-lawyer may come in and advocate a page ban. If you don't care, then I'd go right ahead. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would highly suggest that you don't do that. Please do not close a thread started by Tenmei, because he is, so to speak, your adversary in terms of content - and because you've had run-ins with him in the past. While the BRD doesn't strictly pertain to the talk page, regular rules of conduct and edit warring do (as does the general idea, put forth boldly by myself, that edit warring surrounding the topic is on a shorter leash than other subjects).
 * If you think that he has started a topic not worth continuing, I suggest pulling in a neutral administrator (such as myself or User:Feezo, or perhaps User:Qwyrxian - although I'm not sure if Qwyrxian is in fact neutral). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's supposed to be inappropriate? Then maybe you should let him know that as well, since he does have a long history of collapsing his opponents posts (as shown in ).

I think I will just sit back let others argue with him. You are welcomed to take a look at the stuff he wrote, if you want to deal with this mess. In case you don't already know, his attitude is the main reason for the recent mediation case to be closed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done - . As for the attitude, I'm convinced this is a two way street (I don't particularly feel like breaking out diffs or discussing it in depth here). As for the removal of content, looking into it further shows it was indeed a bad idea. If, on the other hand, you want to ask him to remove some of the content for brevity and readability, that would be the only reason I can see for this being appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.

Citing idioms like "Two way street", "both parties are at fault", and "it takes two to start [insert action] " is not very helpful, because it tends to trivialize the nature of the disputes    (i.e. there's often an implicit assumption that all participants of the disputes share approximately equal amount of blame). While we both know that I am definitely not the nicest person in the world,    There are some people in this world that are next to impossible to reason with. For example, numerous parties (including admins and mediators) had already made similar or identical appeals regarding his posts. In fact, I've made such a request twice already in that very conversation. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011

Magog -- no. Please consider whether your responses to Bobthefish2 have only made our problems worse. The unintended consequences only encourage more mischief.

In the unique context created by the edit history of Bobthefish2, any "assumptions" or "benefit of the doubt" are insupportable. His words become like the "straw that broke the camel's back" for Feezo, for Qwyrxian, for me, etc.

Strategic fraud
There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending we don't recognize the harm. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.

Fraud is a very specific term which encompasses specific factors. A fraud is false, known to be false and proffered for the purpose of deceit -- encouraging action or inaction on the basis of the contrived misinformation. In simple English, Bobthefish2 "lied" about collapsing text, but this verb is an example of loaded language. In plain language, Magog the Ogre was "suckered" about collapsing text, but the ambit of the verb encompasses the dupe. "Fraud" may be better for our purposes because it labels a parsed process.

Please scan examples of collapsed diffs in mediation threads. Each collapsed exchange is explicitly labeled to be consistent with Feezo's intervention model. These collapsed segments were created in a context which explicitly invited Feezo's feedback or action. In each instance, my edit was explained and my decision-making was defended.

Who's kidding who?

Reply to Qwyrxian and STSC -- Aha, an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues. QED. --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2011

I don't understand any of this philosophical English. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2011
 * In order to follow Feezo's leadership, we need to know what is "material not directly related to the primary issue under mediation." For the time being, Feezo's  plan invites us to comply with a structured narrowing of focus; however, no good reasons justify any attempt to feign tolerance for Bobthefish2's provocation.
 * As I explained to Feezo in an already archived diff:
 * Zero tolerance for WP:Baiting is just one of many lessons learned the hard way. There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending that there is no provocation. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.
 * In the boxed exchange below, Bobthefish2 and Qwyrxian expressly create the context in which the phrase "philosophical English" is a red flag.


 * This is a problem-which-did-not-need-to-be-a-problem. Simply trying to overlook poking by Bobthefish2 and others has proven unworkable.  Is there an alternative or more constructive way to mitigate or avert this kind of impasse? What? --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.]]
 * Tenmei -- did you forget anything to say?...
 * "Think again. WP:DR explains that some argumentative strategies are unhelpful, e.g., contradiction, responding to tone, ad hominem. In contrast, WP:DR helps us to recognize categories of comments which are constructive, such as refutation and counterargument. In the parsed context WP:DR offers in graphic form (see pyramid at right), the facile accusation is categorised as a variant form of ad hominem.  In order to be very, very clear, I reproduce this pyramid, including the caption which urges us to Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
 * STSC (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011


 * The rationale for STSC's decision to re-post a graphic image + my words about it here are obscure; but our understand of intent is sharpened here -- "I'm in the mood for dancing".


 * STSC's provocation is arguably trivial; but in our context,
 * Zero tolerance for WP:Baiting is just one of many lessons learned the hard way. There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending that there is no provocation. We have already stretched pretense too far.
 * In the boxed exchange below, STSC and Bobthefish2 discuss the context in which this is treated as if it were a red flag.


 * Can we not agree that in the working together to parse the argument, refutation, and counterargument which have unfolded in collaborative editing, we indirectly succeed in defining areas of agreement?
 * For the time being, I acknowledge what seems to be a rhetorical question.
 * More practical questions have to do with figuring out how to comply with Feezo's leadership guidance and structured mediation plans. --Tenmei (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a problem-which-did-not-need-to-be-a-problem. Simply trying to overlook poking by STSC and others has proven unworkable.  Is there an alternative or more constructive way to mitigate or avert this kind of impasse? What? --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In order to follow Feezo's leadership, we need to know what is "material not directly related to the primary issue under mediation." For the time being, Feezo's mediation plan invites us to comply with a structured narrowing of focus. Can we not agree that, in the process of identifying an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues, our work together is constructive? Like the structured parsing exerecise at Google searches above, these are practical nuts and bolts questions which are part of figuring out how to comply with Feezo's leadership guidance and structured mediation plans. --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011

Who's kidding who?

Oda Mari's words underscore two fundamental facts which bear repeating:

(a) that mediation generally has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks; and

(b) that the carefully balanced focus of our mediation process is easily disturbed.

Her suggestion redirects our attention to the task at hand: to develop a shared understanding and to work toward building a practical and lasting resolution of the "primary issue". --Tenmei (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is timely to recall that Feezo's "decisions as mediator relate only to the structure of the case itself." I don't know how to interpret these words. --Tenmei (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of telling Phoenix to call the chair, I believe Feezo should be more than equipped to explain clearly to him exactly why that wasn't canvasing and why Phoenix was being irrational. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bobthefish2, no. There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending we don't recognize the harm. This is too much, a step too far. --Tenmei (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If he'd left it at accusing you of canvassing, I would have done so. But saying that I "cannot mediate" the case constitutes rejecting of the mediator, which calls for outside intervention according to policy. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statistical analysis In the unique context created by the edit history of Bobthefish2, any "assumptions" or "benefit of the doubt" are insupportable. In the context created by Bobthefish2 here, his own words become like the "straw that broke the camel's back." WP:AGF becomes too much of a stretch because of this small, needlessly provocative diff.

FACT: These are the identified participants in this thread, with the total number of edits and the percentage of edits which are in articles:
 * Qwyrxian -- 24,384 edits ... 50.13%
 * Phead128 -- 260 edits ... 27.03%.
 * Tenmei -- 54,839 edits ... .92%
 * John Smith's -- 13,114 edits ... 49.24%
 * STSC -- 548 edits ... 23.72%
 * Phoenix7777 -- 2,888 edits ... 60.06%
 * Benlisquare -- 21,609 ... 45.56%
 * Oda Mari -- 24,104 edits ... 53.58%
 * Kusunose -- 13,417 edits ... 82.29%
 * Lvhis -- 329 edits ... 41.85%

In marked contrast with the above-listed participants, Bobthefish2 invests a significantly disproportionate number of edits in talk page contributions.

This statistical imbalance is simply a fact. What it means is open to interpretation. It is a matter of judgment.

FACT: Only 5.37% of the contributions of Bobthefish2 are in articles. Compare -- talk page diffs account for 76.91% of Bobthefish2's edit history.


 * Bobthefish2 -- 1,381 edits ... 5.37%
 * 5.37% (article)
 * 33.99% (article talk)
 * 29.56% (user talk)
 * 13.36% (Wikipedia talk) -- Toolserver edit count

Although these statistics prove nothing standing alone, the limited available data do fail to support a theory that Bobthefish2 contributes to the betterment of our collaborative editing project. In the absence of other better data, we can only construe his words as we find them here and as we recall them from the development of the mediation threads.

WP:AGF is an optimistic default theory which is shown to be unworkable in its application to Bobthefish2 --Tenmei (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting... you collapsed a completely harmless post I've made and decided to make such a long post to deride my contributions. I am curious to see what this is going to lead to without commenting on the phony logic. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * QED -- not harmless. Stop. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears Tenmei has now taken it upon himself to collapse other people's posts despite them not being off-topic and that the authors have objected to his actions. I am not going to edit-war with him over this, but it is still something to highlight. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please Tenmei take out those comments from the collapsed box because I wish to reply. STSC (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Tenmei should relocate his personal attacks somewhere else. If he wants to brag about the enormous amount of time he spent making 50000+ wiki-edits vs. my < 1500 edits, he can also copy the table over to some Trophy Room page like User:Tenmei/Trophy_Room so that others can go over and celebrate his tremendous accomplishments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish -- stop. I simply won't take the bait; but at the same time, I am not failing to acknowledge the tactics and strategy which are too familiar. Bluntly, you are gaming the system, are you not? I can do no better than to adopt the words of Qwyrxian as if they were my own:
 * Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway.

Bottom line : I don't know what to do; and I look to Feezo for leadership in this kind of recurring impasse. My words are measured. Characteristically, Instead, Bobthefish2's escalating tone draws attention to itself. It is timely to mention that a significant question I posed in May remains unaddressed:
 * Do you not agree that by acknowledging a communication problem, we take a step in mitigating its potential for immediate harm and other consequences?

Bobthefish2, I will not respond to any further diffs which seek to expand this in our talk page venue. WP:AGF is shown to be unworkable. --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * STSC -- stop. I simply won't take the bait; but at the same time, I want to avoid the kind of silence which is perhaps more harmful. Why not take this opportunity to focus on figuring out how to develop a shared understanding and to work toward building a practical and lasting resolution of the "primary issue". Bottom line : I don't know what to do; and I look to Feezo for leadership in this kind of situation. Do you not agree that by acknowledging a recurring problem, we take a step in mitigating it? --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who's kidding who?

Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise rather than a self-destructive one. --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A friendly reminder: You forgot to count the number of words you used in each sentence . --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a friendly reminder. You could call it mockery, sarcasm, baiting, or any number of equally unfriendly things, but it comes to the same thing. Please don't do it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Feezo. What about the comments like "diversion tactics", "Missiles is Bobthefish2's term, a "spin" introduced to denigrate and marginalize"? Surely, these are much less friendly than my reminder. In fact, they appear to be very public denunciations. What do you think? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a reminder. See my comments on the code sub page for my views on Tenmei's writing style. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A reminder is an act that serves to notify someone of some concept that he may have forgotten about. You still have not replied to my question by the way. That's also a reminder. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both of you could stand to be a little nicer to each other. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have pretty thick skin so I usually don't take exception to sharp things pointed at me. The same obviously doesn't hold true over at the other end though (and not like I point sharp things at people anyway)! --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have crossed out those words. STSC (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bobthefish2 -- Sarcasm does not address the substance of the my words. Zero tolerance for WP:Baiting is just one of many lessons learned the hard way. There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending that there is no provocation. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.

Returning to the subject at hand: the mediation fails in its function unless a clear line is drawn between what Feezo construes to be "on-topic" or "off-topic." In order to follow Feezo's leadership, we need to know what Feezo means by the phrase "material not directly related to the primary issue under mediation." For the time being, Feezo's mediation plan invites us to comply with what? That is the question from which sarcasm distracts. Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise -- building from a solid foundation toward a constructive end point. --Tenmei (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2011

Developing "zero tolerance" for deliberate fraud requires this very detailed response.

We don't yet know what to do, but even young children understand how to say "no". An important step in addressing our problems is simply acknowledging them. --Tenmei (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strategic fraud is toxic.
 * Bobthefish2 is a toxic long-term warrior.
 * A pretty short response from me will suffice. In essence, he collapsed...:
 * Example A: Complaints from opponents regarding his nonconstructive manner of communication
 * Example B: An opponent's advice to the mediator regarding a personal attack committed by an ally
 * Example C: An opponent's retaliative comment with regards to a provocative statements like ""Missiles" is Bobthefish2's term, a "spin" introduced to denigrate and marginalize in the same way as characterizations like "chunks of texts" and "strange phrases". No sale" and "Bobthefish -- no. Your open-ended "guess" is another diversion tactic. Not buying it."
 * It's really up to Magog to decide whether or not I committed streategic fraud and that I am a toxic long-term warrior :-p. In case he hasn't noticed, Tenmei had very swiftly deleted Magog's advisory comment in his talk page already . --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tenmei: can you summarize that? It takes WP:TL;DR to a whole new level. Now I know you want to be thorough, but I'd like to share a maxim my teachers taught me in high school: pretend your audience is stupid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FACT: Magog posted a warning on my talk page.

QUESTION: What if I had simply ignored your warning?

FACT: My response was serious, thoughtful and focused on likely consequences.

ANALYSIS: Pretense is counter-productive in our Wikipedia context.


 * Proposition/Theory
 * No →
 * "... can you summarize that?"


 * Wikiquote ≠ Maxim
 * "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
 * -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan


 * No →
 * "... WP:TL;DR to a whole new level."


 * "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
 * -- Mark Twain


 * No →
 * "... pretend your audience is stupid."


 * "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ...."
 * -- Stephen Jay Gould

How is it that TL;DR becomes a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing? As a shorthand observation, it very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes -- see Jan Swafford. "Too bizarre, Mozart!" The Guardian (UK). 4 June 2004; excerpt, "The famous complaint of Emperor Joseph II about The Marriage of Figaro -- "too many notes, Mozart" -- is generally perceived to be a gaffe by a blockhead. In fact, Joseph was echoing what nearly everybody, including his admirers, said about Mozart."

This is not about the gaffes of a blockhead. In fact, Magog, you are off-target when you advocate pretending Bobthefish2 is stupid. That's the point, isn't it?

Magog, please rationalize this sequence:
 * 1) FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, Bobthefish2 collapsed my words at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute -- here
 * 2) FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, Bobthefish2 managed to spin the self-created "problem" at Talk:Magog the Ogre -- here
 * 3) FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, the immediate result was that a surprise warning was posted on my talk page -- here

This is subtle manipulation.

The skewed logic of Shakespeare's "pox on both your houses" construes some kind of causative misconduct by me -- even when my only involvement was limited to fact-specific issues in a talk page thread. My words did not produce immediate engagement; but the more important point is that no misconduct can be teased out of my serial diffs. Nevertheless, because of "spin" by Bobthefish2, I am surprised to discover it evolving into a kind of who-knows-what which urgently needs to be discouraged by Magog's warning?

No, no, no.

Consider the alternative: What if I had simply ignored your warning?

The harms caused by this kind of "strategic fraud" are cumulative. --Tenmei (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really need to address this very WP:TL;DR post, but I hope the problem posed by Tenmei has become obvious to you, Magog. By the way, Tenmei has (very unsurprisingly) reverted Lvhis' changes and calling his reversion "Pro-Wikipedia" . Afterwards, he dump the same chunk of meaningless text that he posted before that is neither clearly written nor effectively addressing why exactly Lvhis' changes merit deletion. You might as well read through this entire round of that BRD cycle since you've already gotten your hands dirty with this. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your response, Tenmei, is entirely non-constructive. You've accused me of purposeful bias (an accusation which is totally off), and you've gone ahead and in my request for you to be more concise seen fit to quote a philosopher/writer all of five times in your above posts. Tenmei, I know that there are smart people, and it's good to quote them, but I'm going to ask, if you post on my page, not to quote more than one famous person more than once per 1000 words, or once per post, whichever is greater. It does not help the reader's understanding, and this is not an indication of his/her reading level or intelligence. If you want me to continue to help out in this, by all means reform your actions. Otherwise, you're just going to be annoying me, and I will ignore what you type.
 * Bobthefish: please stop antagonizing. I'd appreciate if you didn't respond to anything Tenmei says on my page. If I want you in, I'll ask you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)