User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 15

File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg

 * commons:File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg
 * commons:File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg

Hi, can you have a look at the historical licensing (and other) information for File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg, as I'm not sure the current ownership/licensing information on the commons version File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg is correct. "There was a version on the English Wikipedia but I moved it here" does not mean it was made by uploader to commons. And I'm not sure it is a free image as it looks like a websized image, but I'd like to start with the "original". I hope you can help. Thanks in advance. Deadstar (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The file was uploaded by on 00:58, 5 December 2006  with the following information on the file page:

== Summary == This photo was taken by Jon L., a graduate of 2006

Licensing

 * So it was the same uploader both times, the second of which he claimed as . That said, User:Tkgd2007 identifies himself as Tim on his userpage, not as Jon L. (apparently I missed this, somehow). So placing a tag on the file on commons would be legitimate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. I'll put the info on the file. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ( Oh, I see you've taken care of that already too - thanks again!) )

Could you update the notice that one gets when one edits the Tea Party Movement article?
Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. I know it's kind of easy, since everyone there is is in perfect harmony :-)

The notice (which I think you were kind enough to create) which one gets when one goes to edit the article says that IP's and new editors can't edit the article. I think that this is incorrect / outdated. If you agree, could you fix? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh that unprotection slithered back in. I think it's worth a try; I've edited the page notice; let me know if I missed anything or if the vandalism becomes a problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Haven't too many vandalism problems. Just about everything except that. I allow myself only one contentious article is order to keep my sanity. I think that article counts as two.

Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User creation to evade semi-protection
After you semi-protected Trivandrum, the IP user created an user account and completed 10 edits to be eligible for contribution. Then the same content is removed from the article. Plese See the contributions : Special:Contributions/JohnHonai Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll want to encourage the editor to use the talk page (you can do so at his/her talk page); if the editor continues to revert war without using the talk page, I will block him/her for disruptive editing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check what actually happened. An IP editor inserted a qualifier that is unreferenced, and the reference he provided in edit summary failed verification. I tried to resolve it by doing three posts on Talk page, but the editor didn't co-operate. Instead he called names on edit summary and re-inserted it. After that you semi-protected the page, and I created an id to edit.


 * Samaleks or his friends on that page who normally jumps at anything that goes against his views did not rise a finger about this un-wiki like behaviour by this ip editor. Now he is complaining that I use an id to edit. It is not illegal. He should rather ask the original IP editor to show proper behaviour by coming to the Talk page and make his arguments. And also show some civility. Calling someone nincompoop is not civil.


 * JohnHonai (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in the previous edits. I was not edit-warring which led to the semi-protection. My point here to JohnHonai is not to revert continously by creating an account to evade semi-protection. You have again done the revert now.

And you are now edit-warring in Kochi page too, without logging in. The contributions from your IP address range 117.x.x.x is evidently proving that you are constantly edit-warring in Trivandrum, and Kochi pages. --Samaleks (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sri Lanka Matha in Sinhala.ogg
Dear Friend,

I am responding here because I cannot seem to recall my password to the commons project. This is in reference to the file on the subject. This file has been nominated to deletion by you as per the Sri Lanka public domain brief in wikimedia. I disagree on the reasons you have given for deletion, though it is the national anthem that is written by Ananda Samarakoon it doesn't necessarily mean he has copyrights over it. He was commissioned by the government of Sri Lanka to write the national anthem, moreover the national anthem is part of the constitution (the countries law) and it cannot have copyrights. Në&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;er Talk to me 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave a note on the commons page indicating your belief in this. You might consider registering another account on commons or resetting your password as well. I am going to further respond there; if you want to respond here instead of creating a new account, feel free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BRD cycle breaking

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Only one section at a time, please Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight.

Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei made a "R" on August 1 pushing us to "D", and now the "D" is still ongoing but not yet finished, while Tenmei made an edit on the Lead Section of this page now. Was Tenmei breaking the BRD cycle here? --Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) modified --Lvhis (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre, is the sanction "BRD cycle, crystal clear" you put for the page "Senkaku Islands dispute" still applicable or effective? I was swiftly blocked by you on July 22 due to my indeliberate fault. I believed and hope to keep believing that you apply enforce this sanction in a very fair manner. Tenmei broke this BRD cycle deliberately already. --Lvhis (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No -- compare Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Discussion between Q and L] which marginalizes my participation with lines drawn across the page. Who's kidding who?


 * No, there was nothing untoward about a scrupulously neutral and very strongly supported edit here
 * A. In fact, there was no on-going "discussion", only "trick questions" for which any "answer" falls short. Lvhis posted:
 * Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail. ... --Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2011
 * B. In fact, my edit responded to the skewed reality of the talk page; and to the challenge --"if you cannot answer, you fail." My work also responded to a specific complaint. Lvhis posted:
 * When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing [citation needed, he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion ....] --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011
 * Bottom line : the significant investment in better quality inline citation support deserves encouragement. --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, you did not quote what I said entirely. At there I also said "... Also, now I want to discuss with Qwyrxian calmly first.". And here "For question 3) we can leave it to Tenmei.". That meant I will deal with you later because your usually out-of-focus way needs to spend more time as an expectation. Here is Magog the Ogre's talk page. Let Magog the Ogre make his decision on this BRD cycle breaking. You and I shall not argue each other about this here. --Lvhis (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * QED -- "gamesmanship", not collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Senkaku Islands

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight.

Lvhis' first edit, trying to tie names to countries

I revert it (without removing the source) because it's misleading, clearly explaining why

Lvhis restores his edits of tying names to nationalities, just rephrasing it

Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|20px]] Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Magog the Ogre, I originally planned to post this in the section "BRD on SI" of this page but am just surprisedly aware that there has been a big word wall there already (I did not put your talk page in my watchlist). So I am posting my enquiry here that is for me to avoid to break the BRD cycle indeliberately again. I and other editors have had discussions on the changes as mentioned by John Smith's above in the section "Leas section" of that talk page. All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified. I have also taken the suggestions from Penwhale and Bob and revised the proposed draft . Since 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) there has been no relevant discussions about this "Lead section" there. Can I go ahead to make an edit in that page as proposed in that discussion, as finishing the "D" of this cycle of "BRD"? --Lvhis (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should be fine - the D has been satisfied in the cycle, bringing it back to B. But if you're R'ed, remember to continue to D before B Face-wink.svg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks! --Lvhis (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog -- Please notice a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis: "All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified."
 * Diffs which are inconsistent with this assertion include:
 * Oda Mari, I have given the reason at least 3 times above why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands. -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
 * Tenmei's post is out of focus or topic. --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
 * I treat this post of Tenmei as a one irrelevant to the discussion above "Lead section" as nothing related to the draft .... --Lvhis 19:44, 30 July 2011
 * In the very specific context Lvhis alone is responsible for creating, "fraud" is a very specific term which encompasses specific factors. We identify Lvhis' assertion as "fraud" because it is false, known to be false and proffered for the purpose of deceit. The words of Lvhis were used to encourage your endorsement based on misinformation. The use of this term "fraud" provides an explicit label which leads us to examine a parsed process. This is a problem which needs mitigation, but perhaps the word may be an example of loaded language. Perhaps an euphemism will be better?  I suggest WP:Synthesis may be a better wiki-term; and it offers a conventional process for resolving some of the difficulty Lvhis has created. If Lvhis were to exercise care to avoid synthesis in the future, it would be a good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei made a "R" on August 1 pushing us to "D", and now the "D" is still ongoing but not yet finished, while Tenmei made an edit on the Lead Section of this page now.  Was Tenmei breaking the BRD cycle here? --Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there was nothing untoward about a scrupulously neutral and very strongly supported edit here
 * A. In fact, there was no on-going "discussion", only "trick questions" for which any "answer" falls short. Lvhis posted:
 * Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail. ... --Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2011
 * B. In fact, my edit responded to the skewed reality of the talk page; and to the challenge --"if you cannot answer, you fail." My work also responded to a specific complaint. Lvhis posted:
 * When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing [citation needed, he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion ....] --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011
 * The significant investment in better quality inline citation support was exactly the kind of thing Lvhis encouraged me to undertake. --Tenmei (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't believe he was breaking the BRD cycle, because he was not reverting anything. He was boldly making a change, even if it wasn't particularly popular - and Qwyrxian reverted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the left and right side of the diff, it appears Tenmei reverted Lvhis' changes to the intro and then proceeded to add apply his own rewording at the same location. I don't really see how this isn't breaking the BRD. If what he did is allowed, then I suppose someone can indefinitely circumvent your BRD policy by doing a major re-write/re-wording on the same topic after each revert (so that they are technically "not the same" changes). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's all two consecutive edits - there were no changes in between. Tenmei reverted Lvhis, and then made another edit, without himself being reverted, which I would qualify as bold. This bold edit was of course undone by Qwyrxian. I don't see the edit as being any more bold than Lvhis'. Now if someone had undone Tenmei's original revert, and he had inserted the above material, then yes, I could see this being a BRD violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. So this is how things went:
 * Lvhis makes Bold #1
 * Tenmei does Revert #1
 * Tenmei does Bold #2
 * ... and then this is how things can go in the future:
 * Lvhis makes Revert #2
 * Lvhis does Bold #3
 * Tenmei does Revert #3
 * Tenmei does Bold #4
 * Lvhis makes Revert #4
 * Lvhis does Bold #5
 * Tenmei does Revert #5
 * Tenmei does Bold #6
 * ... and so on. This sounds like a perfectly wonderful way of edit-warring without breaking your definition of BRD. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How the hell did you come up with that? the above would only work if they were editing different sections every time, which I doubt. Look, I'm not out to punitively block anybody; it's just not going to happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In this diff, the left side is Revert #1 and the right side is Bold #2. Tell me they aren't on the same sections.
 * I am not asking you to be mean and arbitrarily block people but rather to uphold your standard of wiki-justice. As I've hinted in our lovely thread about goading other people, good mothers are even-handed and do not practice favouritism. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no BRD violation there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I conjured a hypothetical scenario where one can game your BRD system and you said that only "works" when different sections are edited. Then when I showed you that the situation are dealing with is clearly a case where the same sections being involved, you insisted that it's still not violating your BRD system. Am I misunderstanding something? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting on my nerves, Bob. Tenmei didn't make any reverts violating BRD. He was bold in his second edit. That's the end of the story. He's allowed to be bold all he wants, just like Lvhis is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am tremendously sorry this is getting on your nerves. You see, I am simply trying to make sure everything adds up. The intent is all very pure and innocent. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. If you dont' believe me, feel free to ask on say, WP:AN. Unless the second edit he made was actually reverting, there's no violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Magog the Ogre, I am very confused and disappointed. Following what you explained above, It sounds I did not violate the BRD cycle last time and you should not block me. Because: I made Bold #1, John Smith's made a partial revert #1, then I did a edit which did not revert to my Bold #1. Then John Smith's reported me to you and you blocked me. Here I did a Bold #1 after "D" and checking with you, and Tenmei did a Revert #1 and we entered "D", while Tenmei did a Bold #2 in the same section when the "D" was still ongoing. When I read the BRD cycle more carefully after my appeal was declined, I thought no Bold #2 allowed no matter who would apply before "D" was done. Now I totally confused and feel the current situation is quite unfair. --Lvhis (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me see if I can show you the difference with a chart:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! width="100" | ! width="200" style="text-align: center;| First edit, which is bold (may be reverted per BRD) ! width="200"  style="text-align: center;| Reversion of bold edit (may not be reverted per BRD) ! width="200" style="text-align: center;| Is there a reversion of edit #2? ! width="200"  style="text-align: center;| Are there other edits?
 * Lvhis
 * 
 * 
 * style="background: #90ff90; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-yes"|Yes
 * style="background:#ff9090; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | No
 * Tenmei
 * 
 * 
 * style="background:#ff9090; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | No
 * style="background: #90ff90; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-yes"|Yes An edit that extends edit #2, not one that reverts it.
 * }
 * Basically, if you are worried about breaking BRD, the question you should ask yourself is, am I reverting a revert? If you're not reverting someone else's reversion, you have not broken BRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * Basically, if you are worried about breaking BRD, the question you should ask yourself is, am I reverting a revert? If you're not reverting someone else's reversion, you have not broken BRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's just follow the beautiful BRD flow chart on the right shall we?
 * Make an Edit: Added content, by Lvhis ✅
 * Was the article edited further?: Yes, by Tenmei ✅
 * Was the edit a change or revert: Revert ✅
 * Was the article edited further?: Yes, by Tenmei
 * Do you agree with the revert: No, by Qwyrxian  WHOOPS! The BRD cycle was broken. NEVERMIND.
 * THE END. Thanks for watching our show. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre, I still cannot understand. The BRD cycle says, on my understanding, when I do not agree the revert, I should enter "D" with the reverting editor, who was John Smith's last time and who was Tenmei this time. A new "B" should be implemented after "D", as shown by the flow chart. Tenmei did a new "B" on the same section when the "D" was/is still ongoing, and his such "B" was even farther away from NPOV than what he reverted to. If a reverting editor can do a new "B" without waiting for the "D" done, what is the BRD for? BTW, my second edit that time was not totally reverted to my first "B", but I accepted your block and other admin's decline to my appeal and made my apologies after more carefully reading WP:BRD. You know I respect you very much. Sorry, your table above cannot convince me that Tenmei did not violate BRD cycle. --Lvhis (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei has agreed to stop editing the article entirely for the time being. His edit was reverted. At this point, any block would be punitive. Is there a reason to continue worrying about this? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am curious to know why there is a seemingly unbalanced enforcement of rules and would like to determine whether or not it is due to an oversight on my part. As an admin, do you not think this is something worth finding out? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is enough. I've explained it in enough depth that you're not going to like my answer regardless, and you will remain unsatisfied until you get the answer you're looking for. If you don't like my response, then you can ask elsewhere. My decision is final. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kumarrajendran is back, messing about with images
has returned and is messing around with images again, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Jayalalithaa&diff=prev&oldid=442578627 this edit]. You blocked a couple of weeks ago, I sent it to CCI and someone else commented that some of these pictures may be ok due to a family connection. I really do not know how to handle this. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * commons:User:Kumarrajendran
 * commons:User:Kumarrajendran
 * At this point, I'm a bit aghast too. He's not communicating very well either; my suggestion is to open a thread at commons:COM:AN/U and ask for clarification from the community. Wait a few days (commons is slower than en.wp, by a lot), then if you don't get a satisfactory response, open up a deletion request on all his images. I'm fairly sure we can do whatever here what they do there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Filed report at Commons. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page and then reverted today's edit by him/her at J. Jayalalithaa on the grounds of the CCI/Commons stuff. My revert has been reverted, almost immediately. I have left another note asking them to undo but somehow I doubt it will happen. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Still having problems, and I suspect that they are also editing while logged out. Few, if any, of the contributions have an edit summary and they are not responding to my comments on their talk page. Commons apparently only has one recent uploaded image. I think that this is now bordering on disruptive editing - the user alleges to be a doctor of some sort, so the lack of communication is just silly. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Hammer tapissier.jpg|20px|Hammer (Last Stone First End)]] blocked. Feel free to nominate the user's images now at WP:PUF, or to wait a few days until hopefully the user responds. If you see any obvious sockpuppetry (e.g., logged out editing), let me know, or let WP:ANI know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It struck me yesterday that perhaps the issue could be that the contributor is in fact one of the faces shown behind the article subject in the photo & that this might be the objection. However, they have never said that and have uploaded what must be a dozen variants now without appearing to learn a thing. Will see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On one hand, I would feel awful about that. On the other, this is a place with rules, as is the real world with its copyrights, and we really have a moral obligation to uphold them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. A user who has not edited for two years now turns up while Kumarrajendran is blocked and reinserts an image that Kumarrajendran had uploaded (and which may be copyvio etc). Worth an SPI ? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yes; it probably won't be definitive because the user seems to have a dynamic IP; but I'll bet dimes to dollars this is sockpuppetry (or, at very least, meatpuppetry). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons cleanup script
Was moving over User:Sherurcij images to Commons, and was wondering if it's possible that your fantastic cleanup script can help with the parameters of the Attribution license. For user created images, the link to the uploader should go into the "nolink" parameter, and the desired attribution text (when applicable) should go into the "text" parameter. (An example would be File:Bruce Farr 2007.jpg, originally File:Bruce Farr.jpg at Wikipedia.) Just curious, it would save a little time but I don't want to create some huge time-suck for you. Kelly hi! 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think at least part of the problem is that Magnus' bot doesn't correctly transfer the parameters of the en Attribution template to the Commons template, but I've never had any luck with getting Magnus' attention. Kelly hi! 18:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't think I can add that, because I don't have access to the original text (except through the original upload log, and only a portion of it is there). Simply put, based on the text on the page, there is no way for the parser to know for sure who the author is. Yes, it says Sherurcij at en.wp, but remember that was shortened by the parser from "original uploader is". Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are a lot more from that same uploader, I could perhaps create an ad hoc script which looks specifically for the attribution tag, as well as this uploader's username as the author. Then (and only then) would it add the appropriate text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyway...I've actually finished moving over all the free images from that user. I think the real problem is that the Attribution templates are different between Wikipedia and Commons. Kelly hi! 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ILramzor2.png Image Deletion
Hey, Magog. Please explain to me in brief. I'm a bit new at image uploading. 2 questions: Thanks in advance for your patience. --@Efrat (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The file "ILramzor2.png" - You tagged it F8. Just to be sure, it will be deleted from 'en.wikipedia' but will remain on 'commons.wikimedia' ???
 * Furthermore, in the future if I move an image from 'en.' to 'commons.', do I need to do something to delete it from 'en.' or just leave it to an administrator to clean up after me ???
 * Moving files to the Commons contains a lot of helpful information on this topic - good luck! Kelly  hi! 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My response:
 * That's correct; it's deleted locally, but it will remain on commons.
 * When you move an image, it's best practice to use Commonshelper. When you've done that, just tag the image with and then the administrators will handle the rest.
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TY --@Efrat (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

de minimus
You claimed that this one has a better case as de minimus http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Israeli_Milk_Bag.jpg

compared to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nitrous_oxide_-_10_x_8g.jpg

After having reviewed the page on de minimus, I do not agree that the milk bag is less significant. They're both direct photos of product packaging in high resolution. It isn't so much the cow. The stylized green brand logo in Israeli and the rest of packaging print design is no less generic than stylized writing such as "Seagram's" on their liquor bottle. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However, in the latter case, also applicable is . But yes, I nominated both for deletion because I agree with you in general. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject. Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict? One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I don't agree that your contributions alone are feeding the conflict (other editors will probably disagree with me). While I think your means of communication is a problem, I don't think it's the ultimate source of conflict. Of course, I could be wrong (I don't have infinite knowledge more than anyone else), so withdrawing could be one way to test the hypothesis. I'll let you know privately if I suspect any foul play (i.e., if a specific editor or editors purposefully starts editing more agreeably just to make it look like it was your fault) - but I seriously doubt that will happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei has been back to that page and made 6 edits in the same section although the discussion has not been done. Were his edit actions violating the sanction you set? If not, can I go ahead do my edit as I want now? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that he's making any reverts (although I might be wrong), so no, he's not in violation. However, feel free to revert his edits per WP:BRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Polemic
Am I best ignoring this or is it a breach of WP:UP ? Or is the answer "yes" to both? Although it appears under a notification from me, it relates to several contributors with whom the this one is in dispute over a few articles. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is yes, and probably, respectively. WP:DFTT (irrespective of the fact that I have done so in the very recent past). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Face-smile.svg. I didn't promise the answer would make you happy or be a profound insight; but I will give an answer if asked! Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Gharyan
Gharyan contested, rebels entered from the north.
 * commons:File:Tripolitanian Front.svg
 * commons:File:Libyan Uprising.svg

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110813/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya Zenithfel (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute, Tenmei
Tenmei just made the same edits to the article that Lvhis & Bobthefish2 were arguing should have gotten him blocked earlier. While I still think that a block at that time was not appropriate, I believe that this addition is obviously a violation of the principle that you laid down when you unprotected the article. As such, I believe that Tenmei should be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; above I told Lvhis I didn't see a problem. Can you be a bit more specific as to why the edits were a violation? I've got my finger ready on the trigger. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the section above. Basically, they are a revert, plus even more information; the intervening edits and additional info make it hard to see. First, look at this diff from 4 August. This is the diff that I reverted, that lead to the calls for Tenmei to be blocked from Lvhis and Bobthefish2 earlier. Now, look at diff, which is the third of the sequence of 6 edits that Tenmei made on 12 August. In this edit, he reinserts a substantial portion of the changes from 4 August (with slightly different wording), including the part he was specifically criticized for by me (the comparison of "integral part of Japan" vs. "claimed by PRC/ROC"). At this point, I still recommend a block of Tenmei (probably 24 hours, to match the block of Lvhis; alternatively, 48 hours, if you think it should escalate across the dispute rather than per person), and I recommend fully protecting the page, since multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced. I also believe that the time has come to give up on my desire to run an RfC, and move instead to an ArbCom case; a bit unfortunate, as they just picked up a much more painful dispute (Abortion)...but such is life. I have no idea how to open an ArbCom case, so I'll look into it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you see, if I go blocking Tenmei and protecting the article, the block will be contested (correctly) because the article is protected. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pulling together the arbitration request right now, and should be filing it today. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have my full support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what's the reason of protecting the page when it is shown that only one user is behaving in a problematic manner? Why would a page-block not be a more practical solution? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go away, Bob. As far as I'm concerned, you've done nothing but trolling since you and I have been talking (and probably well before that). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are referring to the type of trolling that got another admin to indicate you were, in fact, wrong in a previous disagreement we had where you very deliberately closed off discussions to? Anyhow, the point here I would like to bring is that the two of you are inappropriately generalizing one person's misdemeanor to " multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced". While you are certainly entitled to your freedom of ignoring what I say, it's still worthwhile to mention this at least once. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To mention what, Bob? Have you already changed the subject from why the page was protected? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is something you don't understand? To put it in simply terms, I commented on how you locked an entire page only because one person was actively resisting the rules you imposed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DANE YOUSSEF
What material in the article is unsourced?
 * User talk:Nightscream
 * User talk:Nightscream

In any event, he had been warned numerous times to cease doing this, and was given a final warning to stop, lest he be blocked. The source quality of the article does not change this. Even if an article has unsourced material, that does not mean that it's a free-for-all to keep adding more. Nightscream (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears you blocked him for this edit, which added to the plot section, which is itself entirely unsourced (as is almost every plot section for South Park episodes on WP). Also, given the user's tendencies while editing, I'd put money on the fact s/he's under the age of 14. S/he doesn't even seem to understand why s/he's blocked . Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Strike-out
Please consider using strike-out to withdraw part of your statement at Arbitration/Requests. Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful. In fact, this is kind of important because it shows that you misconstrue an example of your own good judgment -- not bad judgment. A good first step is simply striking out the words. In any case, please construe this as encouragement to give some more thought to these parenthetic words. --Tenmei (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any chance that you could stop telling all of us how to write our own statements? Remember, this is only the statement designed to get Arbcom to hear (or not hear) the case; later on you'll have the chance to actually present your explanation of the problems you see or don't see occurring, at which point you can argue for or against various claims (although, you may be limited in terms of words, not like on a regular article talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- in an epistemic community, this kind of careful attention to the arguable consequences of framing and spin has a normative function. On some level, this is something you grasp intuitively. I acknowledge that your diff has only two sentences -- a question and a statement. My response to both is "no." thumb|right|100px|A visual image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus in varying degrees is said to need "fine-focus" adjustments. No, I am not "telling all of us how to write our own statements" ....Yes, I did ask here if you were unable or unwilling to revisit your own words, e.g., @ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to re-frame and sharpen the focus of your statement in words which are congruent with Coren's comment here?--Tenmei 16:09, 15 August 2011 Yes, you made your unwillingness very plain; but the mere fact that I posed this question at Arbitration/Requests may tangentially affect what happens next. In our RfArb venue, is this not likely to "jump start" a process of pairing elements of your statement with issues of fine-focus? Is it not likely that the question I posed for Magog will function in similar ways. --Tenmei (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a good reason to change my statement, so no, I will not change it. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and (sadly) typical that you assume to know what I meant better than I do. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll clarify here again, too: no, I am not willing to amend my statement. I agree with Coren, and, in fact, I believe that my statement points out a few of those problems that Coren identifies. I will, of course, provide more details during the actual arbitration. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a simple matter to strike out my words. --Tenmei (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading of the text, it looks like I misread a portion of it, and your request isn't presuming anything (and isn't nearly as obnoxious, so I apologize). Nevertheless, I agree with Qwyrxian that it was a wildly unnecessary request. Whatever, no point in being obsessed about the past. Maybe it had to do with your phrasing, which made it seem a bit nosy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission for isaac eastgate photos
Hi there, just got your message. The photos arent mine but permission was granted when i commented on the photos back then. The pages the photos were on at flickr have gone and he hasn't replied to my messages yet. I'll get back to you if anything comes up? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by $01734071290912$ (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk:$01734071290912$

Tacoma Narrows Bridge photo permissions re: message left @ my talk page.
Hi,
 * User talk:Srosenow 98

I noticed recently that you've left messages @ my talk page regarding permissions needed for two photos at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1950) article. I replied at my talk page, but I'll also leave the same message here just so things don't get lost.

There is a slight problem with those requests. One, the e-mail was sent via Flickr's mail messaging system, as the original files appeared @ Flickr under the user "suspensionstayed". Two, it is impossible to e-mail anyone outside of Flickr, using Flickr's mail messaging system. Three: The original e-mail exchange, which occurred in June of 2009, were lost due to an account issue I had last year. Furthermore, when I uploaded those photos, there was no issue with the copyrights and at the time I was not required to provide hardcopy proof of their licensing for Wikipedia. Srosenow 98 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DSK perp walk pic FfD close
Good close (and not just because I agreed with the result). I had actually thought about making the same argument about how the news event was months ago, but since no one seemed to want to continue the discussion I just kept it in the quiver. And I hadn't thought about the montage argument, either. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Files for deletion/2011 July 26
 * Files for deletion/2011 July 26
 * Thanks. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Balsam Bald photo permission
I responded at User_talk:Badgettrg. If I knew what or  were I would use them. - Robert Badgett 20:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license
Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yay!
Commons has just uploaded around 100k free images from NARA, including thousands of history images from Mathew Brady. This history geek is gonna forget about non-free images for a while and go geek out on categorization. :) Kelly  hi! 10:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you doing up at this hour? I have an excuse (namely, I work part-time nights, and I suffer chronic insomnia). Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, couldn't sleep either, but I finally did get in a few hours. Kelly hi! 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

History merge
Would you be willing to do a history merge of User talk:Ajl772/Archives/2011/August to User talk:Ajl772/Archives/01 for me, please? Thanks. – AJLtalk 06:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done - hope this is what you wanted. If not, you can probably just cut and paste (with archives, GFDL attribution isn't necessary, so uw-c&pmove doesn't apply). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's good enough. I wanted something other than a c&p in case anyone else wanted to know where it came from since it wasn't an archive bot edit (if that makes sense). – AJLtalk 08:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERM/C/User:Starterkit
( Non-administrator observation ) I was wondering whats the need to echo a very common question ? Seems a little bitey and falls into the context of tag bombing. The newbie must be wondering "Did I ask something wrong" ? It seems that just waiting for a response would suffice. Just an observation, Cheers. Mlpearc  powwow  14:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the permission to the user, although, no, I honestly am not seeing anything bitey or tagbombey about the conversation (I just asked the user for clarification). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File transfer bot
Is it possible for you to use the bot to re-transfer File:Gar1955.jpg to Commons? The transfer that was made left out much of the information about why the file is free use. Since it's been deleted here, I can't go back and copy that information to Commons. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done. If you ever need anything like that done, let me know, or drop a friendly reminder on the page of the deleting admin about copying over the information - Athaenara isn't perfect, but she does catch it some of the time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much!! We hope (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Special request
Could you please delete the old revision of File:Brazilians 000.JPG, currently on Commons as File:Brasileiros (2).JPG? I will eventually move over the current version, just waiting on a source for one of the images. Thanks! Kelly hi! 16:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF0015.JPG
Just wanted to let you know that there is a NowCommons tag on that image page. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD is for images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons, provided [that]... the image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt. The image is unsourced, and thus it is ineligible for F8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.''' Message added 21:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent problem with SreeBot Commons Xfers
SreeBot moved 2 images of mine to commons again and much of what's here at WP is missing:


 * File:Angie Dickenson police woman 1975.JPG WP file
 * file at Commons


 * File:60 minutes 1968.JPG WP file
 * file at Commons

I don't know what to do about this other than to remove the Commons ok tags from my files and to stop tagging them for Commons, as it seems like everything SreeBot transfers isn't complete. Would appreciate some advice on this. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice is


 * To let me know about it if it's already deleted, and if not, to move the information over by hand.
 * If the image has multiple versions in the history that need to be preserved, let me know; I have a bot that will transfer them over. You may have issues with local administrators deleting the file as well before all versions are transferred over, because local admins usually ignore that provision of CSD#F8 (or make a mistake) - and are only somewhat amenable to being told to fix it.
 * Let Sree know in unequivocal language that his bot isn't performing properly, and it's causing major problems. I've already said something to him about it twice, so there may be point in me doing it. If he still doesn't listen, I suggest bringint it up at commons:COM:AN/U, where I will support a block of the bot until he gets it fixed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at We hope's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. We hope (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Most of the files I upload are PD-pre 1978 and have multiple versions. Having both sides and upcropped versions of them to me is proof that they don't have any copyright marks and fit free use criteria.

I will leave a note on Sree's user page here about the bot not transferring all of the file's information. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved it here for the record re: the SreeBot problems. My first shot at using the talkback template; about time I learned how to do that. :-) We hope (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page. I am sorry for the incomplete transfer of images. I will be more careful from the next set of images I move. Btw, SreeBot is not a bot, its just an alternate account I use. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure - it has always seemed obvious it's an semi-automated script, not a full out bot or full out human run. And thanks for the consideration. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop question
Please give some thought to an open-ended question here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If they give me a chance to talk at all (see the /Evidence talk page), do you still want me to respond on that page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should just go ahead and write your piece. The deadline's just there to every interested party not to drag this for too long. Since I've written things about you, it'd be rather unfair to forbid you from defending yourself, don't you think? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Shoe on the wrong foot
Please give some thought this idiomatic phrase: the "shoe on the other foot" ... which is a little bit different from "starting off on the wrong foot".

One of the sentences in your last edit at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute deserves a closer look. You will recall writing, "However, it's important to remember that everybody thinks their edits are well enough researched and nobody can fathom how anyone else could possibly think their editrs aren't pro-Wikipedia/pro-truth." Please re-visit the independent clauses in reverse order: (a) I do not now, nor have I ever used the word "truth" or the concept "truth." IMO, "pro-Wikipedia" does not involve anything to do with "truth."

One sentence convinced me to invest time in our collaborative editing project. You know it well, I am sure, from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. In this sentence, so-called "truth" is deprecated. I construe the word itself is relefated to a "non-Wikipedian" category.

(b) That said, your first clause includes a misleading assumption about what everybody thinks. What matters is verifiability -- as in "verifiability, not truth". There is a difference between a sentence supported by a specific citation and a sentence with no support whatsoever. The sentence with citation support may or may not be valid (or "true"), but it is pro-Wikipedian to the extent that any questions about it are grounded in our conventional processes in evaluating reliable source material. The assertion which is linked with zero citation support is something else entirely.

"Pro-Wikipedia" is about the difference between something and nothing. This has nothing to do with megalomania.

Is this is unclear? Too many words? --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In the context established by the diff above, please re-visit your own words from the last edit you made at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. You will recall writing, "There is no point in arguing this; if you cannot see my reasoning, Tenmei, you will probably not ever see it". I understand your reasoning, but the sentence relies on a false premise. You hypotesize that there are two sets of research results which can be compared. No, there are not two. There is only one. There is a binomial proportion confidence interval. For example, when Qwyrxian or STSC or anyone asserts that anything is biased -- or "POV" -- the observation is only an opinion unless there is something more. You may assume that research informs the conclusory assertion, but without more, this remains only an assumption.


 * DIFFS HAVE CITES
 * FACTS informed WP:V + WP:RS
 * diff 21:40, 4 August 2011 Tenmei (see talk page -- Balanced introduction with tweaked inline citation support)
 * diff 20:15, 1 August 2011 Tenmei (Pro-Wikipedia edit -- this revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)


 * DIFFS HAVE ZERO CITES
 * FACTOID = opinion only


 * diff 22:03, 4 August 2011 Qwyrxian  (Undid revision 443083193 by Tenmei ... Even to me, that's an unaccepably pro-Japan POV, levaes out details...how about no one makes big changes w/o getting consensus first?)
 * diff 05:02, 13 August 2011 STSC (rv POV edit.)

In summary, zero is not good, not best.

There is research and there are explicit citations, etc. and there is opinion. Wikipedia requires us to rely on what can be shown, not what is inferred. --Tenmei (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be blunt with you. I will respond, as you seem to prefer, with literary and linguistic references. Consider the words of an ancient middle-eastern philosopher (and possibly a king): "faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" Proverbs 27:6 - i.e., constructive criticism from an ally helps you improve your standing, whereas an enemy will smile, not correct you, and hence allow your errors to destroy you.


 * In your statement above, you've only proven once again that you have a metaphorical tin ear to everything people have been saying to you. It is obvious that one (or more) of the following applies:
 * you haven't read it
 * you haven't understood it because English isn't your first language
 * you have understood it but have disregarded it due to a lack of competence. Subpossitibilities include:
 * you were never taught proper teamworking or interpersonal skills in school
 * you have a megalomanical POV, along the lines of Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann. In layman's terms, you are too stubborn and arrogant to pay attention.
 * you have a neural disorder along the autism spectrum (please don't consider this a personal attack, I'm simply brainstorming the possibilities)
 * you naturally have a short attention span and are stubborn, although not an autist.
 * you lack the mental faculties to respond properly; i.e., you are simply too dumb to understand (see above regarding personal attack)
 * you lack the competence to even understand it.


 * Gallingly, this is all in the backdrop of the fact that you expect other members of the community to drop their day lives in order to read, study, parse, understand, and consider the deep philosophical implications of every jot, tittle, word, sentence, external link, and reference of every 1000+ word essay you write (I am using hyperbole to make a point - although only somewhat; please don't take this overly literally). You don't seem to appreciate that most of us don't treat editing Wikipedia as a homework assignment, and that we have no desire to parse everything you send our way. Perhaps you enjoy discussing things at great length, but frankly, no one else does. Almost all of us edit Wikipedia because it's fun for some reason or other. Something about playing with Wikipedia triggers a pleasure response in the brain (much like a behavioral addiction - just to a lesser extent). But reading long essays does not do this for us. And this is not our problem - it is yours. While it is our responsibility to reach out to people from a different culture and mindset, it is your responsibility to do the same, especially if your mindset is so far out of the mainstream.


 * Back to the point: no; I will not reconsider. Just because something has a reliable source doesn't mean it should be included by your standards. I am quite sure that reliable sources exist for their POV. Hell, I can provide a reliable source claiming that the Japanese are "dirty yellow bastards" (Time Magazine, Dec. 15, 1941). By your logic, we should insert that into the article Japanese people because it's sourced, and because no one can find a source proving it's wrong. But this is not how WP:NPOV works; just because you have a citation next to your edit does not mean it must be included.


 * If you're upset about the fact that other editors aren't citing sources in responding to you, you should ask them to do it. If you want Qwyrxian to provide citations, I'm sure he would oblige. Try asking him - using 100 words or less and without a single literary reference - on his talk page, as I'm sure he didn't even bother to read the novelette you wrote on the dispute talk page.


 * However, I imagine they have provided sources for you previously, but you've tried to weasel your way into explaining why your sources were valid, and theirs weren't. All of this may have proceded from this point, except for the fact that your writing requires a yeoman's patience to parse. Or perhaps they provided a perfectly good explanation, and you lack the competence to understand it (I don't feel like going through the history to figure out which).


 * Nevertheless, it is perfectly symptomatic of your edits that you consider to think it's not edit warring just because you provide a source (as of yet, you have yet to admit fault in the most recent occasion, which resulted in a permanent lockdown and arbitration, and, had it not resulted in lockdown, would have resulted in a 24 hour block).


 * This is my own response to your responses. Frankly, if you cannot understand why other editors like Qwyrxian have a point, perhaps you ought to consider taking an extended wikibreak and going back to college for a few years (again, I am blunt, but I will air out my thoughts, seeing as you've asked for them).


 * If you have any questions about my wording here, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the "faithful wounds of a friend". You put your finger on the pivotal point precisely:
 * "However, I imagine they have provided sources for you previously ...."

What if your premise were only imaginary? Please consider the consequences of this one question only. In the absence of better information, are you able concede this as a hypothetical possibility? A small misunderstanding? If so, good. This solves no problems. It doesn't doesn't explain anything. It is only a question? --Tenmei (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was actually a guess. I would recommend then, if they have not, that you ask them to, tersely, as I explained above. And if they refuse to offer any sources for such an edit, they are either being disruptive or there is another explanation that they will hopefully provide about why it is impossible (c,f., the "yellow bastards" examples I gave above). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre is correct that it's a different problem I had, and one you (Tenmei) seem not to have gotten, though I have explained it numerous times. You are either fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting WP:V.  It is correct that information must be verifiable in order to be included in a Wikipedia article.  It is not correct that just because something is verified necessarily means that it should be included in the article.  Or, I'll put it another way: WP:V is not our only policy (in fact, not even our only core policy).  We also have WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT, not to mention all of our countless guidelines and precedent decisions.  For example, I can verify the names of every business operating in my current home town by using a combination of directories and government records.  I could not include all of that information in the Wikipedia article, because WP:NOT says I can't.  Similarly, your additions to the the SI dispute article violated WP:NPOV--they were not "pro-Wikipedia"; rather, they were "pro-Japan" in parts, "pro-confusion" in others, and "pro-excessive detail" in others. Your failure to understand this is why Magog the Ogre has labeled you as having either competence problems or an WP:MPOV. When combined with your inability to express yourself on talk pages in ways that other people can understand, you are inhibiting successful progress on the articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Qwyrxian -- no. Your kisses are unwelcome.
 * I ask you tersely. Provide citations support for this edit here ....  If not, why not?  What you have not done is the focal point. Wikipedia is fact-based; but your shifting sands are factoid-derived.  Derision does nothing to change the fundamental differences. Paraphrasing Kanguole's words here: "We should not be campaigning to be more 'correct' than our sources".  stricken to re-focus; recognizing a better positioned  fulcrum --Tenmei (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Magog -- Paraphrasing Qwyrxian's own words, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian&diff=446096169&oldid=446094677   .. in fact, when looking back through the archives, my original positions have evolved ....] In this context, I am compelled to acknowledge that opinion and non-opinion are distinguishable.
 * Qwyrxian's complaint here is like the emperor's new clothes, impossible to parse, self-justifying and self-fulfilling. This is over-reaching -- not because of what I have done, but because of what Qwyrxian did not do.

Compare the edit summary with the sentence Qwyrxian posted in the diff above.


 * EDIT SUMMARY
 * Undid revision 443083193 by Tenmei ... Even to me, that's an unaccepably pro-Japan POV, levaes out details...how about no one makes big changes w/o getting consensus first?


 * IN THE DIFF ABOVE
 * "Similarly, your additions to the the SI dispute article violated WP:NPOV--they were not "pro-Wikipedia"; rather, they were "pro-Japan" in parts, "pro-confusion" in others, and "pro-excessive detail" in others.

Please note that neither the summaries above nor anything I wrote had to do with the dispute between Lvhis and Qwyrxian, which was
 * "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
 * "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

My edit was arguably outside the ambit of Lvhis' BRD controversy. If we conclude that it was not, the edit did serve to clarify a conflation of issues which were not otherwise explicit.

Are we talking past each other when I argue sincerely that, yes, everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler. stricken to re-focus; turning attention towards better fulcrum --Tenmei (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Magog -- yes, thank you again for the "faithful wounds of a friend". Once more you show your quality by identifying the pivotal fulcrum: Thanks for the diff here which begins by admitting "[i]t was actually a guess ...." Repeating words I've used before, This thread was a little bit like a step in a longer journey. --Tenmei (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided my argument in the talk thread. That you refused to accept my argument is beyond my ability to fix.  Consensus would definitely not support that wording.  I don't have any more words to explain to your failure to understand that WP:V doesn't say "put in everything verified" and that WP:NPOV really is a policy with equal force to WP:V.  This is why I've requested a topic ban--because no matter how many times I and other editors try to explain something to you, you're either not understanding or refusing to listen, so your presence is a net negative. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)