User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 5

RevDel
I just revision deleted one of your edits where you reverted a vandal. Hopefully my edit summaries are clear that you were properly reverting, but that inappropriate material was contained in the diff. On a related issue, it looks like the undo button works differently than PopUps in this circumstance: compare with, the latter of which is clean without suppression. Any idea why? Happy trails, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted more than one edit and thus used the popups revert tool. I had to revert more than one because SineBot so nicely signed that cordial edit so we could all know who was responsible for it. In any case, in fact I did a bit more cleanup deletion for you; you accidentally deleted my edit instead of SineBot's edit, meaning my clean edit wasn't in the history, but SineBot's dirty edit was! Does this answer your question, I hope? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Thank you for that. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued copyvios by editor TyDwiki
Hi there. You recently blocked after s/he received at least 3 warnings  for WP:COPYVIO of episode summaries on TV pages. (Editor also has several warnings for adding unsourced infomation and image issues.) S/he was then told of a WP:CCI having been opened at WP:CCI. Despite all of this, today I again warned the editor for the same type of copyright violation edit. I just wanted to let you know, since clearly the short block and ongoing investigation have not altered the editor's behavior. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked two weeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RFPP
Hi -- wanted to point you to a query I added to your RFPP item. Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PD Images
They are all PD - (Public Domain) from my Chevrolet and other archives as stated in the files.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The images just need a source. All you said was "Chevrolet image" or "Chevrolet factory image" or "Chevrolet publicity image". If you could expand on that - it's too vague to really count as a source. where did you specifically get the images? Were they self-scanned? Did they actually come with your car or did you actually have a press kit or a magazine? Etc. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All are from my extensive literature collection- ads, press kits, brochures, factory photos, engineering reports etc.Vegavairbob (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could be more specific, either you or I could add it properly with WP:AWB, and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to remove the nsd tags and give a proper source. What is a factory photo? And I take it that means "press photo" is a press kit photo. I also don't know what an engineering report is, pardon my ignorance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Automotive Engineering reports are soft-cover documents published by the manufacturer, written by the employed engineers, and usually issued to dealers and the auto press; similar use as a press kit - to introduce a new model, while providing more specific engineering information including images, graphs, diagrams and text in a staple-bound form.

Auto Factory photos (8x10 glossy-b&w or color) are published by the manufacturer and issued to dealers and the automotive press, either as part of a press kit with mutiple photos or issued with just a letter.

Auto Press release photos are similar with text at the bottom including a date and location (ie. Detroit). These too are issued either within a press kit or with a letter. Some factory and press release photos have two or more seperate images within a single 8x10. Although these materials are often used by auto press recepients, usually for new model coverage, their origin (first published source) is the manufacturer. All GM publications and images (including brochures) are public domain prior to 1978. All the images you tagged have the sources further clarified.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the images safe from deletion as there were also BOT captions with speedy deletion on some of them. also a further deinition of another type of photo was added above. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you can remove those bot captions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Images
Hi there.

I saw you flagged some of my pictures as unfree.

I'm not great with this Wiki stuff but will explain rationale here:

File:OgraShinnFeinstickerRUC.JPG, File:TimeToGo.jpg, File:ReleasetheColombia3.JPG, File:Awaiting the lark front cover.JPG, File:ANgeloFusco.JPG, File:FirstOgraNationalCongress.JPG, File:ColombiaThreeBadge.JPG - These designs were created by Ógra Shinn Féin of which I am a member of the National Executive, ownership is Ógra's. If you need an email verification from the organisation then I can get you one if you PM me your email.

File:NaFiannaEireannROH.jpg - This mural was painted by Ógra Shinn Féin to coincide with the 100th Anniversary of Fianna Éireann/Ógra Shinn Féin. Again I can supply you with permission for reproduction from the Ógra PRO if required.

File:ProvisionalIRAbadge.JPG & File:SniperAtWorkBadge.JPG - Both of these are produced by the Sinn Féin shop and permission has been given to me by shop owners for use. (If required I can provide you with an email etc...)

File:Nakba Mural.JPG & File:ManchesterMartyrsMural.JPG - Both of these images where produced by Ógra Shinn Féin and Sinn Féin, along with local residents. They are part of the "People's Wall" in west Belfast which is a public wall where different groups may use space to highlight a cause or issue. It is my understanding that the Nakba Mural no longer exists at that location and the Manchester Martyr's mural has been edited since. The murals are considered public works as they are put up by the community and different groups. It is my understanding that nobody holds a copyright on them.

File:CheGuevaraMuralDerryIreland.jpg - This mural was produced by the Bogside Artists. Many of their works have appeared on wiki as Fair Use.

Hope that helps

Thanks --Baldeadly (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK great. For the ones where you are a director of the organization, could we ask you to use the process described at di-no permission? This will direct you where to send the email. As for the ones that "nobody owns the copyright to" - that can't possibly be right. If it requires design, and it was made recently, then someone owns the copyright, somewhere. And sadly, as I stated in the PUF discussion, public murals are not in the public domain in the UK, even though they are viewable to the world. As for the last one, it may qualify as fair use, although there are a ton of images in that article that are mistagged as free and will need to be nominated for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again,

The PRO sent off an email to confirm that the Ógra files are permitted to be used but hasn't received any email confirmation back??

Also, the Nakba Mural was done by the Irish Palestine Solidarity Committee, they are a not for-profit organisation and I'm sure getting confirmation for use of the image on the page shouldn't be a problem. --Baldeadly (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be a problem. As long as they're quick to responding to any emails from the Wikimedia staff, it should only be a matter of days before they get marked, and we can close the deletion discussion. The deletion discussions have two weeks until they'll be finished. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Meir Kahane
Hi, thanks for your action and comments re Meir Kahane. You may have noticed that I had tried to reach an agreement with user Vicky Ng right before your intervention, with no success. Another user is currently doing the same role now of undoing any edits to that article here. Thanks again. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that the dispute continues - I don't personally have a stake in this dispute though. Please make use of our dispute resolution channels. I'm sure as intelligent editors, you all can come up with an agreement despite an ugly history for editors of all shades on similar disputes. I highly suggest you avoid an edit war though (as you can see, it frequently ends in blocking for some editors). Also, are you the same person as ? I just mention this because you share some similarities, and I notice Vicky Ng didn't notify you of our investigation into it: Sockpuppet investigations/Atubeileh. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, yes I am the same, as far as I know this is not against the rules, as I have not used the two accounts to vote or in similar activities. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your admission; I realize it may be onerous but if you could please declare this at the top of one of your pages per English Wikipedia policy on it: SOCK, as not doing so had the effect of possibly making it look like more than one person had your point of view on that page. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, still many people have my POV on that page as this discussion and history page show. I am not a frequent contributor to Palestine-Israel articles as the discussions there most often lead nowhere, but I was provoked to see that a terrorist like Meir Kahane was in the Category Islamic terrorism in the US. This is irrelevant and fraudulent, and other people in the discussion page agree. Some people like these two users just protect that misleading information in this article, which I thought should be corrected, and I have added referenced info. to support that, which was deleted by these two users. Thanks عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a legitimate concern, and as such I recommend the dispute resolution process. It sounds like WP:RFC might be the way to go as talk page discussion hasn't helped. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove
Can you take a look at this image? (Oh come on edit filter.) Look on the picture for the link.-- Talk tome (Intelati) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a copyright violation, but it's on commons, where I'm not an administrator. If you click on the page, then click on the link on the page bringing you to the page on commons, then click on copyright violation, it should be deleted shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on as this the the second copyvio picture of her today. Thanks.-- Talk tome (Intelati) 23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the image was uploaded at commons, and any further images uploaded there I cannot stop. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't register the first time. :) sorry about that. 

Intelati has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

He just contacted me about the picture. I think you should do that. Talk tome (Intelati) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing for File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf
Magog, I uploaded a copy of a federal court document and the tagbot is asking me for a tag. I'm pretty sure it's not copywrited. Do you know what tag I need, if any? Here's what I uploaded:

File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf.

Thanks SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm betting on this one though: PD-laws

Why isn't there a tag for something that isn't copywrited...like if I uploaded a drawing I made? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I think it might be PD-laws, but I don't even know. I recommend asking at WP:MCQ, they're very good about that kind of thing. As for your second question, we have quite a few templates for public domain (i.e., no copyright) images, although the ones you're thinking of are probably PD-self or PD-ineligible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now being told that images uploaded to wikipedia cannot be used as references. Is that correct? I noted in the uploaded image page where I got it from. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no, they can be used. What I would do is use that exact document as a reference with a link to the external site, but also keep a local copy that you link to in the reference. Also, I again recommend asking at WP:MCQ to verify the license. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbro87
See my comment in the revert warning page. It's a single purpose account sockpuppet to promote spam. Secret account 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777

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

Hi Magog the Ogre,

I would like some assistance in dealing with an edit-war that's occurring in Senkaku Islands dispute. In a nut-shell, this page is about a territorial dispute between China and Japan. While POV-pushing is a common occurrence in that page, a long-time editor of the page known as User:Phoenix7777 Special:Contributions/Phoenix7777 has recently took it upon himself to revert practically every attempt to correct pro-Japanese misinformation presented on the page. This includes numerous types of contents that had been discussed extensively and properly justified.

To name a very good example, a figure and reference of a newspaper article published by "People's Daily" or "Remin Ribao" was used in the article. The article said a number of things, which are widely confirmed by Chinese editors and very well discussed:
 * (1) "Senkaku Islands" was listed as a constituent of "Ryukyu Islands", which is not the same as "Okinawa"
 * (2) "Ryukyu Islands" was occupied by the U.S. at the time of the article's writing
 * (3) The author of the article explicitly disagreed with how the U.S. and Japan conspired to have the U.S. annex the "Ryukyu Islands".

However, some editors grossly misused this article and decided that it is evidence that claims "Chinese recognition of Senkaku Islands". Also, in the figure caption, the same editors persisted to put "(Okinawa)" beside "Ryukyu Islands" Phoenix7777 when the figure did not make such an equality (nor Okinawa is ever the same as Ryukyu Islands even when under U.S. occupation). Even though the degree of misuse is very obvious and occupied several threads of discussion(1, 2, 3), Phoenix7777 still refuses to acknowledge the error. He tried to justify his point by citing a load of outside Japanese review articles that made the same logical mistake, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original referenced newspaper articles did not recognize Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands (which also had been pointed out to him several times). Needless to say, he also reverts attempts (1, 2) of correcting the mistake on the article and even threatened to report me of "vandalism".

This is only one of several examples of his disruptive behaviour. I think other editors more affected by his conduct may be able to provide even more examples. In addition, there were others who complained about his edit-warring in the past (1, 2.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This complaint has been notified to San9663,  Winstonlighter ‎ and  STSC by User: Bobthefish2. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will explain the recent edits I've reverted as vandalism.
 * removed a description from a direct quote and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.
 * removed a citation and a cited description and by the very next edit added a {{cn]] to the sentence.
 * Aren’t these vandalism? I ask Magog to warn them or to block them for an appropriate period.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's puzzling that you insist to only selectively read certain sentences of my writing and not others. As I've addressed before in here and in previous discussions, many of your citations were inaccurate in their reading of the source they cited. The disagreement is not even a matter of subjectivity, but rather a matter of definition. If an article unambiguously says "A" and not "B" and your sources say this article says "B", then your sources are wrong. And needless to say, your cited description is also misinformation by extension because it is advocating that the original newspaper article is saying something it is not. This is a VERY simple refutation and I am surprised you can't come to terms with that.
 * Anyhow, I believe it is a very clear-cut case of who's actually vandalizing and engaging in an edit-war to push his POV. If an admin can't set an example of destructive interference like this, then it will be hard for editors who are actually interested in writing objectively to do anything. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. A canvassed user San9663 came to comment here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sans9663 is not a canvassed user. What I filed was a complaint and not an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. I did not ask for a consensus and as a result, there is no vote to stack. What I did do was to notify two other editors who had made similar complaints in the recent past and another editor who's planning to file the same complaint. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasoning of my edit was fully explained in the note, following the reasoning of another editor (john smith)'s principle suggested in a preceding edit elsewhere. It did not change the content as all, just removed some redudant description wich were repeated in the saem entry and could be found by simply following the wiki link. While Phoenix7777 had made several edits which were POV and controversial, and changed "claim/POV" by removing the source/claim in the sentence to make it look as if were undisputed fact, often right through reverting without discussing. Recent examples can be found here and here. I tried to convince him through talk page but since he put my name here I had no other choice but to repsond and raise the issue. San9663 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I forgot about that too. I don't think User:Magog the Ogre will want to go through the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute talk/history pages, but all the evidence are there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another example of sabotage, and has been done various times. San9663 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually we don't need wikilinks to all of the alternative name which double-redirected to the most widely accepted name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Another example of User:Phoenix7777's destructive behaviour can be found in the Rare earth element's history. While on the surface, it appears he is removing a link to a term because the link already existed earlier in the article, a closer look will show that numerous chemical compounds or elements in this page were linked more than once (i.e. monazite, loparite, cerium, and more). To add context to this, he is not a participant of that wiki page and the edit he reverted belonged to User:San9663, whose reverts are regularly targeted by him (and often for no justifiable reason). Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't you guys act civilly and get along? It's really not that hard. File a RFC already, or if it's one specific user, RFCU. I do not have the time to sift through edit wars spilling onto my talk page, it's just too subtle. If you all could lay off the ad hominems (true as they are or aren't), and avoid hitting the revert button, you'd all be in better shape. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is bound to be people who wouldn't listen, which is why the complaint is filed in the first place. Well, I guess I can look into getting a mediation if you don't want to deal with this. I doubt an RFC would work. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you try WP:RFC? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered I suppose Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repost this at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Here is a thank you comment for dealing with this. Although it didn't turn out quite the way I would've preferred (as in the disappearance of certain disruptive elements), you did take your time to investigate and come up with a relatively reasonable decision. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Vicky Ng
Hi, User:Vicky Ng is systematically removing Category:Zionist Terrorism from article as she did here and here. I hope you can do something about that. Thanks. Atubeileh (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, it wasn't edit warring: only 3 edits. In fact some of the changes seem legitimate to me (e.g., removing torah). And you reverted per WP:BRD, which is completely legit. Also, I recommend being careful with the term vandalism.Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't complain about torah, but I was rather specific to zionist terrorism, which is dealt with in that article, just like Islamist and Christian terrorisms. She is using HotCat to do that, which clearly shows she is not even reading the content and not interested in the context in which this category was added. BTW, I have not used the term vandalism in my complaint. Thanks. Atubeileh (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the author is editing in good faith; this was not a mass removal, but only 3. If you disagree with a specific removal, I suggest a reversion, and a note on her talk page or the talk of the reverted page. As for vandalism, I was referring to this: Edit summary: Undid Undid category removal by Vicky Ng by Vicky Ng (talk) vandalism and biased opinions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Eternity and Whitetheron
"You have been blocked from editing for a period of forever for creating nonsense pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions" - you know something I don't? :) Peridon (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to introduce you to my super-infinite friend. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think life was easier when all we had to was count dancing angels.... Peridon (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion pls
Hello. If you get a minute, can you look at User talk:Angusmclellan and see if you agree, or not, with my suggestion? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chihuahua state murders per capita during 2009 readjusted to 93 per 100,000
Hi Magog.

Have you heard? In the ICESI document (1997-2009) for Mexico on the country list it's changed but there's a different doc for the subdivisions that had exactly the same rates previously but it's still on 74. The previous state murder total in the ICESI doc (2,523) looks similar to the total murders in Juarez alone they did the same for 2008 updating it a few months later (from 1,414 to 2,030). If you're happy with it do you wanna do the honors? Just thought I'd let you know as you've done those lists.

Thanks. Power Society (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give me the cite please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's the last one for Mexico on the country list:

http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/estadisticas/estadisticasOfi/denuncias_homicidio_doloso_1997_2009.pdf Power Society (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Subgenius-JHVH-1-by-St-Ken.jpg
I assume that your post to my talk page is a generic template. If you will look at the discussion at you will see that the last thing there is me asking a question, trying to find out exactly what someone's issue is before I proceed with OTRS. How can you possibly close the discussion in that state?

I've been clear in stating that I can get OTRS once people agree that the artist's condition (requirement of an inline notice) is acceptable. If we can't get agreement on that, it's pointless. No one has answered me yes or no.

Given that I have somewhere over 60,000 contributions on en-wiki and at least half that number on Commons, and am an admin on both, I would hope that everyone would assume I am acting in good faith here. Once that issue is settled, I will gladly proceed with OTRS. But I don't see how it can be settled if you close the discussion. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed it as keep, and marked it OTRS pending + {{subst:npd}}. Strictly speaking you only have one week to get the permission, but generally we the patrolling admins will extend that by a week or two for OTRS pending. You said you were getting the permission, that gives you two weeks. Also, our discussions are a bit more solid than they are on commons: we like to have them closed on time here. I imagine you could clear up both the whole inline issue and the permission issue with the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The author has been clear: he will only release it subject to the online permission. My point is, if permission with that qualification isn't good enough, I don't want to bother him for an OTRS that will still get the picture thrown away. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see; I completely misunderstood the nature of the issue, which I suppose is my fault. You're saying the author is requiring that upon each usage, there be an inline citation, not simply the current system of click the image and get the licensing? Well if that's the case, I may have to relist the PUF for some clarification. I apologize. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I got him to send OTRS reiterating his conditions. Basically, this is a professional artist/illustrator who is willing to let a low-res version of one piece out there, but still wants a strong reminder that it is his copyrighted work. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds legitimate to me. No reason we can't put something on the image page being very clear that only the low-res version is cc, and the rest of his works aren't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Orme.JPG permission
Dear Magog,

I'm the uploader of File:Orme.JPG, and I'd like to confirm that it's Public Domain, if I obtain a statement from the author that the image is in the Public domain, what form and who do I send it to to get this cleared up?

Thanks a lot.

SeanPatterson121288 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)SeanPatterson121288
 * Thanks for your response. You will want to follow the instructions at di-no permission-notice, which lay forward the way that we can get a copy of the email or the information can be put on the website. Make sure you note the part about adding OTRS pending once you've done so. If you have any other questions let me know, or you can ask at the media copyright questions center. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question
I would like some clarification from an admin who know the PUF process. Is it a copyright violation to photograph items that you buy like File:Bawlsmints.jpg and File:Fenny.jpg. Basically can you photograph products that are copyrighted if you tired to make a product just like it. I have gotten mixed message so I haven't been adding these types of thing.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They both look good to me. The one on the left has a face on it, but really the face is low resolution and not the main part of the photo, so it's de minimis. I recommend bookmarking this link, which has a lot of weird scenarios: Commons:COM:CB. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but those were just example of what I mean. However, what you are saying is that as long as the use qualifies as de minimis (a beast in itself) it ok to take photos of products, correct?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but de minimis doesn't always apply. I recommend taking a look at the casebook if you're ever unsure. In this case, the primary part of the photo is the mints; upon further reflection, it could go either way though because the mints can wasn't accidentally in the photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Man this can be confusing.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Come follow along: Possibly unfree files/2010 October 21. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Sharmanjoshi.jpg
Hi Magog, First off, let me preface this with a note that I may be talking about entirely the wrong file, and since I have no way of seeing deleted content and helpfully I can't find any of this in my browser history, I don't know for sure. Feel free to disregard everything I'm saying here if I'm clearly talking about a different image :)
 * (uploader)
 * (uploader)

You deleted this file under F9 as an "unambiguous copyright violation". However when I investigated the speedy deletion nomination I found that it was actually quite ambiguous. The claimed source appeared not to be the source of the file uploaded to Wikipedia.

The claimed source listed in the csd nomination was a thumbnail, at a very low resolution - much lower than the WP upload. I also found a larger version (by removing "-s" from the thumbnail URL) with an identical resolution to the WP upload, but it contained a complex watermark over a difficult part of the image. The watermark was not present in the WP upload - though the area of the image in question had not been cropped out.

I therefore concluded that the given website was most likely not the source of the image, that the uploader at least had access to a pre-watermark copy of the image, and therefore might actually be the rights holder. As a result, this was not a case of "unambiguous copyright infringement". However the image had no licensing information at all, so I tagged it for F4 giving the uploader seven days to offer it under a free license or document a fair use claim. Had they given unconvincing source information and offered it under a free license, I would have taken it to WP:PUF.

I realize there may be information that I wasn't privy to regarding this image, and there may be policy issues I don't fully understand (I am new to this area in WP, though not new to copyright law), but I do feel that the criteria for speedy deletion may not have been met here, and that there was enough reasonable doubt to give the uploader some more time to document the copyright situation, which F4 would have given them.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The user was grabbing images from multiple sources and claiming pd-self on them. Some he admitted (e.g., I obtained this from [insert clearly non-free site he doesn't own here]), some he did not. In a situation like that, when every other image he uploaded before and after was a copyvio, this becomes F9. The fact that there was a scaled down version on another website is confirmation of that to me; it means someone out there had that image beforehand. And if the uploader were somehow miraculously involved in the film studio (as would have been necessary to proclaim public domain for professional screenshots such as other photos uploaded), then why is he citing external websites as the source? He has about a .01% chance of being a legit copyright holder - in which case the onus really falls on him to be clearer about things. Hope that clears it up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that makes sense - I hadn't considered the possible context of the user's known behavior. Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of BawlsMints.jpg


I received your note about the possible deletion of the photo I uploaded. I am unclear about the specific copyright violation in question. I took the photo myself, and released it to the public domain. Do I have to prove that it is mine somehow?

Thanks,

Chriszuma (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No the issue is with a derivative work, as it has the funny looking picture of a guy on the cover of the container, which the company has a right to lay claim to in terms of copyright. You'll also see the link on the PUF page about de minimis, which is regarding when it's OK to have a part of the picture contain a copyrighted work. I imagine this is new and a bit overwhelming, so I apologize. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Return of Theron?
I've started my (very first!) SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Whitetheron. I think he's only a kid, but he needs educating... This might frighten him into sense. Peridon (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deadwood (TV series)
Just to be clear, I have left repeated messages on the talk page, with links to WP:RSN discussions that indicate YouTube videos should not be used as sources. These messages have been ignored, or the claim has been made that since I am outvoted 3 to 1, they can include the link. The anon. user who made the 3NI report reverted at least twice without an edit summary of any kind. I have come close to 3RR, perhaps have violated it, but this is not a content dispute, this is what seems to me a clear case of an inappropriate source being repeatedly added even after policy has been cited against it. I have since posted a RSN query on this matter, and hope to have the opinion of other editors on the appropriateness of the source. I would ask that it be removed in the meantime, until that discussion concludes. Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't do that. To address your contentions one by one:
 * 1) These messages have been ignored - no they haven't - the talk page is full of responses. They just haven't conceded to your reasoning.
 * 2) The anon. user who made the 3NI report reverted at least twice without an edit summary of any kind: only after you did it first, and while mislabeling it as vandalism to boot.
 * 3) [T]his is not a content dispute. Yes it is. It doesn't fit a single one of the reasons for which revert warring is OK that are listed at WP:3RR.
 * 4) [T]his is what seems to me a clear case of an inappropriate source - seems to you. As I've shown in above in (3), this is not a valid reason to edit war, per policy.
 * 5) I would ask that it be removed in the meantime - I'm sorry, but even if I could get you to promise not to restore the sentence (I'm unsure I could), I doubt I could wring such a promise in reverse from the other editors (God forbid someone else should jump in from RSN with your viewpoint). For the time being, the protection will have to continue. If you disagree with this, by all means take it to WP:ANI and ask for a review of my action. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that they have not "conceded" to my reasoning implies that this has something to do with me getting my way, rather than an attempt to act in accord with policy as spelled out on WP:RSN. When I repeatedly quoted that policy, the attitude of the other editors was that they, as the majority could overrule that. They cannot. Never once did they quote a policy that would allow for the source's use, instead they merely repeated that they wanted it and that it should stay. Such an attitude is, to say the least, unhelpful, and an indication that they would not listed to reason. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt your motives. But policy must be interpreted, including policies to... ignore policy. They probably believe your interpretation of policy is too rigid. I'm not commenting on whether or not it is, but I am saying that there is enough disagreement that the issue is not quite as clear cut as you might believe. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, we have a consensus with the only dissenter being RepublicanJacobite.
 * Sorry, RJ, but you lose.
 * People are sick and tired of you asserting ownership everywhere you happen to go in WP.
 * Like this little butterfly alighting here and there, asserting ownership here, demanding conformity there.
 * It's time and time and time again with you. Enough already.
 * Concede for a change, Varlaam (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Varlaam, I've grown quite sick of your untoward comments. If you want to accuse me of ownership, you make an ANI report and present your evidence. But, you better make damn sure you have your facts straight. Until then, keep your unfounded accusations to yourself. Anymore such accusations in public forums will result in my seeking sanctions against you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Varlaam - that post is entirely inappropriate and was a personal attack.
 * RepublicanJacobite - Don't fight fire with fire. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Old aeroplane picture files
A couple of these on my user page talk marked for deletion due to unclear copyright. I think they have actually been marked by a bot??

In any case I do not understand how these can be unclear - they have been questioned before, and the question was answered - could you have a look at them please - and let me know what the specific problem might be?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, that was actually me clicking the nosource button. The most recent one - the problem is that it doesn't list a source. It just has a license. Can you please add the source where you got the image and how you know it's under that license, so that we can determine that as well? Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My CSD-f9's
I see you declined them. I thought (maybe I'm wrong) that Press photos and Getty Images have to be deleted straight away "This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" - I know that wording is bad - the phrasing is still being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Anyway, they'll be gone in a week as the author is a blatant copyvio offender.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't: it's not written in the policy. That's why we are having that discussion. It's all good, I've made that mistake myself in the past. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be nice when (or if) we get a "clear" phrasing of F9. But looking at the discussion, I don't think it will come that fast. C'ést la vie...  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means please contribute. Right now there are only two editors, including myself with heavy contributions in it. The only way we'll get it to change is to get community consensus, and the only way we'll get that is if editors like yourself contribute to the discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes
Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion process help
Hello, Magog. I'd like to see if I can get a bit of help on learning the deletion process. I've been editing WP for about two years now, and have nominated items for deletion several times, but I have done it incorrectly in approximately 2/3 of the cases. It is, for me, abysmally opaque. I hope you will find the time to explain just the recent case with my nomination of File:Henry-Mancini.jpg.

I saw the image added to Henry Mancini, recognized it as a postage stamp in a bio article (that didn't discuss any stamps), and quickly found WP:NFCI as the part of WP:Non-free content I would point to when nominating the file for deletion. I used the CSD dialog in Twinkle, and found what I thought was a good match, F7. As soon as I selected that option, Twinkle kindly tagged the file and put a notice on the uploader's page. I didn't have a chance to mention WP:NFCI, but I hoped for the best.

Then you came along and, saying, "declined speedy - not f7'able - it has to go through process". Okay, I'm not surprised, as I'm forever doing these things wrong. It's just not clear what "go through process" means. I was going to ask, but you weren't done yet. You then, using some other template: di-replaceable fair use. Well, I went to find out what CSD code that equates to, if it's not F7 (so I can use Twinkle properly next time). While a page search for "replaceable fair" on the WP:CSD page didn't turn up anything, I did find, which I followed, and found to lead to the same banner as is now on File:Henry-Mancini.jpg. But the I found is at F7, so I'm (once again) totally baffled at the process and why I can't figure it all out. I feel the same as I did the first time I watched Australian Rules Football.

Can you please give me a couple of hints of what your F7 has that mine didn't? Are you really using some other CSD code you're using that gets the same result? Is there a place in Twinkle I should have used instead of what I picked the first time? Thanks for any tips you can give, as well as for handling the file in the first place. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be glad to explain! WP:CSD has three different ways it can apply:
 * It is an image with an invalid fair use tag. For example, if the postage stamp had a tag that said non-free album cover. That's the only time you'll use CSD->F7 in Twinkle, or equivalently just tag it db-badfairuse.
 * It is an image which fails some part of our fair use criteria: Non-free content. In that case, you can dispute it with {{subst:dfu}}, or in Twinkle as di-disputed fair use rationale. There is a seven day process.
 * The last possibility is a specialized case of the above: when the image specifically fails WP:NFCC. Because we get a lot of these, we've instituted a quicker process, which is {{subst:rfu}}; it only takes two days.
 * PS. Two last possibilities are {{subst:orfud}} and {{subst:nrd}}, neither of which described this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

re User talk:71.167.252.76
This is a massive sockfarm. Would be more prudent for the individual to edit from a registered account, rather than simply an IP address, in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Histmerge request
At 05:57, 28 October 2010 User:Magog the Ogre asked for page Help me I'm lost to be histmerged to page Talk:Sue Murphy. But page Help me I'm lost has never existed, and page Talk:Sue Murphy has no history except the histmerge request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that what's going on? Some of the history looks like it has to do with the politician, some the actress, some the comedian (the same as the actress). I wasn't sure we don't have copy and paste moves in the history, so I gave up and used the template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But what is the name of the page with these various edits in about the politician etc? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored Sue Murphy (politician) to text and found a ref for her. The history of Talk:Sue Murphy (politician) is mostly redirects, but some edits are templated headers for a politician-type talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Cut and paste move repair holding pen

 * Sue Murphy - I can't figure out what the living heck is going on with the moves in this article. I threw in some deletions just to confuse matters more.}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, the history of Sue Murphy (politician) contains edits about the politician, and redirects; the history of Sue Murphy contains edits about the comedian, and redirects. Recently, page Sue Murphy (politician) was changed into a redirect because the page was sentenced to be deleted as unreferenced (that explains some of the confusing edit-comments in redirect edits), but I found a ref for the matter in it and I restored the text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion
OK: this link is at the wrong article, as is this deletion revision. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * About those two edits:
 * "this link": At 17:07, 27 October 2010 the politician's page was at the plain name Sue Murphy, and User:January moved it to Sue Murphy (politician) (to let the comedian's page be moved to the plain name). This move at 17:07, 27 October 2010 is also recorded in the history of page Sue Murphy (politician).
 * "this deletion revision": This deleted edit is one of 4 deleted redirect edits under Talk:Sue Murphy. It likely has a similar origin to the previous. There are countless deleted redirect edits in Wikipedia.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK: Magog the Ogre (talk)
 * 1) But it's still at the wrong page. for whatever reason, moves usually end up making two diffs, e.g.,  vs. . Having one at Sue Murphy and one at Sue Murphy (politician) is just confusing. Especially looking at Sue Murphy (the first) and saying "why is this here?" If it's difficult enough, I'll perform the merge myself, although I would probably take more time than you would and make the history look funny.
 * 2) OK fair enough.

Just a note
I just wanted to let you know that I understand all the warnings now and I will no longer copy copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. Sorry for the incovenience anyway-- TyDwiki (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for responding; your cooperation is much appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre referencing problem
Magog, would you mind taking a look at a citation problem I've been having? I've been screwing with it for a while and still can't figure it out. I was creating a new section for the James O'Keefe page regarding the recent New Jersey videos released. You'll see that it appears to be entirely referenced to one source, but it isn't (there are two sources, at the moment) - at least not as I intended. Wikipedia seems to be just attributing all of my references to the same source, and it's really bizarree. Have a look at the code. Is that something you've see before? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only see two cite tags, i.e., two references. What's the issue? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, some guy Dr. K saw the message I left you and fixed it. Apparently it had to do with spaces in the reference tags. I'm still kind of bewildered by it, but oh well. Thanks though! SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of files
You have asked me to add a summary of the use of the non-free use rationale for four items: Three of these files already have a keep mark, unless an article can be found which is regarded as free use. Feel free to remove (any part of) my remarks if you feel that is appropriate. --JHvW (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:JW-zztopposter.jpg
 * File:JW-2009-toddrundgrenposter.jpg
 * File:JW-2009-b52poster.jpg
 * File:JW-2004-tompettyposter.jpg
 * Yes, that keep was actually added by me, the closing administrator, because they're not replaceable (and actually, it's on the talk page on the fourth image). However, they are regardlessly currently in violation of our fair use policy (the difference is subtle, I know), specifically WP:NFG. One or at most two of those images should be on the author's page if the items are to be marked fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that an artist who works graphically is best illustrated by his work. Of course I do not wish to violate any policy. You have remarked that it could be found to be acceptable to illustrate the article with only two examples: my preference would be for the Tom Petty and the B-52's poster as they both won prizes. The Tom Petty poster is also in Billboards Top 25 list. --JHvW (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, as long as they're not in a gallery. The specific policy we're talking about is WP:NFCC. Two might be acceptable but might not; one is acceptable IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for contacting you again but I have a question. In the discussion on the article for which these images were meant, another contributor has remarked that there seems to be a conflict of interest. You can see that discussion here. It is possible to contact Jefferson Wood through his website. Would it help if he contacted Wikipedia? Or would this be seen as interference by "a fan". I am at a loss what to do. I believe the article should have images because, in my opinion, the work of a graphic artist is best illustrated by examples. On the other hand I run the risk that the article will be removed as it may be seen as an advertisement for the artist. Any thoughts? --JHvW (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have answered your question better rather than just remove the tags. The author contacting Wikipedia would not help at all in terms of "conflict of interest" - the author definitely has such a conflict. However, one thing you might consider doing is asking the author to release some of those posters under a free license. I doubt he'd be willing to give up his profits for them, so he might only do so for some old ones he no longer plans on using, or for the very low resolution versions. That way we can display as many as we'd like of them, and you don't have to worry about which page you can put them on or having them deleted. We'd have to follow a process, but IMHO it may be worth going through the effort, especially if the author is already invested in the appearance of the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I also see you've retired. I don't know why you've done so; if it's because you think it's too addictive, that's understandable. But if you did it out of frustration, I recommend against it; there is usually a way to get what you want on here; it just requires an expert's touch and a little effort. I'd be glad to help out in anything you need. (Hint: retiring this way only hurts you; we're a volunteer project so we're not particularly offended as individuals). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I have decided to retire has a lot to do with the way users have decided to address me. By nature (this is not my opinion but that of those around me) I am a gentle, mild and peaceful person, I do not take offence easily but in the past year I have been confronted with abusive and aggressive language, some users feel the need to pester or to make threats (editing my user pages, just to make a point, I feel is just plainly stupid). As you rightly point out this is a voluntary project. One which I have enjoyed contributing to. But no longer. Who loses out? Everybody! The project, myself and probably many more. But as there are now millions of users I feel that it is better for myself to retire and keep my knowledge and my efforts to myself. I tried to stay true to core principles but having to study policy rather than contributing is just not my thing. I still wish Wikipedia well but the project will have to do without me. Thank you for your kind words. There should be more like you. I will see what I can do about releasing the copyright of low resolution images to either Wikipedia or the Commons. As I already had a number of articles prepared I will see if another user is interested. And just to make everything perfectly clear: I decide what I want to write about and what is included in an article. But I feel it is good form to inform the subject of an article that it is my intention to publish an article. This sometimes leads to bitter disputes (some of these people, as you rightly point out have a vested interest). But I control the article until publishing. Then it becomes property of the community, which I always point out to the subject. Conforming to the policy on BLP to me, means not including damaging, hurtful, libellous or scandalous facts and trying to repress them, if the occassion calls for it. But I can not follow al my contributions, there are just too many of them. The fact that Wikipedia is riddled with inaccuracies (a polite way of stating that there are many things that should not be in Wikipedia, although some would regard me as an inclusionist) is something I have tried to point out to the powers that be, but it has only gotten me into problems. As this is a voluntary project, I have decided that spending my life in a manner which I enjoy is preferable (meaning that the little time that is left for voluntary activities will now be focussed on different things). --JHvW 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is certainly your decision; I again counsel you to reconsider, at the risk of us calling your bluff (i.e., you weren't actually quitting) and a slight wounding of your pride. I would be glad to help you in any and every matter, but again it's your decision, and I can't make you do otherwise. In any case, the editing of your user page may have involved, from what I can see:
 * The images on your userpage (see User page): there are actually legal reason you can't have those images there. We remove them for everyone. Otherwise Wikipedia (or you) could actually be sued for copyright infringement. However, if you get the images under the license I mentioned above, you can have them.
 * The categories on your userpage (see User page): you're right, that's a bit more picky. Really we just do that because we don't want to mix your userpage into the content for someone who's reading this as an encyclopedia. I'm sure we could make a workaround (e.g., user age, Category:Beer user templates, etc.).
 * The warnings of vandalism: these were entirely inappropriate; you can actually see an essay I wrote at WP:DV. You can ignore and remove that warning, and if the user puts them back, you can let the user know to stop messaaging you or you'll report the user to an administrator.
 * Again, I think you can get what you want more easily than you think (within reason - i.e., you can't have unencyclopedic material like puffy language in an article and you can't have the wrong images in your userspace without permission from the author). Even if I'm not here for assistance, you can go to the help desk, or (more extremely) to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. I hope that explains; have a good one. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to point all these things out, but I do not want to create a forum for my discontent. I have tried to follow your advice but to no avail. Also I do not understand all of your remarks but I do not think it worth both our times to go into that in detail. But I would like to address one tiny detail. I do not feel that this is an "us against them" discussion. I will probably contribute to Wikipedia in the future, but no longer as a registered user. Being identified by my IP address is sufficient. As I sometimes log in (inadvertently) I have changed my user name to my IP address. To all, it should be clear who I am (and I have nothing to hide). To which I would hasten to add that Wikipedia is an enviroment with rules, rules which I accept and would prefer to adhere to. Removal of facts that do not conform to policy is perfectly acceptable. My problem is with users who feel that they can game the rules or Wikilawyer (because this leads to arguments and procedures that are a waste of everybodies time).

I have my own website, I use that to fool around. Only when the need arises, I make reference to it. Because my website is an area I am at liberty to control (as long as my ISP feels that I remain within their policy) but it is also meant as fun, something that some users fail to appreciate.

Thank you for your time, it is still my wish that there were more like you. --JHvW 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)