User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 17

File:Downtown Waterloo.png
It looks like the uploader/owner of this file wishes to keep a local copy of the file which was deleted after it was moved to commons. Can you help him? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

CommonsHelper
Does it work for you? It's been timing out on me all day. Kelly hi! 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the toolserver is having issues right now. But you might try CommonsHelper2 (linked from CommonsHelper interface). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be offline as well. Kelly hi! 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It worked for me just now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No luck, I keep getting "Attention : Cannot get description from the text". I'll try again later. Thanks! Kelly hi! 22:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True; but you do get the upload history, which is enough for many purposes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been having this problem for so long. That's why I made one myself and using that instead :) --Sreejith K (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulp tissue
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Nyttend's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User XLR8TION getting blocked for 3RR vio
During this edit warring/ew HERE, seems to me they are both (XLR8TION and Chipmunkdavis) guilty, and thus BOTH deserving of a block. After reviewing the article's history, I am surprised your block favored one editor over the other. How do you determine which of the two users involved in the EW to block? In particular, they were both trigger-happy. If anything the editor you blocked (XLR8TION) was probably the least deserving of the block as he was the first one to make a rationale invitation to, and to start, a dialogue via the article's Discussion page... Seems to me that at least they should BOTH had been taught the good-citizenship lesson. Please explain your rationale. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * You're probably aware that you have more 100+ articles edited in common with XLR8TION. Respectfully, do you feel you're a neutral party here in arguing for the other editor to be blocked too? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, AzureCitizen, what sanctimonious status you are seeking for yourself with your presumptiousness. (May we ask, how many do -you- have in common with Magog, and lower ourselves to your pitiful level?) Respectfully, but only a moron would believe it's a coincidence I just happened to come across XLR8TION today for the first time. What I said is what I said, and your seeking to find some sort of moral fault in my person is irrelevant to the question I posed,,, and, cleverly, falling just short of a personal attack. FYI, you failed to also find out I was once a sockpuppetter (so be sure you don't pass out this new opportunity to feed your frenzied sanctimoniousness). But can you cite just -one- wikipedia policy stating any of that matters in relevance to the my question? I didn't think so..., for it's not wikipedia policy, but editors like you, seeking battlegrounds, who want to make them matter. So do not seek to childishly obsfuscate the issue and let Magog get on the subject, whom, if you didn't notice, is the person I addressed my question to. If you can do something good and -help- then great, but if you don't know the answer, or can't at least make a -relevant- contribution, then do yourself a favor and go play your disruption games elsewhere. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * @Mercy: 1) I blocked Xlr8tion because he broke 3RR, whereas the other editors didn't, and 2) you've just engaged in your own personal attack on AzureCitizen on my talk page, by referring to him (in one way or another) as sanctimonious, presumptive, pitiful, and accusing him of a great number of things which have absolutely no merit (e.g., battlegrond attitude). He asked you a polite question, to which you've responded with a host of unnecessary vitriol. Please do not attack another editor on my talk page again, or I will ban you from it, whether verbally or by means of block if necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply though you failed to answer the question, and no thanks for threat, I violated no policies, but go ahead and do as you want, I don't loose sleep over trigger-happy admins. AzureCitizen got what he deserved for his shortsighteness based on failure to assume good faith. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Magog did not fail to answer your question; XLR8TION broke 3RR, whereas the other editors didn't. Most editors who have been around Wikipedia for awhile understand that 3RR is a bright light rule; 99% of the time, if you break it, you get sanctioned, while if you stop short of it, you don't.  Also, res ipsa loquitur applies to XLR8TION's block log - it speaks for itself.  As for me "getting what I deserved," I actually found your comments amusing, Mercy11.  :)  You might want to re-read the WP:AGF policy as well.  Go in peace... AzureCitizen (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Mercy 1) I did answer your question 2) you've now attacked Azure and me in your most recent post to my page. Please don't ask any questions here again until you can leave the personal attacks at bay. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging
You just tagged three files I uploaded as having "No source information". You must not have read the file information, since all three at public domain. Please look at the files before you cause a whole lot of trouble for people. The files are: --Zeamays (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Persimmon US National Arboretum.jpg PD-USGov
 * File:Nurses.gif PD-US (pre-1923) and
 * File:Malmaison.jpg PD-USGov
 * Wrong. To paraphrase your own words, before you go sassing up a person who is giving his time to uphold policy and point out a problem created by your negligence, maybe you should read the words on your talk page. That is the license, not the source. We require both. The license tells us the free status of the image, the source tells us where the image was downloaded or scanned from. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too defensive to be an admin. Did you consider wording in a way that isn't sassy (at its best) yourself?Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh am I? Seems I have the bit next to my username. And, yes, I responded poorly, but when you're tired and you get back and you see someone post on your talk page who clearly didn't do his research, and who then gives you shit to boot, then sometimes you're going to fight fire with fire. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also might point out that I am agreeable 95% of the time, but people are ridiculously grumpy when it comes to deleting their images, so I get flaked on pretty often. Everyone of us is entitled to a bad day. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright I'm sorry. I responded poorly, you're right. I struck the worst of the comments, although it's of course still there in the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My criticism should have been worded a little nicer. It is awesome that you made a strike on that line.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

EthnicChernivtsi 2001UkrCensus.png
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at .''' Message added 11:41, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template.

Old version filemover
I love it! It works like a dream! Kelly hi! 23:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Sam ewing2.JPG
I just saw your closure on the FFD for this file - was going to move it to Commons, but based on uploader contribs, this photo is not of Sam Ewing. Should I renominate it? Kelly hi! 13:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just deleted it. It was once connected to a deleted article for an obviously different person (birth date, etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Superseded map
I was about to move File:Gy-map.png over to Commons when I noticed they have a newer/better version = File:Guyana-CIA WFB Map.png. What do you think - move over the old map, or replace its usage here with the new map? Kelly hi! 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to make a judgment call. It seems pretty irrelevant to me either way, tbh. Somebody, somewhere, might get upset once you nominate it for deletion. I'd probably just transfer it because it's easier that way, but if you want to relink everything it is probably a bit of a better map. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just move it. I get sick of getting crap over dumb stuff, and you're right, somebody would probably get upset for a reason I can't possibly imagine right now. Kelly hi! 00:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to read more. File:Leann-Rimes-Blue-140232.jpg
The image is also orphaned! JamesAlan1986 03:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Blue. It is not being used on the page anymore. JamesAlan1986 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't your mother ever tell you it's impolite to tell other people what they need to do? The term "please" will go a long way for you. Besides, you reinstated the no source tag. If you want to reinstate the orphaned tag, fine, do it, but not the no source tag. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My mother taught me that when you point something out you don't need please for that. As far as the source goes whatever, I wouldn't post a pic just cause it comes from my personal collection. Another source might prove it wrong. At least that's what I'm learning. Besides I've never seen that image before. I've been a fan for over 10 years now and all I've seen show the one that's posted on the page now. That's why I wouldn't consider personal collection a source. That's why I tagged it. It doesn't give a verifiable source just their word. I just learned that in my adoption class on here. JamesAlan1986 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) (With all due respect) I think your mother erred in that sense. It's rude to tell someone else what they need to do. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right. I could tell you and plenty of other editors what you need to do right now, but it's just not civil. It has a condescending tone about it.
 * 2) We have a lot of images that were scanned, and we can't go deleting them just because another editor doesn't recognize it. Whether you're correct or not, this is an issue that should go through WP:FFD. Speedy deletion is for obvious cases.
 * 3) In fact, because it's PD-text (i.e., it doesn't meet the threshold of originality), it actually doesn't need to be sourced. The only question is if it's encyclopedic, i.e., did the uploader fabricate this image altogether in order to deceive the reader? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is probably a good case in point of what I'm trying to say. I should have said something like "with all due respect, I think your mother erred" (which I've since added) just because saying someone's mother is wrong can seem insulting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, obviously you're getting hostile for no reason so I see no reason to continue this conversation. I wasn't rude to begin with I pointed out that you need to read more into things before you go removing tags on an image as there were two the one I tagged it with and the second one I pointed out to you which was it was orphaned, you obviously didn't look at the history to see it was tagged by a bot or check the article to see if it was being used. To point that out and to say you need to check into it more does not garner a please to anyone. That's pointing out what needs to be done before removing unnecessary tags. So however I said it, it doesn't matter, there's no reason to be hostile about this and take it so personally. And now I am choosing to end this conversation. Good day. Please drop it. JamesAlan1986 04:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review
It is highly unlikely that you have the time but should a few spare minutes appear then could you please comment on the numerous uploads of photo portraits/"cartoon" portraits and similar made by User:LRBurdak in 2006 and earlier? Many claim to be "self-created". I've just nominated three for DI/CSD. - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like legitimate tagging to me; they clearly aren't self-created. What I like to do in those situation is tag with {{subst:dw-nsd}} instead of {{subst:nsd}}. WP:PUF would probably have been appropriate too, although unnecessarily complex. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Phew! Ok, thanks. I'll take a look at the alternate tags that you mention. I don't do a lot of work on the image side of things, so it tends to faze me a bit. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Block adjusted
Please see my change. I think you intended it to expire after 24 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder when the system would have unblocked him. Odd that it even puts the day of the week in the field like that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OP-19316.jpg
Could you please expound a little upon your "keep" close of File:OP-19316.jpg at, and how it meets all ten criteria of WP:NFCC? Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; I have previously nominated train images for deletion as failing WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC because the train was still standing, although not in service. These were chosen as keep by two separate administrators (via two separate processes). I don't immediately have the links but I could try to dig them up if you still want. This example was simliar (although it didn't have NFCC#1), but based on that precedent and the opinion given by User:DanTD, it seems the community has spoken that it believes a picture the train in in operation in fact the source of enough critical commentary to warrant it be kept. I was also impressed by Dan's argument that the uniqueness of the time for the photograph means it couldn't be conveyed by any other means.


 * I will admit this is a borderline case, but the discussion had been open for several days past the deadline, and someone had to make a difficult decision. If you'd like, I'll amend it to no consensus. However, I don't believe that the community's opinion on the merits of this train (or similar trains) nor the community's guidelines warrant a deletion; if you disagree, I'll have to refer you to WP:DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus is a good solution. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

F7 > RFU
Hello Magog the Ogre, I hope you're having a great day/night. On 1 November I requested speedy deletion of File:Ramp ceremony Kandahar Airfield 14June2007.jpg, which on 3 November you changed to a 'RFU' (not sure what the acronym stands for). I'm fairly confident the file will be deleted when the delay expires, but I was wondering why the procedural change. Reading the non-free content criterion, especially "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.", I assumed speedy was the way to go. I definitely see the National Post as meeting the criterion for 'commercial source' and not a mere re-user in this case, as the author of the drawing is Richard Johnson, an employee of the newspaper (which therefore holds the copyright of the work, in the same way Reuters would own the copyright to a photo taken by one of their photographers). Furthermore the article where the file is used (War artists) has little to do with the said work and its use on the article is a clear infringement of the NFCC: someone wanted to do an art vs reality comparison, and in the process infringed on the copyright of the original author and publisher of the work. Obviously the file is not irreplaceable as there are hundreds of public domain images from war artists readily available on Commons. Would you be so kind to clarify the reasoning behind the procedural change so I know when and when not to request speedy for copyright infringement in the future and understand why? Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango  — 08:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; the page didn't make the distinction that the National Post held the copyright on the photograph. It gave the author, and it gave the source as nationalpost.com, which doesn't necessarily mean it was their copyright (they could be using it by permisison, or for fair use). And the link was down so there was no way to check. Anyway, I've deleted it now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Magog. I probably should have given a link to the works in the speedy deletion request to make that distinction. Best regards — CharlieEchoTango  — 22:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning on sanctions
Pseudoscience? What are you talking about? have you got the right person? PiCo (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228
 * The pseudoscience sanctions apply to creationism/evolution as well. That is not to imply that creationism or evolution is necessarily false, only that the sanctions apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Even so, what article are you talking about? What edits? PiCo (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Genesis creation narrative, specifically the wording over whether it is a "myth" or a "narrative". Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit was stylistic, not substantive - it left both the "narrative" and "myth" words in place, and was aimed at saying the same thing in fewer words. Plus, I haven't touched the article in the last 24 hours or so. PiCo (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think the edit is directly regarding the substance of whether creationism is a myth or not (myth being a pejorative term in this sense, implying it never occurred). The warning was narrowly defined to issues which are about the science of creationism. It doesn't apply to other articles about the Bible or its history. I should have clarified that.


 * On another note, I was thinking of warning some other editors, but I will take it for a second opinion to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Myth is definitely not a pejorative term in this sense - you'll find most commentaries on Genesis referring to the Creation story as a "myth", and discussing just how it differs from (and is similar to) other ME creation myths. The word does, however, provoke heart attacks in many Wiki-editors, both true-believing Creationists and faithful atheists. I do wish that more editors would actually read books about the subject - not many do, you know. PiCo (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion on the issue moved to AN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Two files
Hi, what is the difference between and  ? they have both been uploaded to commons from en.wiki, but the first one is not available in the en.wiki anymore, while the second one is! Thanks, In fact 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first file is available at File:Crest (Black Back).jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Image removal
Hello, i have been waiting for approval for the use of an image you removed from the Majid Jafar page - nto only havue i posted that i am waiting for approval but was under the imopression that this would not be removed as i had followed the correct process. please can you either explain whaty it was removed and let me know what code i need to type that i may have no0t done so or undo the cnahges you made. many thanks (Jamesmaharrison (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)).
 * Hi James. I'm sorry about any confusion; I now see you posted a response on your talk page. In fact, a lot of the messages you get are automated (even if they're from a user), so I didn't see it, and neither did the user who posted it on your page. I've gone ahead and undeleted your image and placed the proper template on it. In the future, all you have to do is put OTRS pending on the image and it will notify an administrator that you're in the process of requesting permission. We won't be able to wait indefinitely but we will usually wait a bit longer.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks very much for letting me know and that much appreciated - i have sent an email to the right address now with proff of permission to use the photo so hopefully that will sort it out. Thanks again for your help. (Jamesmaharrison (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)).

Toyota 3R-C
You have nominated File:Toyota 3r-c.JPG for deletion, an action which I find a mite hasty. The picture has been here since 2007 without any expressed concern; the uploader is dormant for over two years: Is it really reasonable to expect Blueck to somehow respond to these concerns in a timely fashion? The fact that the picture has been available here for over four years without any worries should go some way towards alleviating any fears about copyright theft. I am trying to locate the original uploader to fix the concern, but I do find the state of affairs somewhat ridiculous. This from someone who has endeavored to delete many stolen images, see for an instance of my requesting a deletion. I would like to protect this shot and while I do hope that the original uploader will be interested in protecting the image I also worry that this kind of thinking will lead to a continuous shedding of material over technicalities as our standards keep changing over time. Best regards,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what to say. He never actually indicated who the author is, which is unfortunate. In my experience, editors do this a lot when it's not themselves. That said, it has the same metadata as some of his other uploads which are his. Maybe you can ask for a second opinion at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

JoePa
It's all official now. He's been fired and won't coach another game. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right; I just figured that out; I've been making edits via my cell phone on the secure connection so it's taking me a longer time to get updates and type. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Phooey; I was hoping to go to State College and get a picture of the student body rallying to post to Commons or here. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do find it funny that I was (essentially) the one to break the story here. I've never done that before. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a lot of really lousy pictures and grainy cell phone video from last night. Should I upload it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass image delete
Are we at the point where we should consider a mass delete of the image uploads made by User:LRBurdak? Scanning through their talk page I can see dozens of "successful" delete notifications since 2008, including a batch that I nominated only last week but which had mostly existed for a few years. What is worse, is that they still do not get it - they attempted to fix one of my noms but got it wrong, then tried again when I pointed that out & they have still got it wrong.

There are still quite a few images loaded and a lot of them appear dubious (Photoshop, scanner etc) & claim to be self-created, as were all of the batch that have just been deleted. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on that one. It's entirely possible and even likely he used a scanner for some of his own non-digital photographs (it seems to more this is more common for editors in third world nations than elsewhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to talk me through the that you have just added. They claim that the photo was taken by a studio, so we do not know who holds the copyright. Is that why it is potentially unfree? Even though we're dealing with a serial violator? Commons have deleted stuff like this, no problem, so I am a bit confused! I'm not doubting you, btw.

Re: scanner, yes, indeed & I am aware of that issue. It is just the sheer number that have gone already both here and at Commons because of false claims. I think that Kumaranderjan (or whatever they were called) had less images deleted before someone decided to call it a day. The compromise position would be to delete all pictures of people but not of buildings etc, since the latter are certainly more likely to be self-created/scanned etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: clearly licensed: the license is GFDL-self. You may have meant no permission, which is a different template and process. And WP:PUF is a nomination process for any images which aren't obvious copyright violation and which require a better explanation as to why they're unfree than just "no permission".


 * Anyway, you're 100% correct. Looking through this person's uploads shows he plops a self-created notice on any image, without proper explanation. My recommendation: ask him point blank to explain how he "created" images of so many people, explain the nature of a derivative work, and hope for a decent explanation. If he gives none, or is lazy/flippant about it, take the issue to WP:PUF and list the questionable ones en masse. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, permission vs license. Yes, that is a misunderstanding on my part. I'll do as you suggest, and while awaiting a response I'll take a look at the PUF process just in case. Thanks for your help and advice. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

St Michael Gent, Belgium.JPG
You left me a message mentioning an imge I uploaded. I am not sure what you mean by deriviative....this is an photograph of a public work of art I took whilst on holiday in Gent. What do I have to do to clear up any confusion RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your photograph was recently moved to Wikimedia Commons at commons:File:St Michael Gent, Belgium.JPG. Commons policy stipulates that images must be public domain in their source country (in this case, Belgium). Unlike some countries, Belgium doesn't have a copyright exemption for photos of public artwork, meaning that any photos taken of 2D or 3D artwork are automatically considered derivative works; the relevant policy is at Freedom of panorama. Also, English Wikipedia goes by US law (it ignores Belgian law, unlike Commons); however, US law doesn't have an exemption for such photos either, so we couldn't really store the image in either place without knowing more about the source.


 * Anyway, the public artwork is public domain in Belgium if and only if its architect died before 1941 (per Belgian law... see List of countries' copyright length). Can you tell me anything about the name of the architecture and/or its artist? Based on the style, I'm guessing its architect probably died before 1941 but I'm not sure.


 * Apologies for all the legal talk. I ask for your patience and we can have this resolved ASAP. If what I've said it too complicated, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know how to answer about that, it was public work (on top of a lampost) on a public street (so tracing the artist is prabobly impossible)...if it breaks the rules there's nothing we can do about it. Pity because it is a lovely example of St Michael and it was just there on public display. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ewfwe.jpg
Hi there - I'm a bit confused as to why you made. The author was listed as the uploader, and the source listed as the author/own work. You placed the same tag at Commons. Mato (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the author is Látches (whoever that is), the the source is author (who, I assume is Látches). The uploader never said who Látches is, or why we should assume the licensing is correct. Fortunately, the author cleared up that s/he is in fact the same person . Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Just checking that the tag doesn't need to be there. Regards. Mato (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew_Breitbart
Please see what I hope settles the issue. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Charlyne Yi at UCB.jpg
Files tagged with shouldn't be deleted from Wikipedia, even if they move to Commons. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's the problem: . Someone changed the name and my bot didn't have the slightest clue and as such didn't make a notation on my file moving script. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the status?
Hi! I noticed this because I read. --MGA73 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave him two talkback notices, but he's no longer responding. I think he just doesn't want to deal with it. Probably non-free as lacking permission, but it's your call. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Piglet EHShepard.jpg
Just to say thanks - I'm an absolute newbie at this game, and (naive as this may seem) I'm very touched you've taken the time to try to fix this. Alfietucker (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Florence LaRue.jpeg
The uploader is reverting the no permission tag on this image. Can you have a look? --Sreejith K (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The bottom of the page now says "The content of this page is released under version 1.2 or any later version of the GNU Free Documentation License, and under version 3.0 of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License." Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't remember seeing that when I checked the page. May be it was added after the tag was put. Anyways, since the permission is now OK, I have moved the file to commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indentation at RFPP
Hey Magog, just a quick note - for marking pages as (un)protected at RFPP using the RFPP template, please preface it with a : instead of a *. Bullets seem to mess up the semi-automated clerking script. Thanks! Logan Talk Contributions 15:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; although that script ought to be fixed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Is this for protecting the page? If so, thank you! If not, then I'm afraid you have the wrong person. Face-wink.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. On the microwave article, I, the anonymous user who forgot her previous password to her account Coffsneeze and couldn't retrieve it since no email address was attached, was right all along. Microwaves are electromagnetic waves. The edit war is over. The beer is for siding with me. I didn't expect the article would be fully protected, though. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's unprotected again! And I thought I had to be an administrator to edit microwaves. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't fully protect it. I semi-protected it, because using 3 different IPs to make three reverts in a single day is highly disruptive (it shorts all ability to discuss the issue). But, I will still take your beer, and chug it gladly; may we drink together. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And apparently, microwaves are radio waves again. That's funny. I could have sworn I have read in my textbook that they are EM waves. But I am not even going to bother, since I have found reliable Internet sources that state that microwaves are radio waves. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Query re: alternate licence
Is there an alternative licence that could be used for ? The source is stated to be a site hosted on Blogspot and, as such, I think that it probably does not meet the current non-free terms, ie: "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person." There is absolutely no basis for the assumption that it is "most likely" an official photo of the Pakistani military, although it certainly is possible. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Tajammul Hussain Malik Photograph.jpg
 * It seems pretty obvious that it's non-free. There are a few issues:
 * In order to be PD-Pakistan, it would have to be published (not created) before 1961. It's very difficult to prove publication date when an image comes from a source like that (for some reason, this problem is common for images from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia).
 * In order to be PD-US-URAA, it would have to be published (not created) before 1946; I wouldn't hold my breath. Policy states it needs to be PD in the US as well as its home country; Commons will accept it anyway (see ), but at any time it could get deleted anyway.
 * If I were in your shoes, I'd leave it as fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There are too many different types of licence. Bloody nightmare! Anyway, he was a serving officer 1946-1980, per his own article, & so the 1961 date could work in favour of leaving it as it is. Oddly, his own article has no photo. Thanks for your advice. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow; that usage at Hilal-i-Jur'at fails WP:NFCC with flying colors. However, the picture at his article does not; I shall be fixing that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait; he's still alive; phewey. That didn't sound good. Er, I meant, he's still alive so it would fail WP:NFCC. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah'm confused :-S I understand your point about NFCC8 but not about NFCC1 and being alive. Are you suggesting that a Wikipedian should go knock on his door & take a photo? I mean, I am quite content for that particular blogspot image not to be used anywhere, mainly because it is such poor quality, but I don't fully understand how NFCC1 prevents its use in the bio article.

BTW, just noticed how you formatted the file name above, with the colon in front to prevent display but provide the link. I'll remember that - very handy. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; we admins are full of mysterious knowledge. If you only knew the hidden things we can do. Face-wink.svg
 * Anyway, see WP:NFC, bullet point #1. In fact, that is exactly what we're suggesting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I need to digest that entire article. However, WP:NFC has an italicised bit at the first bullet point. So, we are not only saying someone should go see him but also, by "refusing" use of the blogspot image, implying that they might want to ask him to dress in his old uniform for the pic. Would the italicised bit not count in the case of his own article? Again, not that I particularly want to see it used anywhere ... but there are policies and there are personal opinions, and the latter count for nothing. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That's a good point. IMHO the only way we could allow this image would be if there's a special need to show him as he appeared while at his original duty. In fact, that would be a much better image than a current one. That said, if we showed the image in that way, there would have to be some accompanying text describing the image (this is just how it usually works... please don't ask me to explain). You might ask for a second opinion at WP:MCQ; my guess is you'll get 50% saying keep, 50% saying delete.
 * 2) Yes, WP:NFCC is a nightmare. I went through a ton of coaching on this just to be able to apply for adminship: User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3. Some of the points are rarely in play (e.g., the item must have been published before), others are frequently in play (e.g., pictures of living persons). In fact, this is a policy which came down right from the founder (User:Jimbo Wales - it would take me like 45 minutes to find the diffs and I'm far too lazy for that). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed enough about this one to get involved in some community image assessment process, & in any event even I can see that there are arguments on both sides & the result will likely be "no consensus".

I'll take a look at the training link but I have no plans to run for adminship. I am named far too often at ANI for that to ever progress beyond a pipe-dream. I'll just keep picking the brains of those who have got there, and read up on stuff that get raised along the way. :) Thanks again for your help. Sitush (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh; adminship isn't for everyone, to be honest. You can do 98% of the work as a non-admin anyway. In fact, I haven't bothered to run for adminship at Commons, nor have I tried to be on my best behavior so I would pass it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:PD-AR-Photo and Category:PD-AR-Anonymous and Category:PD-AR-Movie
These categories should be inspected. As for my talk page, I give you my gratitude that you have responded very well about my edits. You did clean up my edits by tagging them as "possibly unfree". However, you have removed them per WP:CSD, which I have not yet considered yet. Right now, I'm struggling with computer addiction, and I hope you do better than I. Thank you! --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And I truly hope you do not suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder like I do; the only people who I've found to experience guilt over computer addiction suffer from the disorder (which, if I say so myself, is actually a good disorder to have, as those who suffer from it are very intent on doing the morally right thing). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

M23 motorway - please reconsider your action
Hi Magog the Ogre, you recently fully protected this article - the reason being "edit warring/content dispute". I think that was a bit of an over-reaction to the trivial incidence of 2 reverts each between 2 editors. It means that those of us uninvolved with the minor "dispute" are disproportionately inconvenienced. My prior edits were reverted as collateral damage during the "dispute" and I cannot now get back to work on the article. Please consider unprotecting the article so we can continue to improve it in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I count a total of 13 reverts by 5 editors; not sure how you came to your stats. But I will unprotect it under one condition only: if you are willing to message each of the edit warriors so they know they will be blocked if the reversion begins again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the 36 hours immediately preceeding your action. I have only made one edit to that article - the one adding new information that I alluded to above. I am not, and do not intend to be, involved in any other "dispute" that may, or may not, be ongoing between other editors there. I'm asking you to unprotect the article because I believe that protecting it was unjustified - other sanctions are available, that don't impact the uninvolved editors, to tackle "edit warriors" - so that I can continue to work on it in the traditional spirit of Wikipedia. Full protection is surely only a final and desperate last resort when all else has failed, not the first action in an attempt to settle a localised tiff. -- de Facto (talk). 16:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done, reluctantly. I've notified all edit warring parties that they will be blocked if it continues (an uncomfortable action for sure). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to put you through that pain! But I'm sure you'll agree that uninvolved editors should not be so drastically inconvenienced. -- de Facto (talk). 18:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Karachi City view towards port.jpg
Can you clarify at the discussion how File:Karachi City view towards port.jpg is copyrighted or restricted for publication? I have seen this picture used in several places. I have left a comment at the thread. Thanks, Drspaz (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Drspaz (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied again. Drspaz (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Djmaschek
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Djmaschek's talk page.''' Message added 04:11, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

Gypsyboots.jpg
I created this image and have released it into the public domain. I added the corresponding tag. Schmausschmaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC).
 * You were around this man 50 years ago and snapped this photograph? Meaning you're at least 60 years old, right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas! I'm not getting any younger, that's for sure! Schmausschmaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC).
 * OK. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure, because there are a lot of people on here who lie through their teeth about licensing. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

safesubst
Please see Village pump (technical). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of speedy
Hi, The page Santhosh Pandit was deleted speedily. I have contested the G4 criterion on the admin's talkpage. But seems like he is done with his work for the day :) So if it wont be thought of as some sort of wheel war or something, could you have a look at my contention of the speedy there and undelete the page? Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm going to break the rules and temporarily undelete it simply because he's packed up for the night. I will leave a note on his talk page explaining the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Magog. Now I know that ogres are nice people too :) -- Raziman T V (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please undelete the talk page as well. I would like to put a section suggesting people not to go for speedy -- Raziman T V (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and Yes check.svg Y Done. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image
Regarding File:PiKappaPhiIotaChapter.jpeg, where does the page history indicate that the uploader is the author? The license is just Attribution and the author's original summary was simply "Iota Chapter of Pi Kappa Phi at Georgia Tech.".--GrapedApe (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and . Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still doubt its veracity, so I will tag it for PUF.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Brandon5485
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Brandon5485's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time. —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 23 November 2011‎ (UTC).

Rich Rodriguez
Thanks for protecting the article. I'm assuming someone else put in a request, because I didn't, and I really should have when I saw that idiot vandalize it the second time. It's much appreciated, seeing as though he's my alma mater's new head coach. :D --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I've been watching the article for quite a while now. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please delete old rev
Old rev of File:Brady.jpg can be found at File:View from Brady Bluff shelter.jpg. Kelly hi! 01:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals
If someone has been blocked for a year and is an unrepentant sock master, and no one is willing to unblock him, just consider him banned.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Chita1234's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chita1234 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 November 2011‎ (UTC)

'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Chita1234's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time. ---♥Chita1234♥ 18:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a bigger story in the US when Juan Williams ...
Mr. Ogre:

Let me try to answer your question, "Why is it a bigger story in the US when Juan Williams is fired by NPR than when countless innocent journalists are murdered by a covert Russian govenment inside the US and out?"

Everyone know the Russians have been up to political murder from Rasputin and two Nicholses to Trotsky, Krivitsky, Grigori Markov and Litvienko. That story is "Dog bites man," about somebody else's country. But some of us are old enough to remember the original promises when NPR was created that it would respect its federal funding by being scrupulously neutral on domestic politics. That is why firing Mr. Williams for opinions expressed outside his capacity at NPR when other NPR employees have been permitted opinions at least as controversial (but on the other side) reopens the question of continued federal support for NPR.

I hope that this different perspective helps to answer your question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.96.107 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right; actually it was a rhetorical question. I know why it's news: because a) it's man bites dog, b) because it's about journalists (and journalists love to talk about other journalists), c) it's in the US and not abroad, and d) in this specific case, it fit right into the Fox News agenda (disclaimer: Fox News is by no means unique in having an agenda in American media). None of these are valid reasons though, at least if you ask me. Don't get me wrong - the firing was unfair given the standards - but I don't think it should be made a huge news story while far worse crimes happen on a daily basis (and often crimes in the same industry!). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

List of bridges to the Island of Montreal
Re: Can you be more specific about what shortcomings you found? You left nothing on the talk page. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Tag removed Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bulford Kiwi 2.jpg
Re: File:Bulford_Kiwi_2.jpg Hey, please explain why you want to delete this photo? i took it with my camera and put it on the story, please advise what i need to do to keep it? Cheers, Muhnkee_2 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhnkee 2 (talk • contribs)
 * Because it's really lousy quality compared to the other version you uploaded, File:Bulford Kiwi 1.jpg. If you want to keep it, a good first step would be to crop out the whitespace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bucket list
I do hope you don't kick the Wikipedia bucket, as you suggested at User talk:George Ho. Maybe you just need a break...it gets to all of us at sometime or another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thought about it a lot, and I changed my mind. Sort of. Maybe. Not quite. Thanks though. Face-smile.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you take it easy now. Nil carborundum, as my old dad used to say. Don't let the b-gg-rs grind you down. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow; seriously. Very very well put. (Also, didn't know that word you bowdlerized was a curse word... not a common word in my part of the world) Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The eleventh commandment
Why did you rush to undo what I was doing before I even finished?

I'm planning to make "the eleventh commandment" a default page of the phrase itself and move the book article to a dedicated page. Just as the "apple" page is about the fruit and not the computer firm. And there is no controversy or dispute among multiples of people here. There are no people claiming that the centuries old English phrase "the eleventh commandment" is less applicable than the book or that the phrase is mostly used to refer to the book. Therefore it would be a waste of time to propose a move and all that jass and the rules as stipulated in the "movign a page" WP instruction link shows it is perfectly OK to move such uncontroversial stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get on your nerves or just appear like I'm blindly reverting (I'm not). Nevertheless, in order to satisfy copyright issues (see c&pmove), please make sure to go through the proper process. If you are doing an uncontroversial move for which you (which you are incapable of doing because you can't delete the old page), there is a non-controversial section at WP:RM. I'd be glad to help you fill it out... I'm just too unknowledgeable in the area to be able to do so myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I did it and it worked (you may check it out for yourself and see if I didn't succeed or made some sort of error while doing it) Loginnigol (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No you did not do it right at all, but I've undone your moves and moved the pages properly so it is now done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:1974 Iceland 1100 year coin (reverse).jpg
I received a notice that the above image was up for speedy deletion, but unfortunately I did not see the notice until after the image had already been deleted. I am still learning more about copyright laws myself, but it is my opinion that within the context of this image's usage on Wikipedia, this image constitutes fair use. Do you think it would be appropriate to undelete this image under a license similar to the one applied to the image File:450 Years of the Polish Postal Service coin.png? Specifically, since the image on the Icelandic coin is itself the subject of commentary discussed in the article Icelandic heraldry, I believe a fair use rationale would apply. It may also be noted that this is a commemorative medallion with no value as currency, not a coin intended for circulation, so it is not "money", as pertains to Icelandic law, though the design may still fall under copyright protection. The digitized image was my own work, though a similar image of the same commemorative issue exists on the internet here if that is of any help. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Fixed - undeleted for fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's it's been undeleted, I've taken another look and the coin is being used to demonstrate the concept of the Landvættir - wouldn't it be possible to find a public domain image to do so? Kelly  hi! 05:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the sentence in question says "the modern coinage of Iceland..."; I'm not sure there is any free equivalent. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Magog. I might add that yes, in my original rationale for digitizing and uploading the image, it was to illustrate the use of Iceland's national heraldry in numismatic applications. The Landvættir also frequently appear in the actual circulating currency of Iceland, but since this is a particularly striking example, which I happen to have on hand, and since there is no concern of counterfeiting for currency value, I thought this would be a good choice to show how elements of Icelandic national heraldry appear in coins (circulated and commemorative). Thank you both for your thoughtful suggestions, and for your assistance. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry I missed your response yesterday. Anyway, Wikipedia's policies for fair use stipulate that there can be no free equivalent that would convey the same meaning, nor could one likely be created by a user (Wikipedia's policies are guided both by real-world US laws and foundation policies meant to avoid any type of lawsuits). Kelly was simply wondering if there are any out of copyright coins we could photograph. In practice, that probably means any coins whose design was by an agency (not a person) that were publicly released before 1926 (for English Wikipedia) or 1941 (for Commons, although they should be using the 1926 standard but aren't). There are a few other possibilities that are simply too complicated to worry about at this point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)