User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 9

Barnstar for you!

 * Oh haha thanks. Although I only caught it at the SPI, I guess I'll accept this because I did block before the CU results. All good! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mcqueen prints.jpg
Are depictions of things like this free? Kelly hi! 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Commons:COM:CB. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion on graffiti has gone back and forth over the years I've been working with Commons. Kelly hi! 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird
Check out File:Headbg.jpg. Not sure why it's protected, but it's the same as File:Headbg2.jpg on Commons. Kelly hi! 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it links to the same image, but the monobook script uses http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/headbg.jpg in the background. I'll ask at VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Magog the Ogre's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, well that's quite nice. I certainly enjoy being awesome! Thanks you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Gobernador.jpg
I don't know if there's a different template that I can use on this image. The Commons image and this one are not the same because I cropped out the watermark and whitespace before uploading the image there. That's the only difference between the two. I'm posting this here because you added the NotMoved template. Hellbus (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅I've deleted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. Hellbus (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party movement article
Howdy, Magog. Could I impose upon you to keep one eye on this article for a short time? There seems to be a bit of a slow-boil editwar bubbling up. It hasn't gotten ugly enough for ANI or the edit-war noticeboards yet, so I'm pestering you about it instead (only because your signature keeps popping up on the "probation" and "1RR" templates, so I figure you are familiar with the situation). Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake... apparently one editor has been warned here, and also reported on the edit warring noticeboard. Maybe a little guidance here would be helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

SecurityException_in_IAutoWikiBrowserForm.get_LogControl
Here's some questions for you:
 * Do you still catch Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs?
 * The bug appears randomly or every time?

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read my description here: . It always happened when I tried to load the IFD plugin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it happen in version 5.2.0.0.? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Next time I power up my virtual machine, I'll let you know (I'm usually an Ubuntu user with a Windows XP VM). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Section title w/comment
Hi Magog; i was changing a few things with WikiCleaner, and came across this where one of the section headings (Game log) has a hidden comment ( "==Game log== " ) which invokes your bot. I don't know its purpose, and that is irrelevant anyway to my question, which is this: At MOS:SECTIONS the example is given such that the hidden comment is inside the "==" of the headline; is there a reason not to do that with this one ~ and any others that may exist (i don't know they do, but it seems likely, given that a bot's involved)? Any objections to my changing it? Cheers, LindsayHello 14:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may by all means change it. The project was cancelled due to opposition at WP:BASEBALL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion needed
I am back. Can you please give us a second opinion at Talk:Pashtun_people. Thank you  (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Question about a recent deletion
I was looking over the FFD for log for January 5, and noticed your close at. I was a little puzzled about it when I read the discussion and saw the close. I'm not quite seeing how you came up with a delete for it, because based on a reading of the discussion, it looks as though it should have been a keep, as all concerns appeared to have been resolved. How did you ultimately come to the decision to close the discussion for this file as "delete"? I'm a bit curious. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is available on commons: . Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef full protect on Senkaku Islands dispute
Hi Magog. I was recently checking pages that are indefinitely fully protected in case there are any pages that remain that way inadvertently. I came across Senkaku Islands dispute and it looks like you protected this last October to stop an edit war. Despite the fact that there are a couple successful edit requests, I was wondering if we could give unprotection on this article a try per the third pillar. I'm bringing this here rather than WP:RFPP as I've only spent a few minutes reviewing the article history and talk page, and thought you might have more insight. If you do want to unprotect the article, feel free to do so, as I'm not an admin. It's entirely up to you. Hope you're having a great day! -- Gnowor TC 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I think I told them to let me or an admin know when the edit war calmed down, because I would forget (which I did). This was a very hot button article for a while. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what happened to a lot of the articles I've been looking at. Last month I went rather Huggle crazy and I'm sure there's at least a few hundred things I should check up on that I can't remember. Figured this was a short list that I could clean up quickly. Thanks so much for addressing it. -- Gnowor TC 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with this unlocking. I had been thinking about requesting the unprotect myself; I don't think there's been any significant movement on the article's talk page in weeks or more...plus, since the topic is temporarily out of the news, maybe there will be less vitriol. Also, I think we've got the naming issue (handled on Senkaku Islands) under control, so it looks like its time to see if anyone actually wants to work constructively on the dispute article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Prof. N Wickramasinghe.jpg
Dear Friend, could you pales assist me to solve this problem ? Thanks .--Butterflylk (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; are you the subject of the picture or does she know you personally? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I am not the subject and i don't know her personally. Recently most of my images got same problem. you can see my talk page. I want to know solve the problem and lean. if you can assist me to solve this problem, I can do my further editing better. Thanks.--Butterflylk (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, when you uploaded the file, you added this line on it:
 * When you look at the page, this renders as:
 * When you look at the page, this renders as:


 * In essence, you were saying that you know this image is released under the creative commons license. That license isn't terribly common in the business and academic world, so you probably made a mistake about that license unless you explicitly saw it somewhere.
 * What that means is that you'll probably need to send an email to Wickramsainghe asking for her permission to release that image under the cc-by-2.0 license. She might have to ask someone at the school for permission as well, depending on who took the image and what the policies are (but that's her job to worry about after she gets the email, not yours). Then, as per the instructions on your talk page, if you get an email back saying yes, forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Then we'll have proof from her that whoever owns the images has agreed with the license, and it can stay up.
 * I realize this is complicated, but copyright law is a very sketchy thing, and we want to make sure we don't violate anyone's rights (which is illegal and immoral), but also that we can provide the most free content possible so everyone can use it without fear of the law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Thanks lot  for your advises. Can we upload a image using other way for this mater. I mean not asking permission. AS a help if you can show me a Sample of uploading, I can follow and lean .--Butterflylk (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia's policy states that for a living person, we need to have an image compatible with our license, meaning that no one claims a copyright on the image at all, with the exception that the person who created it must be attributed. You can read more about that at Finding images tutorial. Also copyrights automatically exist on every image that someone creates, so a person has to explicitly release the copyright. In this case, we will probably have to do without an image unless you know someone who has taken a picture of her. I suggest asking question at the Media question center for more help. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear friend, could you please see it this problem again. I uploaded and changed the copyright way.--Butterflylk (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page. You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. Please read the response. Thanks Magog the Ogre. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with a file
I want to discuss about your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASzekely1992.png&action=historysubmit&diff=407637185&oldid=407551773 This map is moved to commons, but I also uploaded an corrected and improved map version there too. If you check older version of this map in commons you will see that it is same as map in English Wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szekely03_original_map.png I am original author of that map (something that en Wiki uploader Ro2008 forgot to mention, but he did mentioned that it is first version of this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Szekely03.png And if you are able to check history of that file - whose page in en Wiki is deleted because it was moved to commons - you will see that I was original uploader and author of that file in en Wiki. Note that you should check history of deleted page in en Wiki - I think that admins can do that, not history of page in commons where they also forgot to mention that I created that map. Uploader in commons only mentioned User:Andrei nacu, who just modified original file that was created by me). So, file is moved to commons, and as its author, I would request that you delete this file from en Wiki because 1. it exist in commons, and 2. because this older version has several errors which I corrected in new version that I uploaded in commons. I am not able to upload this corrected version into en Wiki too because when I try that I got message that file with such name already exist and when I hit "Ignore warning and save file anyway" button it return me to the main upload form. Is that some kind of bug or something? In the past I did not had such problems with uploading of new file versions. PANONIAN 14:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to upload new file version by using "Ignore any warnings" option (this is new for me because in the past upload worked without that option), so now both file versions (old and new) are located in both files (one in en wiki and one in commons), therefore, I see no reasons why this file in en wiki should not be deleted. PANONIAN 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, it's deleted now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR?
I see you're online now - look at the history of Power Rangers Samurai and tell me what you think. Ryulong asked for full protection, but since you were the last admin to block him for edit warring I want your input. I think the block hammer should fall myself.  K rakatoa    K atie   06:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I note he self-reverted; otherwise i would agree. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An edit war over the number 18, this was. Now it's been changed to 19, which I guess makes all the difference.  K rakatoa    K atie   06:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. To be frank, I'm rather ambivalent on this one - if you wanted to go halfway you could only give a five day block (no doubt, he would excuriate me for saying that). And damnit, I'm not sure how two contentious RFA's, two RFC/U's, a desysopping, and multiple blocks haven't gotten him to realize he needs to slow the heck down. Also, without a doubt I am in favor of removing his rollback rights: . Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess part of me says to give a warning, and the other part says he has one-hundred thirty thousand edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Champions Day Picture error
There's a problem with a picture from the Champions Day page: Champions day

I was direct to come here if there was a problem with the edit made.

It looks like a bot tried to change the link for the picture from a .jpg to a .tif image, but the image isn't found. Any idea what happened to the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.47.141 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the past 24 hours or so, Mediawiki's servers have been performing very poorly (in fact my bot is getting false errors quite a bit ). I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the image is actually working, but the server is not returning it properly. That said, I notice that it's an image with a .jpg MIME but with a .tif extension. I'll work on this shortly to make sure it's at the right MIME type; that should fix it. Thanks for the heads up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, that fixed it. Looks like that's an error I'll want to plug into my bot. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for responding here. I won't edit this page anymore, but I was wondering if there was a way to have someone look at the article and help fix the problems with it (is there a list I can add it to or a notice I can add that will bring in helpful contributors?), since the two users seem to stubbornly be resisting changes that would improve the article. Thanks so much for your help! Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; you can try WP:RFC. If that fails and you really feel like ripping your hair out over nothing, then you can try WP:M. Of course it may or may not come out if your favor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I don't think mediation is needed, I couldn't care less about "winning" an argument, I just want to draw attention to the article so that other users will look at it and improve it. Thanks again for your time. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering if there was something I could tag the article itself with, just to make a note that it needs work (repeats the same thing multiple times, list isn't clear, etc.) I'm not exactly sure of the methods and etiquette for this, so any help would be appreciated, but don't worry if it's too much trouble, I understand you're probably busy, and sorry again for taking up your time and talk page. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the conflict, you could try Lead too long, but I warn against using tags when a dispute already exists; it fairly often serves to piss off the other side. If you do decide to tag it ultimately, you might consider asking Cirt, and waiting another 12-24 hours to do so to avoid creating any angry mastadons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, alright, thank you very much. I'm guessing I could predict his response, and at this point it's probably not worth it, so I may just leave it be. Thank you for your time. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding your warning

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the warning about the disruption to user, is it possible you could place an individualized warning to the user talk page of the user in question, in addition to the notation you already made at WP:AN3? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you also see this and this ?? -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that, sorry. Given that you two are engaged in discussion, I think the warning should suffice for now, apologies. Actually I did place a talkback message on Yaksar's talk pointing him to the AN3 discussion where I tailored the warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. Could you give an individualize warning, at the talk page of the user in question, in addition to the talkback? -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the discussion we're having above? Is it so you can document it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if one is to say, "user was given a warning", that is usually done both in an update to the relevant noticeboard, and to the user's talkpage. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly seems necessary, I'm well aware of everything. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Magog the Ogre, much appreciated. Hopefully the user will not violate WP:3RR again in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming like I need to have the last word, I'd just like to point out that I did not violate 3RR, and resent being accused of it. Have a lovely day. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is all in the report. The last most recent revert by, was a troubling instance of indeed 4RR. Hopefully, this user will not engage in this disruptive behavior pattern in the future, especially after the warning given recently. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I try to defend myself against that, I just want to make sure this isn't too annoying for the owner of this talkpage? I'm really not sure what the etiquette for this is. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a bit annoying, but I'll throw in that actually it was only 3 reverts today, and 2 on Wednesday, not a strict violation of 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Yaksar: You engaged in disruptive behavior.
 * 2) This pushed the article into dispute resolution.
 * 3) The respondent agreed that your reverts were inappropriate.
 * 4) You continued to revert.
 * 5) You were reported for 3RR violation.
 * 6) You received a warning for this inappropriate behavior.
 * 7) The thing to do now would be to appropriately recognize where your behavior was disruptive, and work to change your editing patterns in the future - not focus on parsing minutiae about how you were not wrong to disruptively edit. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To be clear, since "evidence" was mentioned and I don't want any of this coming back to bite me, I never violated the 3RR rule, and the warning was for an edit dispute, which I agreed to back out of. Cirt has falsely accused me of violating rules, and while I'm not sure why, I just wanted to state the truth. I'd suggest trying to avoid falsely accusing people of breaking a rule just because you disagree with them. Thank you. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One can violate site policies by engaging repeatedly in disruptive editing against multiple different users despite dispute resolution which resulted against the user in question, without satisfying the letter of the policy of 3RR itself - there are other policies and guidelines regarding disruptive editing, including WP:DE, and Edit warring, which were violated by. Hopefully, Yaksar will abide by the warning given by Magog the Ogre. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for troubling you again, but I just wanted to make sure my most recent edit on the article from earlier is safe to make, since it seems like an obvious and safe one. Just in case, I posted a message on the talk page saying I'd happily revert it. Thanks again! Yaksar (let's chat) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well scratch that, I have no idea what Cirt could find wrong with the edit, but I guess this is an issue. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "recent edit" is a verbatim violation of this warning, which stated: "any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block". That is a "further removal ... before discussion is finished". -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ermm, just to be clear, are you saying "The awards themselves typically cost US$4.79 each, in the form of a "golfball-sized raspberry" which sits atop a Super 8 mm film reel; the whole of which is spray-painted gold." should be in the article twice? Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre warned Yaksar, noting: "any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block". I am saying that the edit after that warning which was a "further removal" before discussion is finished - is indeed a violation of that warning. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While technically that's true, I thought a helpful change basically unrelated to the controversy would be opposed by no one. And it seems you aren't opposed to the actual contents of that edit, you just want me banned for it.Yaksar (let's chat) 22:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed both with the actual contents of that edit, and with 's blatant disregard for Wikipedia's site policies on disruptive editing and dispute resolution, and Yaksar's disregard for the warning by Magog the Ogre. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe it would have made sense to respond to my question about the edit on the article's talkpage before jumping to this page? It seems like a fitting place to discuss why you feel the exact same sentence should be repeated twice in the article (as a note, I'd like to point out that this seems to be a completely different dispute than the earlier one.)Yaksar (let's chat) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you'll probably oppose any cleanup I suggest as a manner of principle, so don't worry, I'm done with editing this page, hopefully someone else can help clean it, adieu. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Because Magog the Ogre specifically asked for violations by of his warning to be reported. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Doesn't look malicious to me, no block. Also, Cirt, you have an interesting way of referring to the people you're speaking to in the third person rather than the second. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way you can respond to that; I was just sick of edit conflicts and neither of you getting anywhere in the discussion above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found it somewhat patronizing at the time, but it is pretty interesting. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Undelete request
Could you temp undelete File:76693565 b44605f726 o.jpg so I can fix copyright attribution at File:Shankly Gates.jpg? Kelly hi! 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no; I've nominated the image for deletion on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the non-commercial license at Flickr and was wanting to check if the uploader was the same person as the Flickr user. Kelly hi! 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, it looks like it was already nominated for deletion but kept. I'll handle the attribution myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's used in an article that's up at FAC. Kelly hi! 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong file - it's File:76672557 45f63b3324.jpg. Kelly hi! 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw fishsticks. Fixed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry
You need never block me. I'll never waste my time attempting to contribute to this stupid useless site run by abysmally incompetent idiots ever again.

Because I DO care if I'm right or wrong, and so should anyone who gives a damned about the contents of the site.

>:-/ --OBloodyHell (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I misspoke; or perhaps, I didn't speak clearly enough. I care very very much who's right or wrong; I simply meant that just because someone is wrong doesn't excuse the person in the right from making personal attacks. If I remember correctly, I reviewed your edits and thought you had a good point, but I needed to step in to make sure the civility of the situation stayed above water. It is, after all, one of our five core pillars: WP:FIVE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick opinion
File:Meherazad.jpg - OK to transfer given the presence of the painting? Kelly hi! 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I forgot India has FOP. Kelly hi! 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I wouldn't assume that applies to the painting as a) it's unclear it's permanently in a public place, and b) the FOP essay on commons ambiguously discludes paintings. 2) The painting is de minimis, so it's OK to transfer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons transfer
The history on File:Mehera.jpg seemed kind of messed up so I asked about it at the OTRS noticeboard here. From what they said, the current version is the one with with permission so I copied it over. I don't know the status on the earliest version. Kelly hi! 06:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented on OTRS noticeboard. It looks like the permission is for another file. --MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no deleted versions of that file. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is right?
I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On the image of Hasan Taqizadeh
Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at. You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at. You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Rationale for deleting File:MarketStreet2005.JPG?
You deleted the image, listed at , despite the conversation there indicating it is pretty clearly protected under PD-1923. Since you provided no rationale for your deletion or reasons for disagreeing with the sentiment expressed, I'm asking you to explain your decision and reconsider it, before I take the matter to a deletion review. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is available on commons ; we delete duplicate images on English Wikipedia that are available on commons (WP:CSD). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Could this be TyDwiki?
Hi there. I've been here several times about blocked editor and the numerous IPs he was using to get around the block. (Thanks for your help.) I have come across another editor who appears to have the same edit patterns. S/he edits TV pages, and mostly list pages, adding viewer data, just like TyDwiki. has edited ~29 unique pages, of which TyDwiki also edited 25 of them. (Note that of the 4 he did not, 2 did not exist before TyDs block) Is there a way to check whether this could be the same person? Of course, I hate to accuse an innocent editor, but this seemed fishy to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, it could. The editing patterns are the same in every way, even the time of day and edit summaries. The route to go here is to file a SPI report; as a Twinkle users, it's pretty simple: just click on the editor, then click "arv", then click "sockpuppet investigation", and make sure to choose "ask for checkuser evidence". Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. You are right, it was pretty easy! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About File:SAM Linux Desktop.jpg
I got that image to the Wikipedia in Spanish. And perhaps that user (w:en:User:Matknny) uploaded it before a commons. I had no way of knowing that the user had uploaded the image to commons, because the names are different.

If you want, you can delete the image, if it is the same, but it is being used in article es:SAM Linux (Wikipedia in spanish)... and not in the English wikipedia ... Whatever you decide to do, I'll accept, but please, notice what you decide, and then I remove the image of the article in Spanish, if the image is removed.

Thanks for warning.

Have a nice day.

V A R G U X   write me a comment  05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, there's no problem with it. I just need to figure out who the author is. Did you take that screencap? As you can see at es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Miscelánea/Actual, I openly wondered if you'd uploaded it to Spanish Wikipedia first, and then maybe Matknny took it from your upload on Spanish Wikipedia. Because we don't have a history on Spanish Wikipedia though, it looks like Matknny was the author, and you took the image from him. If that's not the case, it's quite OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If my memory don't fails (sometimes is fragile)... I remember that I got this image from SAM Linux's website... for this reason, you can remove it freely... I don't have problems with this... don´t worry for it.. (when I take screenshots, I mention it in the image).

To other hand, the SAM Linux project now is knows as SAMity Linux... the image "in question" is some old... man, you can remove it :)

(Check this out: http://www.sam-linux.org/ )

Have a nice day - and year...

V A R G U X ~     write me a comment  21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:User photo Benlisquare.jpg
I'm never sure what to do with stuff like this. Only one user editing, if it was orphaned it would undoubtedly be deleted - it seems dumb to move all the revisions of various userphotos out to Commons when only one is actually used anywhere. But if we leave this stuff on en, various users like me who are moving files to Commons have to endlessly sort through the same crap. Kelly hi! 10:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might consider nominating it for deletion at FFD or asking the user to tag it db-self. I highly recommend the second option if the user is active. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But if the user already replaced the old file with a new one, isn't that pretty much a db-self? Kelly hi! 10:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to F8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say no in this case, because the user might want access to the old image for whatever reasons. Not all users have the wherewithal for it to occur to them to upload under a different name if they want to keep the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia isn't Facebook. Those users probably still have their smiling faces on their hard drives, can get an admin to undelete the images if not, and can put those images on Commons if they want to keep them around forever. But like I said, cleaning up everyone else's garbage gets old after a while. Kelly hi! 10:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, I'm sorry. You sure do move a lot of userpage images. Perhaps you can suggest a change to F8 at WT:CSD, or ask at WP:VPP if this would qualify as G6. I just don't feel comfortable pressing the button out of process unless it's 100% unambiguous. But your work is appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it's time to do something else if I'm going to get smart remarks. The only reason I move the idiotic userpage images over to Commons is that I get sick of looking at the same ones over and over when I work through the license categories. Kelly hi! 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sleepy tonight - are you OK? I wasn't giving you a smart remark... Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just annoyed dealing with ancient garbage image uploads, though I do find gems amongst the dross once in a while. Are old revisions of this guy's userpage photo really of any encyclopedic value? I hate anyone wasting time on this crap. Kelly hi! 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Reykjavik_sound.ogg
Hi Magog, I was the originator of the file and fixed the sourcing.--The lorax (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And you have a beautiful voice! Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That is to say I recorded the girl who said it. I'll still take the compliment!--The lorax (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is embarrassing or funny. I'm going to go with funny. And you're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work!!!
See Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons - no more files from 2006 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thank you! I've been working hard. I've actually moved into 2010 for the time being because more of those files haven't been unlinked yet, and I have use of my bot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: FFD/JamesDignan.jpg
Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page. You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. Grutness...wha?  21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology
I am really, really sorry for being so grouchy the other day. Kelly hi! 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries Face-smile.svg. This is the internet after all; if I can't take a little grouchiness, then I'm not in the right place. Not like I haven't had those days either Face-blush.svg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

px
I added safesubst to px, so this is now possible. A bit cleaner to substitute everything. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
Hi, since you were the involved administrator a while back ... It may or may not be true, but, I have some reason to believe that User:Me chase girl she chase me might be User:Lagoo sab also known as User:Jrkso. He has changed nearly the whole article Afghan civil war in its contents and removed quite a lot of sourced and important information. The content and nature of his edits as well as the way he conducts his edits are identical to those by Lagoo sab/Jrkso. There is also the same tendency towards engaging people in edit wars. Maybe you can have an eye on it?! —JCAla (talk) 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please file a WP:SPI and ask for checkuser evidence; I'm simply not good enough with the specifics to confirm - sorry. It's pretty easy: click on the user, and click the "arv" that comes with twinkle, and choose sockpuppet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait and see. If the user keeps up the same pattern I will do what you advised.—JCAla (talk) 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands again
Sorry to bother you again, Magog the Ogre.

My position is you should lock the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Island dispute pages again, possibly for several months at the very least. I am not one who'd bring up such a matter purely because my contents are always overruled, but that I don't believe any constructive efforts are being made or can be made given our current selection of participants. The impression I have at the moment is that we have some very strong partisanship in the page with one powerful bloc promoting and blocking content based on principles that deviate from WP:NPOV and that contents that were added were not very useful in general.

Since you probably are also sick of this, I'd make this short.

It has been shown time and time again that some editors like to introduce contents/changes without reverting them despite strong opposition. Some examples would be:


 * Addition of irrelevant or misplaced content despite well-justified opposition
 * Relentless filibusters (1)(2)on removal of content that were well-proven to be fraudulent (1)(2)(3).
 * Stubborn removal of sourced materials with some questionable reasoning

At the same time, I find the general editorial environments to be unconstructive. For example, some editors refuse to communicate in a way that is convenient for others to parse (for example, just read some of Tenmei's comments). Mind you, I am a scientist myself and I don't find this seemingly cerebral style of expression smart or helpful at all. The intense amount of tag-teaming (1)(2) also makes enforcing WP:NPOV an exceedingly difficult chore. Granted, others can argue that they are adhering to WP:NPOV and I am not, I believe most (if not all) of my edits/comments in that page to be reasonable.

In general, the main issues of debate are really on edits that promote a pro-Japanese tilt. Examples are:
 * Obvious mis-uses of an Remin Ribao article and citations Japanese references that (intentionally or not) mis-translated the this Chinese article. This issue was actually supposed to be resolved but, somehow, the Japanese editors that seemingly conceded the issue now decided to pretend it was never resolved (see "Relentless filibusters" above)
 * Name usages -> Japanese editors wanted to snuff out as many references to Chinese names as possible (part of that could be seen in "Addition")
 * General exercise of WP:Civil POV pushing

On the other hand, despite all this effort spent in arguing and all, very little constructive editorial process occurred at all. If you compare the mid-October 2010 version of both pages with their current counterparts, they were almost the same with perhaps some extra junk (like the table in the dispute page) and some rewording of existing sentences/paragraphs (as part of the continual battle of POV). With that said, I'd opine that it is much better to simply lock the two pages again and allow changes to only come through with the approval of an admin (as happened before). This will save all of us a lot of time and still permit updates to be made in a controlled manner.

To avoid being accused of canvassing, I'd note that this is simply a personal message/advice to you. As such, I don't feel compelled to bring the matter to the attention of other relevant editors (although they have a habit of stalking me these days). If you are interested in getting involved in cleaning this mess up, then it will be great to have your input.

Oh, and by the way, editors such as User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's have been showering my talk page with warnings. I think they will appreciation your help in slapping me with a ban. In User:John Smith's case, you might want to teach him how to use the warning templates too (after all, it looks cooler). Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Magog, I'm sorry for having to jump in like this, but from what I can see Bob has basically been trying to sabotage the pages and create the image of pages that need protection. Basically he's lost the argument over details like what they should be called and what names should be used in them. So he's slow edit-warring.


 * A little while ago he left this message on a sympathetic user's (STSC) talk page. Now he tried to claim he was telling STSC not to edit-war. Yet he also made it clear that he wanted to do something to get the pages locked in the hope other editors would go away. My interpretation was that he was telling STSC not to overtly break the rules, but do something to nevertheless get the pages locked. Only yesterday (29) he reignited a dispute that had gone quite for some time by reverting twice on Senkaku Islands dispute. It's worth noting that he only left this message on your talk page asking for page locks after I warned him that if he kept edit-warring I'd have to take it to the admin's board.


 * Bob sees things in a black-and-white situation. You're for a Chinese POV or a Japanese POV. I think he needs to cool down and go edit some other pages, preferably ones that have nothing to do with Asian politics, Asian history or Asian diplomacy. He might listen to you, because he certainly won't listen to me. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears my dear John Smith's has made some very drastic accusations.

I hope Magog the Ogre will take a look at what STSC and I wrote to each other before making a judgement. What I did was simply to ask STSC not to revert-war because of the potential trouble he'd get into. I also stated an intent to have pages locked multiple times for reasons stated above, but I don't see how that can be construed as edit-warring. After all, this can be done by a justified request to an admin. The fact that this was twisted into some obscure way of edit-warring reminds me of all the ridiculous rants made by the U.S. Republican Party.

I'd say it is certainly fancy to opine that I've lost arguments or painted things black and white. While that's certainly not the case and it's best leave it to interested parties to judge for themselves based on my past comments. If you want a third party opinion about the quality of my arguments, I'd recommend you to ask User:Qwyrxian, since he is probably the only editor in the relevant pages who is remotely close to being the head editor that everyone else trusts.

I brought up the issue with Remin Ribao article because it was well-agreed, in ages back, that all the statements made regarding it was based on fraudulent translations. The fact that even enforcing the deletion of such changes was met with such considerable resistance is evidence to how intrinsically obstructive some editors are with regards to promoting WP:NPOV. If anyone finds doubt about the legitimacy of my actions regarding this issue, I can certainly open up an WP:ARBITRATION about it where I'd simply advise the ban of User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari from any Chinese-Japanese dispute pages for promoting inaccurate information on Wikipedia. However, since this is most certainly a big waste of time for us all, I will settle with the removal of the associated inaccurate information.

Lastly, I don't claim to be perfect and definitely have my own little vices. People like User:John Smith's might find my comments to them particularly nasty and sarcastic because I tend to lose patience with people I considered to be unrelentingly obstructive. While I certainly should've been as unfailingly pleasant as User:Qwyrxian, it's still no excuse for others to add misinformation and write whatever fantasies they liked into Wikipedia. Since Magog the Ogre has made some pretty good judgments in the past, I trust he can handle this appropriately. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bluntly: WP:TL;DR. Try this door. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that you are too busy to resolve this matter for us. I guess I'd have to go to a different admin for assistance. Should I go for an WP:ANI? If so, what steps do I have to take? Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Sorry if I'm short tonight; I hope you'll accept the explanation that I forgot my meds and leave it at that. That said, I'm not a real big fan of textwalls, and frankly neither is ANI. If you could summarize a bit better you could have more luck. I also warn you about WP:POT issues; it's very important to come into any dispute with a recognition of any of your own faults, lest you look like a hypocrite and everyone ignore you (something that I see happen regularly, sadly). My recommendation at this point is to post at the neutral point of view noticeboard or ANI, with a concise explanation that doesn't say the same thing in more than one way. At that point, you can also ask for advice from ANI, and you might want to receive it. It may or may not be what you want to hear. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to summarize myself better. However, I hope you'd appreciate the fact that condensing the amount of information is a difficult task.

You are right about the matter of hypocrisy. In my case, I am not accusing others of incivility. Rather, I accused others of being obstructive and not adhering to [{WP:NPOV]]. While I don't believe I have made similar transgressions, I am willing to acknowledge them if convincing examples were provided. On the other hand, I do and did admit of not being particularly pleasant to those I've lost patience with. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. I believe you've already tried WP:M, right? And it takes a while but I'd be glad to chime in on a WP:RFC/U if it's properly done. But seriously you might ask for advice on the NPOV noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you are kidding about WP:M, since we (or I) are already well-aware of the type of people involved (as well as the intrinsic requirements for successful WP:M's. In case you aren't already aware (which you probably aren't, since it's in the wall of text), I was slapped with 3 warnings in a row by User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's basically for doing some proper editorial work (i.e. asking people not to revert war or removing well-known fraudulent information). So no, I am not even going to waste time with WP:M.

I gave User:Elen of the Roads a try and presented with her a more concise summary. I'll see how it goes. My prediction is that this will probably go to WP:ANI, but it doesn't hurt to try. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no one has ever tried mediation on these pages (if they did, it was more than 4-5 months ago, when I started participating). I would argue that's the next step, although the problem I foresee is that there really isn't any one specific topic that needs to be discussed; rather, a feeling by some members of two different groups that the other side is Civil POV pushing and/or tendentious editing.  Can Mediation help in cases where there's a general breakdown in successful editing, or do they need a specific topic to focus on? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:Mediation will help at all. In case you didn't notice, 3 out of 4 of them dog-piled on me and wrote some lovely warning templates on my page for reasons you already know. While I don't really mind people adding text and pictures on my page, it also convinces me that none of them are really interested in doing constructive editing. In fact, you should ask yourself what were added over the past 5 months. I'd say 90% would be the big piles of texts and tables by Tenmei that you've repeatedly protested about in the talk pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might do more good than you think. Anyway, I wasn't kidding when I said I forgot my meds; sorry for snapping earlier. (TMI). I'll look further into it tomorrow. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. I am sick of having to type up these complaints myself! Imagine how I could've used the time to improve other pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon rereading the text, I again suggest an RFC on the content of the page (a second one if necessary), or to use mediation. It is impossible for me to mediate the dispute unless at least one part is willing to at least make an attempt to reach out. The NPOV noticeboard probably won't get you anywhere, as it will turn into more bickering and no one will want to enter the fray. You will note that part of my shortness above was indeed a lack of meds issue (*cough*), but it's also due to the fact that the pattern in this is part of most content disputes where both sides are using poor habits to come to an agreement (i.e., 1) bring issue to my talk page with long list of grievances but not trying elsewhere, 2) second party stalks first party's contributions onto my talk page for an unnecessary rebuttal, and 3) both sides have long list of grievances and accusations of pure evil by the other side and 4) neither side is good at writing in a reasonably enough fashion that everyone should agree, which is exactly what they're demanding of the other). Sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, just based on the pattern. I'm just calling it like I see it, even if it's not very nice.


 * Lastly, I'm not particularly fond of the lock-page route. That's a last ditch effort and is no better than a status quo in which one side is forced to abandon edit warring in favor of a false consensus. Strictly speaking, they're the same thing: the page content on the issue isn't changed. Keep in mind, the lock-page route isn't meant to punish anybody or hold the page hostage until that second side agrees to release the page and let the first engage in related or unrelated edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position. Since I am actually involved in this issue, I can confidently tell you that a mediation or RfC will not work. The problem that I see does not simply lie within the disputes themselves, but the parties involved (which basically means mediation will not work). For you, it is definitely a case of my word against their words, which is why I brought up evidence of deliberate sabotage on their part with regards to editorial processes that were meant to add valid information and remove invalid information.

You are wrong in assuming that I requested a lock to "punish" an opposing party. My intent is simply restrict the freedom of the editorial so that an admin has to approve a change before it occurs. This way, any proposed edits will be shown on the talk page and it will be much harder to make wanton changes such as deleting legitimate references (which Tenmei and John Smith's had done very quietly before).

I will see what Elen has to say. Personally, I am leaning towards an ANI to lock the pages or an arbitration against the said editors. I hate to waste time on complaining about others, but removing cancerous elements is an important part of Wikipedia's maintenance. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You see this is all very harsh rhetoric on your part, and perhaps justified. But it is not obvious to me when looking over the history that it's sneaky POV pushing; I really think a RFC might do better at explaining it. I'm sorry at this point I just can't help you; what you're pointing out to me is not obvious enough for me to take action. You might consider a second opinion at WP:RFP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll have to spend some time and bring up a few examples. Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope you'll see I'm not just being lazy; the situation just isn't clear enough to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears User:Nihonjoe solved part of the problem by locking Senkaku Islands dispute. I will give it some thought as to whether or not it is necessary to build a case against a couple of editors. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded !!!
I have uploaded this file on 16:39, July 15, 2007. It is a lectren of my own city Jhelum Pakistan's church's Lectern. You can see its history on my contribution page. Thank you. --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; are you the author of the photo then? That's all I need! Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:AirforceMQ-11B.jpg
That it has the wrong license is alone enough for csd-f3. Marcus Qwertyus   01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing about non-commercial usage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

. It says "courtesy photo" when you hover your mouse over it. Marcus Qwertyus   02:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, but it's still not 100% clear (it may have been uploaded under other circumstances, etc.); please take it to PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing pages with images & logos
Noticed that a user got caught by Hammersoft vandalizing rationales for another schools athletic logos on January 4th, 2011:,. Hammersoft restored the content. Also noticed that the same user has been tearing down other editor's work on related pages for the better part of a year, or more (not sure why he's still allowed on those pages?). Question: if logos that meet wikicommons guidelines can be found, will those suffice? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll address severals issue you've brought up separately:
 * First off, welcome to Wikipedia.
 * It wasn't vandalism - see WP:VAND and WP:Hitler for a proper definition (the latter essay is my own personal pet). Apologies but I'm a bit of a stickler on that point so I wanted to address it.
 * The reason the editor is allowed to continue on those pages: because it is a legitimate different opinion on policy implementation. He believes the fair use images are not required to add understanding to the article, thus failing WP:NFCC. Thus the editor is actually trying to implement Wikipedia policy, not break it.
 * My recommendation is that you talk it out with the editor on the talk pages of the relevant content. This will usually work, but if it proves ineffective (as it just might in this situation), you might consider starting a request for comment by tagging the appropriate talk page with . This will notify the community that there's a dispute, and help get input. You could even advertise the issue by posting at Media copyright questions, where a number of editors most familiar with our policies tend to lurk.
 * I didn't take sides with the editor: I simply locked the pages because you (or perhaps someone along with you) were jumping to different IPs while reverting, and even broke one of our policies (WP:3RR) while doing so. I also didn't see any attempt to hash out the discussion - just a lot of reverts. This had the cumulative effect of making it very difficult to start the process of mediation and/or avoiding future conflict.
 * Check out Wikipedia's page on fair use: Non-free content, in particular the policy and guideline examples sections to see our policies exactly as they are worded.
 * Commons does not allow fair use images. As such, if you upload an image to commons, and they accept it, then yes it is as good as any image. Any image which could be claimed under copyright by a major organization will almost never be allowed there.
 * I hope that answers your questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! (have real world editorial experience, so this is not my first "rodeo"). I have come to accept that since the world is exponentially becoming predominately wireless, that that is more likely the scenario than anything related to "hopping." Nice fallacy using the term "Hitler," I have used that point in the real world as well, however removing or destroying adequate rationales from an image that the user obsessively dislikes in an attempt to discredit it's use or aesthetic (and trying to hide it with some phony gibberish in the edit summary), in retaliation of an unrelated edit dispute a month to 6 months prior, does seem to smatter a bit of vandalism, more so than simply calling someone a vandal because they reverted one's edit.


 * Are the pages locked? If so, how was said user able to slip behind you (as with past admins., yet again), and do another revert far beyond the 3RR (yet again), using the wrong, improper image for the page's subject (yet again), and leaving it intentionally of very small size (again), to ruin the pages' aesthetic (again), which was his intention in the first place?

Sorry for that, but this seems to be the typical scenario. Regardless, I don't want to waste too much time discussing the behavior of one single user whom most editor already know is intentionally disruptive.

I'll try to be proactive, & focus now on the images used:


 * In researching athletic logos for similar institutions, I'll cite these as examples:, , , . Both images came directly from a University source.  The Duke logo which was altered only slightly in color, seems to fit the specifications of the Clemson athletic logo, in that both consist of simple geometric shapes and single color.  The "crimson tide" image is "trademarked," but only different in size from it's source.


 * The examples I listed seem to be the standard in most countries of use for most athletic logos as long as the logos, even if altered, follow the guidelines and adhere to restrictions of use.


 * In terms of the proper images on these pages, it seems that university wordmarks (in general) come from the exact same sources as the athletic logos, so therefore, it technically is not a free image?, and has restrictions on the source pages for uses that are directed toward "academics" and the school as an "institution"; see images' exampled source pages.


 * If I use or find similar or altered images of color, size, shape, that fit similar guidelines as the examples listed, and those logos are tagged, sourced, and licensed properly, will those logos suffice?

Thanks for your time Magog ThomasC.Wolfe 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok Magog, images that follow similar athletic logos that I cited are now available at wikicommons.
 * examples,


 * similar model


 * new alternate athletic logo


 * Note: These logos were altered in size, shape, color & texture from original source, yet still follow "certain likenesses & restrictions" guide-lined at the source, as with mere color change with Duke University logo. If you want to alter the size or un-highlight the "r" mark, feel free, as long as it follows the images guidelines at the source.  Think it's too big?

I am also requesting that you protect both images at wikipedia and also over at wikicommons, from the "nada-vandals."

Since the athletic pages are now under lock & key, it would probably be best if you do the honors. Thanks again Magog. ThomasC.Wolfe

How did user GarnetAndBlack already find out about this new image? It hasn't even been used yet? He is already wining about it to another editor. Is he trolling your talk pages as he does on the pages he edit wars on? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I will address your issues one by one:
 * The pages are semi-protected, meaning no one can edit the page except accounts that were registered at least four days ago and have at least 10 edits (or that have a special exemption, which I would be willing to grant in your case but only if you agreed not to revert again). Regardless, you will be confirmed in a few days and be able to edit the article. This is different from full protection where only admins like myself would be able to edit the page.
 * Regarding the issues of fair use and copyright: I'm going to ask you to be a bit patient, because the policies can be pretty tricky. They are a combination of real-world laws, local policy, and local precedence; you will have experience in the former, but not the latter two. It takes time to learn them, and I'll ask for humility on your part too. I'm not implying a lack of humility at this juncture, but I'm giving a preemptive request for it.
 * You gave the example of the Duke University and Alabama University logos. Those logos, it so happens, are simpler so to speak than the Clemson logo; legally speaking, they don't pass the threshold of originality. The Duke University logo almost certainly would not have the creative muster required by law to enforce a copyright on the image; the Alabama logo is a bit more iffy, but also probably wouldn't pass the test. The Clemson logo on the other hand, has funny jiggity jags all over the place, and as such is neither PD-shape or PD-textlogo. For a comparable real world legal example: the New Orleans Saints' fleur-de-lis did not pass the threshold of originality according to the US copyright office (see here), but the Buffalo Bills logo probably does.
 * I am not a lawyer, but I believe if you came up with a similar image to the Clemson logo, but it was dumbed down to fit PD-ineligible, then yes, it would be OK to use. Of course it wouldn't be the real logo either, but this may or may not be OK with you. You might consider doing a dumbed down logo, and on the image page, having a link to the real logo.
 * Wikipedia is more stringent than most organizations about fair use. We only use it if we have to; strictly speaking, media should be doing the same thing, but they have looser standards. So the question isn't can we add the logo to the articles, but must we add the logo to give the reader the same understanding (WP:NFCC). As you can see, there has been no lack of uproar about this very issue in the past: NFCC Criterion 8 debate.
 * I don't know how GarnettAndBlack found out about your image; perhaps my talk page is on his watchlist - you'd have to ask him. However, he was correct to mark the image as a copyright violation on commons, because commons doesn't accept fair use images (per my explanation above). He did nothing wrong, and the administrators there are bright enough not to be fooled from any unseemly lobbying.
 * I am not an administrator on commons, so I have essentially no power that you don't have as well. I cannot block anybody or lock/delete any pages. If you have a specific request, I normally suggest going to the Commons administrator noticeboard, but I don't suggest doing that in this situation, as there's no reason to do so within policy at the moment.
 * I will not lock the image or relevant articles here on Wikipedia. Full-protection is a last resort in an edit war, and I only use it when at least three editors are involved (and not always even then). I'd rather just block anybody who is excessively edit warring (as you both have in recent days). Instead, please consider my suggestion above to use dispute resolution. This is not a black and white case of wrong/right - you two should be able to hash out your differences ultimately via talking.
 * Please remember to assume good faith of other editors. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)