Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 10 February 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

File:European empires.png

• File:European empires.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:The Evil Spartan#Map request.

TES hasn't edited for two years, but with the lack of a response, I'd be glad to pick up any requests you have. To address each one:

• It looks like someone else mentioned Patagonia on the talk page.

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Iran, so I can make this one equal?

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the European influence on Thailand?

• Can I get a map or in-depth description of the Russian influence on Xinjiang?

• The Ottomon/Russia parts are probably something to take to the talk page. FYI, I am probably going to move it to commons, along with the whole attribution history.

• That's something else to take to the talk, as international law doesn't recognize any claims to territory below a certain latitudinal line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

- The Russian and British zones in Persia were fixed according to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. The article has a map attached to it.

- Here's a (partial) description of the French and British demarcating "zones of interest" in Thailand/Siam, but a proper map is harder to come by. I'll have to get back to you on that.

- Here's China at the maximum absolute extent of European influence (Tannu-Tuva is missing however). These areas decreased in size somewhat in the lead-up to WWI in 1914 (only the British and the Russian zones, the rest of them remained virtually unchanged), but they reached their height in 1911. The other ones would also need fixing though.

Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so long to respond to this. I'll get to it soon enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions: what exactly is the function of the neutral zone? If it means "split 50-50 between Russia/Britain" or "under no one's control"?

Does this mean that Southern Manchuria was only partially under full European control, and that the Fujian province was never under European control? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I demand to see the American consul

Well, this block (of me) was sure an error.

I know you are busy and I'm sure that you mean well, but that is absolutely not an excuse. I was an admin for several years and I would have disemboweled myself with an oyster spoon before I made a block like that.

I still haven't more than scanned WP:DRNC although I will when I get a chance. I'm sure its an interesting essay, but I'd still strongly recommend that you not include essays in the body of block remarks - it looks like you're citing the essay as a reason for the block. Instead, I'd recommend writing it in a separate note on the talk page.

Anyway, it's hard enough just keeping up with policy, and the operative policy here is WP:CONSENSUS.

WP:CONSENSUS opens with "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Misplaced Pages", and then goes on to describe this in more detail.

But what if no consensus can be achieved? WP:CONSENSUS talks about this too:

• "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." There's a flow chart too.
• "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.
• "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."

To be fair, there's also a lot about edit warring and not doing it. However, honestly, what the hell are you supposed to do when the other editor won't engage on the talk page? Just throw up your hands and say "well I guess he gets his way"?

OK. The question of the image in the article is a contentious one, and has been for some time. Looking over the talk page archive and the talk page, I see a lot of back-and-forth over a long period, but looking over more recent history, we see this:

As of January 10, 2011, the image had not been in the article for some time. It was in the article on November 22, 2010 - for three minutes, after being inserted by an editor as his third (and so far last) edit to the Misplaced Pages. (It's very, very typical for new users, usually anons, to edit this article by adding the image. We generally call this "porn trolling".)

Before that, it was in article on November 8, 2010. It was added by an anon editor as his first edit (he has made one other edit, so far). It was in the article for a little under three hours.

Before that, it was in the article on September 5, 2010. In this case, though, it was added by a very long term well-established editor (User:Exxolon). Nevertheless, it was reverted (by me), and was in the article for about four hours. (I think that's far enough to go back.)

Upon this revert, Exxelon went to the talk page, which is of course exactly the right thing to do, and opened an RfC, which was also good. The RfC was never closed and I guess is technically still open. FWIW the "headcount" is now tied at 9-8 against including the image, by my count. "Strength of argument" is particularly hard to assess on this issue since it mostly comes down to what one considers appropriate editorial standards for a popular general all-ages encyclopedia, and positions (including mine) tend to be entrenched. (But the point that image is, in addition to its other problems, not even accurate is also in play.) So let's say that "strength of argument" is even. So no consensus.

So. You have a situation where

1. The image has not been in the article (for more than a few hours) for at least several months.
2. There is RfC on the image which is either open and stalled at no consensus or, if one considers it to have expired, expired with no consensus.

OK?

But in spite of this, on January 10 2011, an editor added the image to the article. This was by User:Valknuter, and it was his 14th edit to the Wikipdia. The justification in the edit summary was "image adds to article". So I reverted the edit, with a summary of "no consensus to restore image".

If I understand the policy correctly, and also per WP:BRD, the next step would be for the other editor to go to the talk page. (I could have invited him to do this in my edit summary, but at this point I figured that this was just another drive-by.)

So at this point, User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval all decided to support Valknuter's edit. The next edit was Cyclopia again inserting the image, with an edit summary of "no consensus to remove it either, it seems"

This was a spectacularly bad edit, and Cyclopia, who is an experienced editor, knows better. "No consensus to remove it either, it seems" absolutely violates the spirit (and the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS. If Cyclopia's logic were followed, all situations where consensus cannot be achieved would devolve to an endless string of "Reverting, no consensus, and I prefer my state". Right? You can see how this would follow?

So this edit was edit warring, and an open invitation to chaos.

Anyway, at no point did any of these users go to the talk page. At no point did any of these editors respond to my messages on their talk pages. At no point did these editors engage in the thread that I opened on the talk page, until after I was blocked.

They all knew that there was an RfC which was either open or, if one considered it to have expired, had expired with no consensus - they knew this, because they had commented in it.

They had all commented in it, and they had all wanted to include the image, and they lost. Sometimes you lose, and move on - we've all done that often enough. But they couldn't accept that. "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute", it says at WP:AN3. If these users weren't doing that, I don't know what you would call it.

Yes, I was a little bit snarky. Yes, I was tardy in opening a thread on the talk page (which was their responsibility, not mine, anyway). Yes, I was little bit slow in realizing that I was being tag-teamed and set up. I'm not perfect, and these were manifestations of imperfection. But they were not blockable offenses.

I was enforcing the policy. If no one enforces the policy, you have either chaos, or simple victory of the most determined in a purely political war of all against all. Right?

And so what was your hurry? If you had taken 15 seconds to look at my user page, you might have said "Hmmm, here is a person who has been editing since 2005, has 20,000 edits, 100 articles created, 29 barnstars, various other useful contributions, and a clean block log*. Perhaps this is not someone we want to throw to the dogs, I could drop him a line and find out what's going on here".

*Well, I was blocked once - but by mistake, and the person was admonished by ArbCom for doing it (not at my instigation, I'm all for letting mistakes go).

I'm sure you admins are overworked, but would that have been so hard? I would have done it. If you don't have time to do something right, don't do it at all. Especially if the something is blocking people from editing the Misplaced Pages. I mean, the Misplaced Pages was not going to collapse over this if you'd left it to someone who did have time to assess the situation. Blocking established editors wrongly is not good from an organizational development point of view and absolutely not the way to build and maintain a volunteer organization like this.

The material result

Well anyway. Beyond alienating me, the material result of your action is:

1. Article existed in state X.
2. Discussion over going to state Y was extensive, but no consensus was reached to do this.
3. Article is now in state Y anyway. And nothing can be done about it.

It's maddening to see edit warring succeed in this way, and depressing and demoralizing too, for everyone. It's certainly a slap in the face of the editors who took the time to comment in the RfC.

Resolution

Well, I would like my name to be cleared. I can't erase my block log, but if it's acknowledged that it was a mistake, at least I'll be able to point that out when Cptnono taunts me with some variation of "We had you blocked, and we will do it again if you don't let us get our way" (and he will).

As far as I know, the only way to do this is go to ArbCom and ask to have the block reviewed. This depresses me on many levels, because I hate the idea of digging up all those diffs, I hate to bother ArbCom, I hate the idea of contentious proceedings, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your volunteering to be an admin and all the good work the admins do. I'm sure you're a good admin, and everyone makes mistakes, and I commend you for being polite, which some admins have a little trouble with.

However, I guess I'll have to. However, ArbCom is busy and they probably won't take the case anyway.

It'd be neat if you decided to consider the issue, cowboy up, and admit your mistake. Christ knows I've had to do that enough times. I would do it here if I had made a mistake (beyond the minor ones I allowed to). Then we could go to ArbCom together and much time and trouble would be saved. Hope you'll consider this. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to your query shortly. There's a lot there so it will take me a bit to get back. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time. I appreciate your willingness to consider the issue, which is very important to me. (FWIW at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Beeblebrox#A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid (just go to near the end) Beeblebrox and I are undertaking to go through this edit by edit to try to figure out what, exactly, happened). Herostratus (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait! Stop! I have been going over the entire history of the article edit-by-edit, and I found that the state of the article as not having an image may have been achieved improperly. Not necessarily - I am still looking at this - but maybe. What happened was, the image was deleted from Commons in spring 2010 - not properly, I think, and it was immediately restored, but CommonsDelinker, like a good efficient little bot, had meantime removed it from the article. And after that it gets confusing - still looking at this - but it looks like this might have been leveraged to set a new default state for the article. And not only that, at this point I was involved, and it looks like I may be legitimately faulted here. (I don't remember any of this, and I don't recall gaming the system, and if I did I hope it was unintentional, but still). I'm actually kind of interested in figuring this all out now and will continue and will provide a full report soonest - just didn't want you to work on this unnecessarily. Not necessarily withdrawing anything I said at this time.Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I can wait. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC close

Finished!

I was wrong, there were no shenanagins in the spring - everything was on the up and up. So everything I wrote above stands.

In order to continue, we first need a close on the talk page's RfC, here: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion. I asked at ANI for someone to close it (here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Request for RfC close). But no one would. Well someone has to, and it can't be me since I was involved, so I nominate you.

If you would close this RfC or get someone else to, I would consider this a kindness, and we can move on. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, first off, I want to respond that I'm sorry for not getting back to you on this in a timely manner. I had a good deal typed up in response a while ago, only to lose it all on a computer crash. This was an immensely frustrating experience for me. I will attempt to reconstruct it as well as possible. Please give me about 24 hours. I'm sorry, it's just hat I want to give a full response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's alright - I told you to to stop working on it (until I worked through the stuff mentioned above). No, I did a complete reconstruction of the article history to the level of smile-and-nod-while-slowly-backing-away detail. But that's alright. The main point was interleaving the various edits covering the incident is question, which is here: User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Events of January 2011. It should only a few minutes to go through this (it's not necessary to read any of the other material on the page, of course you can if you want to).

I'd like a close on the RfC as this is material to the situation. If you did this - should only take about 10 minutes or so, I guess - it'd possibly be useful background on the matter. If you don't want to do it, maybe you could get someone else to do it via admin IRC magic or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, ugh, I know I said 24 hours, but I have a wedding this weekend, and I totally underestimated my time schedule earlier today - grrr. What's more, I can almost certainly assure you I won't be on much tomorrow or Sunday because of the wedding. I may try to get on some tomorrow to close the RFC if you've responded below by then and I get any time to myself. At very least, I will let you know that I feel I'm inadequate, and find someone else to do it.

Anyway, to push this forward as quickly as possible: before I do any closing of any RFCs, I'm going to have to read about the procedure. TBH, I have zero experience with them. I am going to do my own reading, but any notes about precedence on them will be helpful. Now the RFC policy page seems to indicate it's a non-formal procedure: so what does closing an RFC officially entail? I once remember watching an admin close an RFC as if one side had been decided over the other (much like a XFD debate). Can you clarify this before I move in?

In any case, I also plan to put forward a "formal" response to the issue you've brought up above. You brought up some very good points. Without going too deeply in, when I last looked I walked away with a sense of regret that playing by the rules seemed to be giving your side the poor end of the stick (i.e., your version of the article is not up), and that blocking was (probably) the wrong remedy in this situation. However, as you pointed out above, there was the issue with the bot and edit warring, which sort of hijacked the whole discussion. I'll go more into depth next time though. Thanks so much for your patience - I really do feel bad about putting you off further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no, take your time, take as long as you like - no problem. Wedding == important. I appreciate your being open to discussing this.

WP:CLOSE has the info on closing RfC's. I've always figured that it's pretty much like closing an XfD. You'd decide between proposition-succeeded/proposition-failed/no-consensus, I guess. But WP:CLOSE gives more info. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and as to the bot removal thing - its described generally at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#May 7-8-9 of 2010 and discussed in obsessive detail at User:Herostratus/Gokkun incident Jan 2011#Re events of May 7-8-9, 2010. How relevant any of that is to events of January 2011 I can't say. Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've only received one response to my request for assistance on RFC's (see WT:RFC; I also put a note at WP:AN to respond there). Would you like me proceed with this first or with a reasoned response to your statement above? Also, my impartial authority as an admin has been heavily damaged by a separate incident, fair or not: see the shellacking I took below from 4 different checkusers 3 checkusers and an admin (fixed). Do you still believe I'm a good enough admin to perform the close? I do think I can do it, but I want to double-check. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the shellacking. Hell, I used to be an admin and I was flat-out kicked out of the admin corps (if you read my contribution to the RfC you can probably figure out why), so, my sympathy. However, that's how it goes - one day you get a barnstar, next day it feels like you've got Vyshinsky on your case. It's a cliche, but it's really true - can't learn if you don't make mistakes. (But, God, it's a hard school. It's just hard to admit "these people that are all over my case - they're right". But Christ knows I've had to do it a few times.) Anyway - I didn't read the section you referred to - don't have to - so you made a mistake (if you did), so what. Yes sure of course you're a good enough admin to perform the close, you have my complete confidence and <advice> don't let any mistakes learning experiences shake you up. </advice>

Anyway - the RfC - well as I said WP:CLOSE has the procedure. This should be an easy close as it is (in my view) a simple yes/no proposition: it is proposed to add the image. The proposition either succeeded or it failed (or no consensus). Like an AfD: delete or not (or no consensus). So yeah go for it. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: FFD/JamesDignan.jpg

Grutness...wha? 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I am really, really sorry for being so grouchy the other day. Kelly 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries . 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 . 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 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'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages'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

• File:AirforceMQ-11B.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 Misplaced Pages.
• It wasn't vandalism - see WP:VAND#NOT 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#8. Thus the editor is actually trying to implement Misplaced Pages 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 {{rfctag|soc}}. This will notify the community that there's a dispute, and help get input. You could even advertise the issue by posting at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's page on fair use: Misplaced Pages: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.
  • Misplaced Pages 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#8). As you can see, there has been no lack of uproar about this very issue in the past: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Mfwitten and ActuallyRationalThought

Hi Magog, not sure what you were trying to do with Mfwitten (talk · contribs), but it wasn't the right thing. Misplaced Pages:Block#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_username_change only applies if the user has retired one username and started editing under a different name under Misplaced Pages:Clean start. It's not used for tagging socks - that's what sock templates are for. If you ever have occasion to use it for an editor that has made a clean start, you must not record the old username in the block log entry. In this case, it's made worse because it now seems unlikely that Mfwitten is connected to ActuallyRationalThinker - the CU evidence is more equivocal than appeared at first sight, and there's no behavioural tie up at all.

This means that there's no evidence of ActuallyRationalThinker operating socks, so I have had to unblock him - although I've warned him that it's not a free pass if he keeps up the aggressive editing. Incidentally, you need to be careful about this good hand/bad hand thing. If a disruptive editor keeps well behaved personae to argue on his behalf, or carry out more subtle disruptions, that's good hand/bad hand. If an editor creates an alternate account to edit in a different area, say to edit on a topic he'd rather not associate his main account with, that's a legitimate use of an alternate account, and only becomes an issue if one of the accounts gets blocked for something else. At that point, he should treat both accounts as blocked, and must not use one account to lobby on behalf of the other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out that I had two CU's confirm this, and I specifically asked a CU to perform it, but received a response indicating that it would be better for me to do it. There was no clean start here - the CU was quite clear it was illegitimate socking. If you have a request, fine, but please don't tell me what I must and mustn't do; it's not your right. If you want to have a talk with the other checkusers about interpreting data wrong and giving false signals, maybe you should do that instead. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that post of mine was inappropriate. I didn't mean to talk to you so harshly; it was wrong (I signed at the wrong time too; I should not sign in when in a grouchy mood). I reserve my frustration over the affair, however. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I'm telling you what the policy says, because if you don't get it right, someone is going to drag you before Arbcom and ask that you be desysopped.

Even if the ART and Mfwitten accounts are connected, Mfwitten is not a cleanstart of ART. Apart from anything else the Mfwitten account has been around longer than the ART account. Think about it. Therefore there is no way the policy can apply to them. I share your frustration with checkusers, but even if they had been 100% bang on right and Mfwitten had been caught red handed, it would still have been against policy to mark the blocklog in the way that you did.

I am concerned that you still haven't grasped what the policy says.

• Marking someone's block log is only to be used where there is a cleanstart. It is not to be used for socks.
  

• When it is used to show that a cleanstart account had a previous block log, you must not mention the name of the old account in the blocklog tag. You can notify Arbcom and they will record the two names if necessary. Think about it - if the person abandoned the old account because someone had identified their real identity, if you tie the two accounts up, you have outed them Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I grasp it quite fine. This was a case of a good hand band hand account, as even the other checkusers agreed. That is absolutely not a legitimate use of a sock. As far as I'm concerned, Mfwitten could have been blocked for 24 hours for this offense alone. However, I chose not to use this route. Someone cannot get away with using a bad hand sock and not have it notated in his block history - nope nope nope, it doesn't work that way. And if it does, then it's a poorly-written rule, and ignoring it should cause no problems, save with the accused. I cannot imagine ArbCom would be unhappy with an administrator for ignoring a rule (per policy) that allows a perpetrator of illegal sockpuppetry to get away without a punishment. Think about that - a clean start account would get a notation in the block log, but an illegal sock account shouldn't have a notation at all?

If it had been a clean start account, I would have proceeded as such. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, you don't grasp it at all. There is simply no policy which allows you to do what you did with respect to the block log. None. Nada. Admins are required to adhere to policy in this kind of action which leaves a permanent record, and your continued refusal to recognise this is deeply concerning. If you want to indicate that one account is a sock of another, use sock tags on the talk and userpages. Don't mark the block log like this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Mfwitten hasn't done anything wrong. The SPI was because it was thought ART and Drealgrin were the same person, editing the same article at the same time, to votestack. Mfwitten has never edited any article on male genitalia ever. What on earth offence has he committed that would warrant any kind of a block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I have to second Elen's opinion here. Whether this is something that should be changed is another matter, but right now the wording is fairly unambiguous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I grasp it quite fine - that policy is written for legitimate sockpuppetry. This was illegitimate sockpuppetry. How hard is this to grasp guys? The policy is only written for legitimate sockpuppetry. Of course you know he (allegedly) did nothing wrong - but I was told he likely did. If a checkuser comes up for positive, I will not allow a user to get away with illegitimate sockpuppetry. If need be, i'll just throw down a 24 hour block in the future at which point I'll put a notation in the block log (apparently you'd rather I give a block than just notate an account). If you don't like it, I'll ignore the damned thing because it's a shitty rule, so you can drag me to arbcom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, what an obnoxious statement: "aditionally he hasn't done anything wrong": as if I knew that from the checkuser. I cannot understand why you seem to think this should come into account - unless from henceforth I am to ignore checkusers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog, the policy isn't written for sockpuppetry at all. when you cleanstart you RETIRE one account and edit with a different one. That ISN'T SOCKPUPPETRY. In addition, operating two accounts, even if you don't acknowledge them, ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES. You weren't told he likely did anything wrong, you were told he was likely the same editor. That ISN'T THE SAME THING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen has a point here Magog, and I'm pretty confused as to why you did this. You meant well, no doubt about it, but in future if you do not understand the process clearly, please don't carry out irreversible actions. You've been lambasted enough though, so I think we can put this to rest. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:GHBH. To borrow your capitalized text, that is AGAINST THE RULES. Against. Punishable. Not kosher. Unclean. Bad. For chrissake how many times do I have to say that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why you think this is a case of good hand/bad hand - noone else seems to be seeing that in these two accounts. Shell 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Shell. Throwing around essentially racist allegations for long enough to get you blocked for almost a month? Giving half-hearted apologies that were weak enough that the unblock request was denied three times before only one admin finally assumes good faith anyway (an act which frankly went against consensus and is bad enough it's nearly led to the admin's recall - see here). I didn't oppose the unblock, but I certainly don't think that race baiting and making 6 reverts in 48 hours is anything but a bad hand account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely understandable and two checkusers did initially state that it was likely the accounts were the same person, however, after further review by some more experienced checkusers, it appears that those initial responses may have been incorrect. The initial responses were based on technical evidence only and on looking at the whole picture, it seems unlikely that the same person is behind both accounts.

Anyways, I think the initial point here was that block logs shouldn't be used for making notations and there are a variety of sockpuppet templates for user/usertalk pages that are used for this particular purpose. Have you had a chance to take a look at those and see how they're usually used? Shell 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but what you're proposing is placing the {{sockpuppeteer}} template on his userpage and then locking the userpage (just as harsh) or allowing him to remove it (rendering it useless). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not proposing it actually, it's listed in the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Blocking_and_tagging with some other guidelines. Usually locking the page isn't necessary, but it's not a bad idea to watchlist the page just in case (probably good practice for any block really). Shell 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for taking a stand against vandalism and edit blocking User:Mindbunny. THANK YOU!!‎ Bped1985 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome? I would be remiss not to point out it's not actually vandalism (see WP:VAND#NOT and WP:HITLER); it's inappropriate edit warring. But yes, you're welcome! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alas I didn't have a barnstar at the ready for that one. So you got an Anti-Vandalism barnstar :D. Speaking of which, thats quite the war going on at Mindbunny's talk page. And I kind of want to know if I had done everything right? I was one of the RC patrollers he speaks so highly of. I joined in kind of late in the game so didn't really engage in the full-out edit war. Thanks!

No; frankly you didn't do everything right. Page or section blanking is only vandalism when it's done with the sole malicious intent to harm the page. An editor who is trying to improve a page should not be ever be warned for vandalism or auto-reverted. When I run Huggle or a similar tool, I always check page blankings with the following:

• Did the user provide a coherent edit summary? If so, no reversion.
• Did the user provide an explanation on the talk page? If so, no reversion.
• Is this one of the user's first few edits? If not, I'll check out the page history and the editor's history really carefully before reverting and warning.

Hope that answers your question! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well now I know! Thank you! Bped1985 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Following up on LAEC's enemy list

Since you were involved on at least two levels, I'd like to ask why LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is allowed to keep an enemies list at "Anti-LAEC anon editors"-- specifically, listing my name without further justification. I have asked him to remove my name but he refuses, rejects request to provide diffs, and repeats old arguments. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am rather exasperated by the whole affair, which is just more arguing about arguing. I suggest you just ignore him, as he's blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I won't bother you again about it. I'll just ask another admin for some advice on how to proceed since I don't think it's fair to allow the list to stand. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we archived it, would you still be mad? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

I am trying to understand SL copy right laws. From my understanding This is usable in Misplaced Pages. Is my understanding correct ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because the clocktower was constructed in 1915, it is {{PD-Sri Lanka}}. If it had constructed within the previous 50 years (for pseudoanonymous/anonymous works) or within 50 years of the death of the author, then the image would have to be deleted on commons as a violation of the artwork (i.e., the building). However, in the US we don't recognize freedom of panorama on buildings, so I think it could be held on English Misplaced Pages. That's my take, but I might have missed something; I suggest opening a thread on commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

so I think it could be held on English Misplaced Pages for fair use but not in commons. Now I understand. Kanatonian (talk)

No, it could be free use, because English Misplaced Pages pays attention only to US law (e.g., {{PD-USonly}}, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), and US law wouldn't recognize a claim of the building owner over the photo. Like I said, though, IANAL so I'm not entirely sure on that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what do I have to do to this file to make it legit ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Prove that a) there is a known author, and all known authors of the work died 50+ years ago, or b) there isn't a known author and/or it was pseudonymous, and it was put in the public square 50 years ago or c) prove it is substantially the same as an older work (i.e., there was no creativity put into it) or d) get an OTRS ticket from the city or whoever owns the copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK but from my understading is that that is needed only in Commons but in English Misplaced Pages we do not recognize freedom of panorama. This is a Misplaced Pages file not the commons one. Kanatonian (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, the same file is up for deletion on commons. You would have to show that file is applicable for fair use, which it would be IMHO if there was text describing the statue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IPs

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links