| Revision as of 19:14, 22 July 2011 editJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 edits →Senkaku Islands: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:00, 22 July 2011 edit undoMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,710 edits →Senkaku Islands: b 24Next edit → | ||
| Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
| Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? ] (]) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? ] (]) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *] '''Blocked''' – for a period of '''24 hours'''. <!-- Template:AN3 -->] (]) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:00, 22 July 2011
| -----> FAQ: My Maps <----- |
File:Tethys 83d40m AntakyaMuseum Turkey-fix2.JPG
Couldn't find a tb template (per directions) to let you know that I replied at my talk page. Please see my reply and request there. - - - - 83d40m (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- there are other uploads of mine that were removed from my gallery and put into the commons. See my comments there, please. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Replied with the other files that went missing... thanks for your help. Could you also explain the proper use of the tb template? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you click on Template:Talkback, you will see the documentation there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Message added 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I finished tagging the files that had been uploaded locally and addressed the Wikimedia Commons files by uploading a tiny image to my talk page for each that will remind me and provide a quick link to them. Aside from the attribution changes, I only am concerned at the moment about being able to access them readily as research tools, so I will remember your hint about a personal gallery merging both archives, but have no current plan to build one.
Will I be notified if duplicate files are uploaded to WC? I have no issue with that if they are useful in other Wikipedias and would like to know where they are being used. Thank you again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Normally you will not; no. It is not required by the license given when uploaded, and it is too much of a drag on contributors. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
trying to remove the isolationism from the paulite wing
a long discussion, your comments and help are needed Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I reverted my comment, because I didn't see it was a small header in a larger discussion (thus, my statement of "so what?" was kind of silly). In any case, Ron Paul qualifies as an isolationist in my book: his article states directly he is non-interventionist with some pretty compelling explanations, which I'm pretty sure is just a different way of saying the same thing, even if the connotation is less negative. Do you disagree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
no, isolationism requires protectionism. ron paul who supports ending the embargo of cuba and opposed the sanctions on iraq pre-war could neven be accused of being a protectionist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it appears our article isolationism give protectionism as a requirement. I think that is a poor way to start out the article.
- My searches under define:isolationism gives the following definitions:
- Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars... American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. (emphasis mine, )
- The policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. ()
- The first one is clearly contrary to our local definition. The second and third one might or might not be: a lack of economic alliances says nothing about tarriffs, while protectionism requires it; it rather says there shouldn't be a country-specific alliance and set of rules.
- Nevertheless, it looks like the term is vague enough that we probably should say non-interventionist in the article, although I think the term is too weak: there are many who may call themselves non-interventionist in the US for desire of not wanting to carry out foreign military adventures, but would be loathe to withdraw from the UN and NATO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, upon further review, I see the term is neo-isolationism, an entirely different concept with which Paul's ideas look (on face value) to be compatible (see also dictionary.com definition). I admit I've never heard the term before and haven't read about it outside that link, however. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
everyone i know who calls themselves a noninterventionist wants to withdraw from Nato for that very reason, we keep collateral damaging infants in countries that pose no treat to our security. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not debating the merits of non-interventionism. But I can point to plenty who would qualify as non-interventionist on most issues but who love the UN, including Barack Hussein Obama circa 2006. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
perhaps you have a different example? in 2006 his "shipping jobs overseas rhetoric" in response to the natural course of global markets finding the lowest labor cost sound a bit more like isolationist circa 2006. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- We're talking foreign policy, not economic. Non-interventionist. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
we disagree on obama ever being a non-intervenionist, but you mentioned pointing to plenty, who are some of the others? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Citizens for Global Solutions and many getting an A+ rating from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
i dont see how giving 50 democrats who support current U.S. military strikes 5 different countries an A+ in "global solutions" makes them non-interventionist Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are degrees here. It's possible to make them more non-interventionist than the average joe in the public, but no they're not hardcore non-interventionist. Just like almost all politicians are neither purely socialist or purely libertarian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Move to Commons procedure
Just a heads-up on what I'm doing with files that have multiple versions in history...right now I'm pulling off the top version to Commons (with a different name there) and marking them as "reviewed"...I'm watchlisting them at the same time. Once I see that OgreBot has done his thing and the top version has been deleted, I'll go back and pull over the older version as well. Is it a big hassle for you to revert to the description of the older version when you delete the current one? Kelly 17:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually OgreBot has a component I built into him months ago which transfers over old versions. And, if I can ever get a GUI up and running (by no means a small task), it will be available to the public. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently CoolCaesar made a habit of uploading over old images with completely new content, not with a revised version of the first, so OgreBot will have to sit that one out. But yes, I can certainly work with you on that, assuming a less observant admin doesn't come by first (cf. User talk:Athaenara#Images with multiple versions). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll have the files watchlisted, so if versions get deleted inappropriately I'll have them undeleted so it can get fixed. Thanks! Kelly 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, a little last bit of pile-on: you might find commons:User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js to be a very helpful script. It sure has improved my efficiency. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Does that do in my commons monobook.js? Kelly 18:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes; or your vector.js, depending on your version. You'll want to type add this line:
importScriptURI('http://commons.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Magog_the_Ogre/vector.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
- That way you'll get the updates I put in and it's cleaner. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
importScriptURI('http://commons.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Magog_the_Ogre/cleanup.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
- Ack, cleanup.js, not vector. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That script is awesome! Thanks! I used vector.js and it seems to work fine, should I change? Kelly 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
hmmm, I wonder if I found a bug. I had File:Shellgasstation.jpg watchlisted, but when you deleted the top version it dropped off my watchlist. Kelly 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Same thing happened to me with File:Officedepot.jpg. Weird! It didn't happen earlier today with the Jack in the Box pic. Kelly 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think it may be a problem with the {{NowCommons}} function of CommonsHelper. Looks like the default on "watch this page" is unchecked. Kelly 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you should change to cleanup.js. It will give you the same functionality, without all my weird experimentations screwing up your editing experience
. And without the (possibly duplicate) popups loading. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Delta
Could you please point me to the explanation/discussion regarding your last block of Delta? J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AN3#User:Δ reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Category:Misplaced Pages license migration candidates
Congratulations! You have been selected to get a chance to help clean up in Category:Misplaced Pages license migration candidates. To day there is 80 files in the category. My plan is to move them to Commons if they are ok and if not find a deletion template. Perhaps you wonder why you was selected to this really cool and funny task? Well the reason is your good work! :-D --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's so kind of you! I am honored that I was selected! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yay! I took a few of the "easy" ones. But I'm getting to tired to work so I have so stop for now. With at little luck there are not a lot of new files in the category by tomorrow. That is the problem. New files show up = more work. --MGA73 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Another case -- And I do not want to hit the revert button!
Alright, here is the deal: An IP user with multiple IPs in range of 117.201.*.* constantly adds POV information to Internet Information Services. I, User:Jasper Deng and User:N5iln actively argued with him. I had to ask Jasper Deng to tone it down a bit but this IP user is impertinent (calls us "Microsoft fanboy" and "Faithful Bill Gates dogs"). We have opposed all of his edits, including this last one which he stubbornly refuses to remove:
Google did a study of 80 million domains by examining the server's HTTP response headers and came to the conclusion that, even though (according to Google), usage of IIS servers is 23%, the number of malware served by these servers is 49%, same as Apache who's usage is 66%. Google suggests the cause of this could be the use of pirated copies of Windows, for which patches against security loopholes in Microsoft IIS is not available from Microsoft. . However, Microsoft provides security patches to pirated version of Windows.
We think his source is unreliable and WP:SPS. Yet has once again added the info.
I requested a temporary lock on the article but he evaded by using User:DE logics account. Anyway the lock is now expired.
Now what should I do with this zealous anti-Microsoft? Fleet Command (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the talk page discussion, but IP hopping to edit war is a form of disruption. Fortunately, we've forced the user into his named account, which means he'll be easier to track (on another note: should he use two named accounts, he'll be in direct violation of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and will be blockable as such. The protection doesn't expire until Tuesday. If you continue to have problems with agreement, try other forms of Misplaced Pages:Negotiation, or possibly WP:NPOV/N if you believe the editor is being recalcitrant to the point of not being able to rationally discuss. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I sincerely think no good will come out of my removing the offending text (as it will just come back) or trying to talk with the user (as I think he has grown impervious to us). But ... Hmm...
Fortunately, this case is not like the Rozen Maiden case: Here, the offending text can stay there for a year, even more. But in that case... See you later. Fleet Command (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
File:DSS DalaiLama.jpg source http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/84772.htm
Hello,
The photo DSS DalaiLama is source : http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/84772.htm
fr:Utilisateur:L'amateur d'aéroplanes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.24.26 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing this block please?
Hi, sorry to trouble you but could you review this ban please. ] It seems to me very improper and outside the limits of the sanctions for the article the IP was working on. Also indefinite site-wide bans cannot be enacted without an AN/I first. Even if the editor who seems to contribute on 2 or 3 computers, was behaving disruptively (which I dispute, he/she was in disagreement with a couple of other editors and should be allowed to reply when sources he/she cited are questioned), this ban is completely over-the-top. There has been bad faith towards this editor/s by at least one other editor on the discussion page, even going as far as alleging the IP has an agenda, when clearly it is at most an IP with a pov. Their contributions have been useful in the discussion and another editor has said this. I suspect the IP did not know he was blocked from the talk page. The blocks have been very poorly explained. DMSBel (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree; I've thought for a while that JzG is all too eager to hand out bans. However, policy restrains me from simply undoing it, as does common sense (which tells me the editor is probably being at least somewhat disruptive). I'll take a look at it, but I suggest opening a thread at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou, I realise the IP has expressed some strong disagreement in regard to a couple of other editors comments. However they generally have responded well in the past when merely warned. The blocking seems to just be exasperating an otherwise civil and valuable editor. I too have a few concerns regarding the IPs participation in the discussion, but they are only over quite minor things. General Sanctions on Abortion and related articles limits blocks to at most 3 months. But I am more concerned with baiting of the IP on the discussion page by a couple of editors. The IP has not been deceptive to my knowledge. If they have been using computers in different locations that is not unusual, though it might have been better for them to say this (assumimg of course they have not).DMSBel (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Block evasion is uncool, period. So is JzG's block (I note this is not the first time this has happened; worse, IIRC - and it's quite possible that I don't recall correctly - it may have been about abortion as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming it is the same editor (and it probably is), one IP] opened a complaint against OM and ended up blocked 48hrs. I've been blocked too. I think in this case the IP genuinely did not know the block included the talk page, unless of course I have missed something. This IP definitely has a POV (at least IMO) but that is actually not always unhelpful for discussion and reaching a NPOV. At least thats how I look at it. Totally neutral editors on abortion are a pretty rare breed.DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Something should be done, The ban JzG/Guy has placed is well beyond the general sanctions for the article. 3 months block max. And the IPs conduct comes nowhere near deserving the max sanction. The scope of their block was not explained, so its understandable they thought it only covered changes to the article. Guy's semi-protecting the talk page of abortion is stupid, it causes more disruption than letting the IP make his comments/discuss. DMSBel (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Did you take it to ANI? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind it being AN/Ied, but I'd prefer not to AN/I it myself. The amount of bad faith on the article in question seems to have resulted in this IP being confused with me, at least I can't figure out what is going on, and that seems to be a plausible answer, also another editor asked if this IP and I were the same editor. A WHOIS would show clearly we are not. I am in the UK, this IP is I am told in Florida. I have my own thoughts on what is going on at the article. I think that the IP simply has not known their block meant the talk page too. DMSBel (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that several administrators have already turned down the unblock request; I cannot do so unilaterally myself. Or I could, but I'd be ignoring policy, and that has bad results. Nevertheless, I'll take a further look into it later and try to come up with a coherent answer to both you and for the admins handling the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I also have asked Guy to revert his ban and explain why he went beyond the general sanctions for the article. DMSBel (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want you to revert the ban yourself Magog. I understand your reasons entirely and agree you are wise for wanting to say within policy. Also I apologise for not being online to reply more promptly to you. If Guy/JzG removes the ban/block there will be no need for an AN/I to investigate it further. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where the main discussion(s) is/are taking place? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't gone to AN/I yet, as it is better to try and resolve things first. So I asked another admin here: ]. There are links to all areas of the discussion in that section.DMSBel (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at RoyBoy's talk page, the best method to reinstate the IP in the community is to create an account. This sounds reasonable in view of the fact that edit warring to push a POV is certainly disruptive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
A clean slate once they register? DMSBel (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not a clean slate, no; there is a block or two in the history. But as RoyBoy said, there is really a way to move forward from here that's been given to the IP. I recommend registering and being upfront that the registered account is the same one as the IP, and then asking Guy for clarification if that is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone politely make it clear the to the IP that they are welcome back (as a registered user) and what the caveats are.DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Also Magog, thanks for giving the matter your considered opinion. DMSBel (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you have explained things to the IP about the standard of conduct wikipedia expects. I don't blame him if he wonders why this is not expected of other editors and admin. Thanks anyway for giving the matter your attention. DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is expected of other editors. The things I've asked of him are fairly common sense; the sort of thing that the average editor is doing without any effort. The fact I've required an acknowledgement from the IP is based off poor history. If we aren't expecting it from other editors, then that is a problem, not this (a la WP:WAX). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Creative commons copyright templates
Category:Creative commons copyright templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:P1010025-3.JPG
- In response to these two messages, which I've since removed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Taking Misplaced Pages:Do template the regulars a bit too far, eh? It looks like you are on top of the actual issue, but do let me know if I can help with anything and I will do my humor penance. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Haha I didn't even notice that; apparently self-warns don't trigger the orange bar. Silly Twinkle, messaging the first person to edit the page rather than the uploader
. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:File source problem with File:Moghulistan.PNG
Hello,
You left a comment on my talk page a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that the issue has been corrected. I also took took the opportunity to upload a cleaner version of the image. If you should have any further issues with the content status of the image, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Ro4444 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- None at all. Thanks for coming back to clarify. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Cb1 cb2 structure.png
Your request on it.wikipedia: 
Done--Guidomac (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Peculiar goings-on with images
I notice that you recently had an involvement with Kumarrajendran regarding image problems, and that the contributor's page is chock-full of similar notices etc.
I have been having my own issues with a image file of that user (or, rather, an image filename, since they keep changing the image attached to it). I would be grateful for any advice because it is becoming messy, as per my message here, and my AGF is starting to become weak. I note also that of the previous images uploader by the contributor and which still remain, few if any are actually used on an article, few have a meaningful description and the copyright/licensing may well be suspect.
Am I being paranoid here or is my concern justified? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is legitimate. The problem is the user appears to be mixing the good with the bad; it appears s/he has a lot of very legitimate pd-self uploads, but that s/he is adding in copyright violations in the meantime. I've blocked the account indefinitely pending a further explanation; too many of this user's uploads have been deleted as CV's. In the meantime, I recommend opening a case at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations so someone can take a look at the long term additions (and hopefully this someone can scrutinize the commons additions as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks very much for delving into it and doing what you did. I do not work a lot with images, so it is good to have some input. I'll look at initiating a CCI, although they have one heck of a backlog there. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not enough of a backlog that it's not worth listing. Don't make me do it for you; I'm far too lazy.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Was done before your last. Something interesting has resulted from it regarding the personal connections of the user. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was afraid of that. That still doesn't answer questions about the modern pictures though (if it does answer questions about the older pictures). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro-Misplaced Pages
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here and here last May.
Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
- This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page
Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:
- diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Misplaced Pages -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
- diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))
The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). IMO, we need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.
A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Misplaced Pages" foundation -- that is, to underscore that edits are not
|
|
|
In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Misplaced Pages" ....
The first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll respond to you soon enough, but I'm not going to lie: I'm tired as heck of dealing with the stupidity in this issue and I'm ready to start throwing down sanctions (or, where not applicable, to ask the community to support them). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Since I mentioned your name in a thread on ANI, regarding the "sanctions" at Senkaku Islands, I figured I should notify you about it. The comment was made to support your action and try to get broader community approval so that the sanctions "stick". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I had been planning to open up an ANI thread today. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I replied to you on Feezo's talk page. But simply: ArbCom normally don't rule on contents since... quite a while, in fact. Even the current version of WP:DR has "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration." (emphasis original). That particular text has been on that page since this edit, back in Feb 2007. So ArbCom not ruling on content dispute isn't a recent occurrence. - Penwhale | 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but they do rule on who was acting like a pain in the rear end, and are willing to throw down blocks/bans/sanctions, correct? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. But on the islands article, due to the full protection there (For 4~5 months), the focus wouldn't be on the editorial actions there. It'd be purely on the dispute article. - Penwhale | 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, the players who've acted badly are consistent across both articles; with the partisans and incompetant gone, perhaps the sane could work out a reasonable middle-ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- -points out that you managed to typo "incompetent"- Eh. The problem with the Islands article is the fact that the contested tag is the sole reason the page got protected. Why haven't people done RfC on this thing; or did they do that already? - Penwhale | 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Pfft. Mediation has been attempted, and RFC's on at least two members (IIRC). Can't say any thing further for the RFC's. Also, not my fault: stupid Google spell check got stuck on Spanish, and it won't go away unless I clear out all the app data (which I'm not doing). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- RFC can be for contents too... - Penwhale | 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know. But my point is only that the history of the page is so vast and ugly that we might as well have gone through 10 RFCs and it will not have made a difference. I find it quite likely that at very least one has been tried on the content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied to ANI and gave my few cents. The thing is, while Pinnacle Islands would be the most neutral name used, it would make a whole set of people unhappy. And the fact that this discussion isn't being resolved means the validity of the NPOV-title tag is in place. I merely replaced the tag because it's the de facto situation at the moment. - Penwhale | 03:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problems with File:Alexander bronse police.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg, please note that Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Alexander bronse police.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the source article. It says "This image made available on Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010 by Greek police", so it is obvious that Greek police released the image into the public domain. Innab (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That's absolutely not correct; you're confusing publication with public domain. Unless the Greek police specifically state that they release the copyright for the document, it is still copyrighted. Please do not upload files that fall into this category. If you'd like clarification on the difference, you can ask any questions at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions where they will certainly clear up the difference. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Article states "image made available ... by Greek police". It is obvious that it made available to the public. Also, the image is "Fair use" as historical figure. Any copyrigh to the statue belong to Lysippos, but he died over a thousand years ago, so the copyright has expired. Innab (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see commons:Commons:CB#Replicas of PD artworks for why the Greek police currently own the rights to that photograph. And because anybody could take a photo of that artwork, we cannot use it under fair use either; see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria#1. Am I making sense? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Senkaku Islands
The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight.
Lvhis' first edit, trying to tie names to countries
I revert it (without removing the source) because it's misleading, clearly explaining why
Lvhis restores his edits of tying names to nationalities, just rephrasing it
Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
