| Revision as of 00:08, 7 August 2011 editBobthefish2 (talk | contribs)2,027 edits →Senkaku Islands: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 7 August 2011 edit undoMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,710 edits →Senkaku Islands: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| ::There is no BRD violation there. ] (]) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | ::There is no BRD violation there. ] (]) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::I conjured a hypothetical scenario where one can game your BRD system and you said that only "works" when different sections are edited. Then when I showed you that the situation are dealing with is clearly a case where the same sections being involved, you insisted that it's still not violating your BRD system. Am I misunderstanding something? --] (]) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | :::I conjured a hypothetical scenario where one can game your BRD system and you said that only "works" when different sections are edited. Then when I showed you that the situation are dealing with is clearly a case where the same sections being involved, you insisted that it's still not violating your BRD system. Am I misunderstanding something? --] (]) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::This is getting on my nerves, Bob. Tenmei didn't make any reverts violating BRD. He was bold in his second edit. That's the end of the story. He's allowed to be bold all he wants, just like Lvhis is. ] (]) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == BRD on SI == | == BRD on SI == | ||
Revision as of 00:13, 7 August 2011
| -----> FAQ: My Maps <----- |
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)
- Hi Magog the Ogre, I originally planned to post this in the section "BRD on SI" of this page but am just surprisedly aware that there has been a big word wall there already (I did not put your talk page in my watchlist). So I am posting my enquiry here that is for me to avoid to break the BRD cycle indeliberately again. I and other editors have had discussions on the changes as mentioned by John Smith's above in the section "Leas section" of that talk page. All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified. I have also taken the suggestions from Penwhale and Bob and revised the proposed draft . Since 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) there has been no relevant discussions about this "Lead section" there. Can I go ahead to make an edit in that page as proposed in that discussion, as finishing the "D" of this cycle of "BRD"? --Lvhis (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should be fine - the D has been satisfied in the cycle, bringing it back to B. But if you're R'ed, remember to continue to D before B
. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks! --Lvhis (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Magog -- Please notice a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis: "All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified."
- Diffs which are inconsistent with this assertion include:
- Oda Mari, I have given the reason at least 3 times above why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands. -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
- Tenmei's post is out of focus or topic. --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
- I treat this post of Tenmei as a one irrelevant to the discussion above "Lead section" as nothing related to the draft .... --Lvhis 19:44, 30 July 2011
- In the very specific context Lvhis alone is responsible for creating, "fraud" is a very specific term which encompasses specific factors. We identify Lvhis' assertion as "fraud" because it is false, known to be false and proffered for the purpose of deceit. The words of Lvhis were used to encourage your endorsement based on misinformation.
The use of this term "fraud" provides an explicit label which leads us to examine a parsed process. This is a problem which needs mitigation, but perhaps the word may be an example of loaded language.
Perhaps an euphemism will be better? I suggest WP:Synthesis may be a better wiki-term; and it offers a conventional process for resolving some of the difficulty Lvhis has created.
If Lvhis were to exercise care to avoid synthesis in the future, it would be a good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei made a "R" on August 1 pushing us to "D", and now the "D" is still ongoing but not yet finished, while Tenmei made an edit on the Lead Section of this page now. Was Tenmei breaking the BRD cycle here? --Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, there was nothing untoward about a scrupulously neutral and very strongly supported edit here
- A. In fact, there was no on-going "discussion", only "trick questions" for which any "answer" falls short. Lvhis posted:
- B. In fact, my edit responded to the skewed reality of the talk page; and to the challenge --"if you cannot answer, you fail." My work also responded to a specific complaint. Lvhis posted:
- When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing , he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion .... --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011
- The significant investment in better quality inline citation support was exactly the kind of thing Lvhis encouraged me to undertake. --Tenmei (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe he was breaking the BRD cycle, because he was not reverting anything. He was boldly making a change, even if it wasn't particularly popular - and Qwyrxian reverted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the left and right side of the diff, it appears Tenmei reverted Lvhis' changes to the intro and then proceeded to add apply his own rewording at the same location. I don't really see how this isn't breaking the BRD. If what he did is allowed, then I suppose someone can indefinitely circumvent your BRD policy by doing a major re-write/re-wording on the same topic after each revert (so that they are technically "not the same" changes). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's all two consecutive edits - there were no changes in between. Tenmei reverted Lvhis, and then made another edit, without himself being reverted, which I would qualify as bold. This bold edit was of course undone by Qwyrxian. I don't see the edit as being any more bold than Lvhis'. Now if someone had undone Tenmei's original revert, and he had inserted the above material, then yes, I could see this being a BRD violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So this is how things went:
- Lvhis makes Bold #1
- Tenmei does Revert #1
- Tenmei does Bold #2
- ... and then this is how things can go in the future:
- Lvhis makes Revert #2
- Lvhis does Bold #3
- Tenmei does Revert #3
- Tenmei does Bold #4
- Lvhis makes Revert #4
- Lvhis does Bold #5
- Tenmei does Revert #5
- Tenmei does Bold #6
- ... and so on. This sounds like a perfectly wonderful way of edit-warring without breaking your definition of BRD. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So this is how things went:
- How the hell did you come up with that? the above would only work if they were editing different sections every time, which I doubt. Look, I'm not out to punitively block anybody; it's just not going to happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this diff, the left side is Revert #1 and the right side is Bold #2. Tell me they aren't on the same sections.
- I am not asking you to be mean and arbitrarily block people but rather to uphold your standard of wiki-justice. As I've hinted in our lovely thread about goading other people, good mothers are even-handed and do not practice favouritism. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is no BRD violation there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I conjured a hypothetical scenario where one can game your BRD system and you said that only "works" when different sections are edited. Then when I showed you that the situation are dealing with is clearly a case where the same sections being involved, you insisted that it's still not violating your BRD system. Am I misunderstanding something? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting on my nerves, Bob. Tenmei didn't make any reverts violating BRD. He was bold in his second edit. That's the end of the story. He's allowed to be bold all he wants, just like Lvhis is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe he was breaking the BRD cycle, because he was not reverting anything. He was boldly making a change, even if it wasn't particularly popular - and Qwyrxian reverted it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
BRD on SI
Hey Magog, I am not planning to engage in the futile practice of making content changes, but I am wondering how this BRD rule would work in SI. Suppose hypothetically a user decided to a filibuster a change and refused to agree under any circumstance, is the content in question blocked indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully not; hopefully we can move beyond that stage, just as is done in cases with page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering... does your BRD policy apply to talk page edits? I collapsed a sub-thread started by Tenmei because it is not constructive (as per his standard operating practice). He then reverted and added another chunk of nonconstructive text. I would like to collapse his text again because it is lengthy, distracting, and offers nothing of value, but a wiki-lawyer may come in and advocate a page ban. If you don't care, then I'd go right ahead. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would highly suggest that you don't do that. Please do not close a thread started by Tenmei, because he is, so to speak, your adversary in terms of content - and because you've had run-ins with him in the past. While the BRD doesn't strictly pertain to the talk page, regular rules of conduct and edit warring do (as does the general idea, put forth boldly by myself, that edit warring surrounding the topic is on a shorter leash than other subjects).
- If you think that he has started a topic not worth continuing, I suggest pulling in a neutral administrator (such as myself or User:Feezo, or perhaps User:Qwyrxian - although I'm not sure if Qwyrxian is in fact neutral). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so that's supposed to be inappropriate? Then maybe you should let him know that as well, since he does have a long history of collapsing his opponents posts (as shown in ).
I think I will just sit back let others argue with him. You are welcomed to take a look at the stuff he wrote, if you want to deal with this mess. In case you don't already know, his attitude is the main reason for the recent mediation case to be closed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Y Done - . As for the attitude, I'm convinced this is a two way street (I don't particularly feel like breaking out diffs or discussing it in depth here). As for the removal of content, looking into it further shows it was indeed a bad idea. If, on the other hand, you want to ask him to remove some of the content for brevity and readability, that would be the only reason I can see for this being appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that.
Citing idioms like "Two way street", "both parties are at fault", and "it takes two to start " is not very helpful, because it tends to trivialize the nature of the disputes (i.e. there's often an implicit assumption that all participants of the disputes share approximately equal amount of blame). While we both know that I am definitely not the nicest person in the world, There are some people in this world that are next to impossible to reason with. For example, numerous parties (including admins and mediators) had already made similar or identical appeals regarding his posts. In fact, I've made such a request twice already in that very conversation. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011
Magog -- no. Please consider whether your responses to Bobthefish2 have only made our problems worse. The unintended consequences only encourage more mischief.
In the unique context created by the edit history of Bobthefish2, any "assumptions" or "benefit of the doubt" are insupportable. His words become like the "straw that broke the camel's back" for Feezo, for Qwyrxian, for me, etc.
Strategic fraud
There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending we don't recognize the harm. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.
Fraud is a very specific term which encompasses specific factors. A fraud is false, known to be false and proffered for the purpose of deceit -- encouraging action or inaction on the basis of the contrived misinformation. In simple English, Bobthefish2 "lied" about collapsing text, but this verb is an example of loaded language. In plain language, Magog the Ogre was "suckered" about collapsing text, but the ambit of the verb encompasses the dupe. "Fraud" may be better for our purposes because it labels a parsed process.
Please scan examples of collapsed diffs in mediation threads. Each collapsed exchange is explicitly labeled to be consistent with Feezo's intervention model. These collapsed segments were created in a context which explicitly invited Feezo's feedback or action. In each instance, my edit was explained and my decision-making was defended.
Who's kidding who?
| Example A: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reply to Qwyrxian and STSC -- Aha, an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues. QED. --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2011
Can we not agree that, in the process of identifying an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues, our work together is constructive? Like the structured parsing exerecise at Google searches above, these are practical wikt:nuts and bolts questions which are part of figuring out how to comply with Feezo's leadership guidance and structured mediation plans. --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 |
Who's kidding who?
| Example B: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Oda Mari's words underscore two fundamental facts which bear repeating: (a) that mediation generally has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks; and (b) that the carefully balanced focus of our mediation process is easily disturbed. Her suggestion redirects our attention to the task at hand: to develop a shared understanding and to work toward building a practical and lasting resolution of the "primary issue". --Tenmei (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC) It is timely to recall that Feezo's "decisions as mediator relate only to the structure of the case itself." I don't know how to interpret these words. --Tenmei (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
|
Who's kidding who?
| Example C: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise rather than a self-destructive one. --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Returning to the subject at hand: the mediation fails in its function unless a clear line is drawn between what Feezo construes to be "on-topic" or "off-topic." In order to follow Feezo's leadership, we need to know what Feezo means by the phrase "material not directly related to the primary issue under mediation." For the time being, Feezo's mediation plan invites us to comply with what? That is the question from which sarcasm distracts. Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise -- building from a solid foundation toward a constructive end point. --Tenmei (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2011 |
Developing "zero tolerance" for deliberate fraud requires this very detailed response.
We don't yet know what to do, but even young children understand how to say "no".
- Strategic fraud is toxic.
- Bobthefish2 is a toxic long-term warrior.
An important step in addressing our problems is simply acknowledging them. --Tenmei (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- A pretty short response from me will suffice. In essence, he collapsed...:
- Example A: Complaints from opponents regarding his nonconstructive manner of communication
- Example B: An opponent's advice to the mediator regarding a personal attack committed by an ally
- Example C: An opponent's retaliative comment with regards to a provocative statements like ""Missiles" is Bobthefish2's term, a "spin" introduced to denigrate and marginalize in the same way as characterizations like "chunks of texts" and "strange phrases". No sale" and "Bobthefish -- no. Your open-ended "guess" is another diversion tactic. Not buying it."
- It's really up to Magog to decide whether or not I committed streategic fraud and that I am a toxic long-term warrior :-p. In case he hasn't noticed, Tenmei had very swiftly deleted Magog's advisory comment in his talk page already . --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Tenmei: can you summarize that? It takes WP:TL;DR to a whole new level. Now I know you want to be thorough, but I'd like to share a maxim my teachers taught me in high school: pretend your audience is stupid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
FACT: Magog posted a warning on my talk page.
QUESTION: What if I had simply ignored your warning?
FACT: My response was serious, thoughtful and focused on likely consequences.
ANALYSIS: Pretense is counter-productive in our Misplaced Pages context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is it that TL;DR becomes a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing? As a shorthand observation, it very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes -- see Jan Swafford. "Too bizarre, Mozart!" The Guardian (UK). 4 June 2004; excerpt, "The famous complaint of Emperor Joseph II about The Marriage of Figaro -- "too many notes, Mozart" -- is generally perceived to be a gaffe by a blockhead. In fact, Joseph was echoing what nearly everybody, including his admirers, said about Mozart."
This is not about the gaffes of a blockhead. In fact, Magog, you are off-target when you advocate pretending Bobthefish2 is stupid. That's the point, isn't it?
Magog, please rationalize this sequence:
- FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, Bobthefish2 collapsed my words at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute -- here
- FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, Bobthefish2 managed to spin the self-created "problem" at Talk:Magog the Ogre -- here
- FACT: Without addressing anything substantive or specific, the immediate result was that a surprise warning was posted on my talk page -- here
This is subtle manipulation.
The skewed logic of Shakespeare's "pox on both your houses" construes some kind of causative misconduct by me -- even when my only involvement was limited to fact-specific issues in a talk page thread. My words did not produce immediate engagement; but the more important point is that no misconduct can be teased out of my serial diffs. Nevertheless, because of "spin" by Bobthefish2, I am surprised to discover it evolving into a kind of who-knows-what which urgently needs to be discouraged by Magog's warning?
No, no, no.
Consider the alternative: What if I had simply ignored your warning?
The harms caused by this kind of "strategic fraud" are cumulative. --Tenmei (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really need to address this very WP:TL;DR post, but I hope the problem posed by Tenmei has become obvious to you, Magog. By the way, Tenmei has (very unsurprisingly) reverted Lvhis' changes and calling his reversion "Pro-Misplaced Pages" . Afterwards, he dump the same chunk of meaningless text that he posted before that is neither clearly written nor effectively addressing why exactly Lvhis' changes merit deletion. You might as well read through this entire round of that BRD cycle since you've already gotten your hands dirty with this. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your response, Tenmei, is entirely non-constructive. You've accused me of purposeful bias (an accusation which is totally off), and you've gone ahead and in my request for you to be more concise seen fit to quote a philosopher/writer all of five times in your above posts. Tenmei, I know that there are smart people, and it's good to quote them, but I'm going to ask, if you post on my page, not to quote more than one famous person more than once per 1000 words, or once per post, whichever is greater. It does not help the reader's understanding, and this is not an indication of his/her reading level or intelligence. If you want me to continue to help out in this, by all means reform your actions. Otherwise, you're just going to be annoying me, and I will ignore what you type.
- Bobthefish: please stop antagonizing. I'd appreciate if you didn't respond to anything Tenmei says on my page. If I want you in, I'll ask you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Beer cans
I was thinking that most of the files in this Commons category are probably copyrighted derivative works...wanted a second opinion before I went to the effort of a mass deletion request. Kelly 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah those look non-free to me. Let me know if you need help tagging all the images with the deletion tag; I have use of autowikibrowser on commons, and I use I for that purpose. Or you could just apply for usage yourself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Man, I'm discovering that Commons is lousy with copyrighted product packaging, there are thousands of them, I think. I am AWB-challenged, if I start compiling a list, perhaps you could eventually turn AWB loose on it? Kelly 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I could, yes, but I'll need to know which deletion discussion to link to which file. I can even start a deletion discussion if you want, and because I'm handy with regular expressions, I can actually just paste the list of files into a deletion discussion if you want. You might want to put something in your userspace then i can move it into the mainspace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably just start compiling a list in my userspace...it will probably take a while. I wanted to finish moving Coolcaesar's images over to Commons first (almost done). It's likely to be contentious - I've tagged a few of these images on Misplaced Pages and Commons both and people are already getting emotional about it rather than writing fair use rationales. I'll never find all the copyrighted images at one whack but I guess we can deal with them in batches. Kelly 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, they can get pretty snippy at commons; it's a very toxic atmosphere at times. I think it might partially be due to cultural differences in communication and norms. But I've gotten a bit sick of it myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
|
Thank you for your support |
| Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
1bc3d.png -> 1bc36.png on Duployan shorthand_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand-2011-07-28T11:12:00.000Z">
There are several pairs of pictures that are currently identical on this page, including the two that your bot attempted to conflate, but they actually represent different entities (Unicode characters). It is distinctly possible that at a later date, these images will be updated to indicate distinguishing characteristics, so they need to be retained as distinct files and distinct names. Is there any way to block or warn bots like yours that the current status is not accidental? VIWS 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand"> _1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand">
- That was more of a human factor than it was a bot factor. Originally, User:Sreejithk2000 tagged the page for WP:CSD#F8, and I specifically marked it approved for deletion. As such, if you don't want the file to actually be deleted, you might want to upload it to Commons and put a note on the talk page that you don't want it to be deleted, even if it's identical, while explaining the reason why. If the reason is valid, Commons will handle it properly. However, your reasoning saying that it was the wrong stroke direction is wrong - I'm looking at the deleted revision right now, and they are exactly identical in appearance - as such, it looks like the problem was uploader error to begin with. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am the uploader, and it's not an error. Like I said, they represent two completely different script entities that are distinguished only by the direction they are written, (they connect to adjacent letters, revealing their direction) and they need to be two separate files so that when someone uploads new versions that actually show the subtle difference - say, an arrow to show the direction of the stroke - you don't have the new image showing in the wrong place. I need to know how to keep people like you who don't know the back-story that even though the images are currently identical, they absolutely should not be substituted for each other. How can I port images over to commons and mark them so they won't be removed like this? I tried before, and gave up because I couldn't navigate the commons process. VIWS 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand"> _1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand">
- I just did it for you, as that was easier: see commons:File:1bc3d.png, commons:File talk:1bc3d.png, and commons:File talk:1bc36.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback - User talk:Brendandh
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Brega to Gaddafi
I belive Brega shouldn't be blue anymore but green, since it has been confirmed by the rebels themselves that they had been holding positions 20 kilometers from the town since the battle ended a week ago , were only on the eastern and southern aproach to the town, the west is still an open supply route for the loyalists (so in fact the town is not surrounded), there are over 1,000 loyalists in the town (and not 300 as the rebels claimed initialy), the top rebel commander commanding the front there has been killed, and following his death the rebels have retreated today an additional 10 kilometers from the town . So in essence they are 30 kilometers from the town now, only 10 kilometers closer than they were before the battle. All the information has come directly from rebel commanders on the frontline. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which page are you maintaining is incorrect? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The main map of the civil war which shows all of the towns under loyalist or rebel control. EkoGraf (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will work on it later if it's still not changed. Real life calls me at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Libyan Uprising.svg
Hi, you recently altered the above image to show that Brega and Zliten are under Gaddafi's control, yet I did a Google search (under the "news" section) and couldn't find any news article to verify this. In Brega, it seems the rebels have control of the city, but are struggling to defuse several landmines that have been planted throughout the city. Would you be able to provide me a link to a news site that published a report on the current situation in Brega? Thanks. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
...Ironically, it would seem, immediately after I posted this question I noticed the subsection directly above mine. So now it is moot. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. I also left a note on the talk page with a fuller explanation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Confidence trick on Spanish Misplaced Pages.
I realise that what goes on to Misplaced Pages in non-English speaking countries may not be your responsibility but I felt I should draw your attention to a completely fraudulent "biography" of a non-existent person, evidently designed for some mysterious reason to fool readers somehow.
The link here at es:María Melchora de Braganza may no doubt be imitated elsehwre and provide "authority" for the existence of this non-person.
She is described as the youngest (4th child) of King Carlos I of Portugal, assassinated in 1908, but there is absolutely no record of any such person in any published source./ the supposed biographic support cited in support of this person's existence, along with her pretended titles, is entirely fictitious. Reference to the contemporary published sources of royal genealogies (such as the Almanach de Gotha) as well as online sources demonstrates that no such daughter of the last king ever existed.
This is the kind of entry that makes wikipedia's editors look inept and serves to put in question the reliability of much else written on the worldwide wikipedia.
For online sources you could look at this excellent site: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/portugal.html or here: http://www.geocities.com/henrivanoene/genportugal.html or indeed the English language wikipedia at Carlos I of Portugal
GuyStairSainty (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yikes! Thanks for bringing that up. This is what I've done: I'm not at all familiar with Spanish Misplaced Pages, but I've left a message at es:Misplaced Pages:Informes de error#María Melchora de Braganza (2) (along with a minor rant about how I was treated last time I did any substantial editing there). However, it's pretty backlogged so I'm going to place a note at their administrator noticeboard (es:WP:TABM#Informes de error). Magog the Ogre (talk)
- And it's been deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you update the notice that one gets when one edits the Tea Party Movement article?
Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. I know it's kind of easy, since everyone there is is in perfect harmony :-)
The notice (which I think you were kind enough to create) which one gets when one goes to edit the article says that IP's and new editors can't edit the article. I think that this is incorrect / outdated. If you agree, could you fix? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh that unprotection slithered back in. I think it's worth a try; I've edited the page notice; let me know if I missed anything or if the vandalism becomes a problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Haven't too many vandalism problems. Just about everything except that. I allow myself only one contentious article is order to keep my sanity. I think that article counts as two.
Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Kumarrajendran is back, messing about with images
- Kumarrajendran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- commons:User:Kumarrajendran
Kumarrajendran has returned and is messing around with images again, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=J._Jayalalithaa&diff=prev&oldid=442578627 this edit]. You blocked a couple of weeks ago, I sent it to CCI and someone else commented that some of these pictures may be ok due to a family connection. I really do not know how to handle this. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm a bit aghast too. He's not communicating very well either; my suggestion is to open a thread at commons:COM:AN/U and ask for clarification from the community. Wait a few days (commons is slower than en.wp, by a lot), then if you don't get a satisfactory response, open up a deletion request on all his images. I'm fairly sure we can do whatever here what they do there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Filed report at Commons. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I left a note on the user's talk page and then reverted today's edit by him/her at J. Jayalalithaa on the grounds of the CCI/Commons stuff. My revert has been reverted, almost immediately. I have left another note asking them to undo but somehow I doubt it will happen. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Still having problems, and I suspect that they are also editing while logged out. Few, if any, of the contributions have an edit summary and they are not responding to my comments on their talk page. Commons apparently only has one recent uploaded image. I think that this is now bordering on disruptive editing - the user alleges to be a doctor of some sort, so the lack of communication is just silly. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
blocked. Feel free to nominate the user's images now at WP:PUF, or to wait a few days until hopefully the user responds. If you see any obvious sockpuppetry (e.g., logged out editing), let me know, or let WP:ANI know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It struck me yesterday that perhaps the issue could be that the contributor is in fact one of the faces shown behind the article subject in the photo & that this might be the objection. However, they have never said that and have uploaded what must be a dozen variants now without appearing to learn a thing. Will see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- On one hand, I would feel awful about that. On the other, this is a place with rules, as is the real world with its copyrights, and we really have a moral obligation to uphold them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Have a pie
|
SwisterTwister has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit! |
I hope you enjoy this pie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
User creation to evade semi-protection
- JohnHonai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thiruvananthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After you semi-protected Trivandrum, the IP user created an user account and completed 10 edits to be eligible for contribution. Then the same content is removed from the article. Plese See the contributions : Special:Contributions/JohnHonai Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You'll want to encourage the editor to use the talk page (you can do so at his/her talk page); if the editor continues to revert war without using the talk page, I will block him/her for disruptive editing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please check what actually happened. An IP editor inserted a qualifier that is unreferenced, and the reference he provided in edit summary failed verification. I tried to resolve it by doing three posts on Talk page, but the editor didn't co-operate. Instead he called names on edit summary and re-inserted it. After that you semi-protected the page, and I created an id to edit.
- Samaleks or his friends on that page who normally jumps at anything that goes against his views did not rise a finger about this un-wiki like behaviour by this ip editor. Now he is complaining that I use an id to edit. It is not illegal. He should rather ask the original IP editor to show proper behaviour by coming to the Talk page and make his arguments. And also show some civility. Calling someone nincompoop is not civil.
I was not involved in the previous edits. I was not edit-warring which led to the semi-protection. My point here to JohnHonai is not to revert continously by creating an account to evade semi-protection. You have again done the revert now.
And you are now edit-warring in Kochi page too, without logging in. The contributions from your IP address range 117.x.x.x is evidently proving that you are constantly edit-warring in Trivandrum, and Kochi pages. --Samaleks (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg
- File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- commons:File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg
Hi, can you have a look at the historical licensing (and other) information for File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg, as I'm not sure the current ownership/licensing information on the commons version File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg is correct. "There was a version on the English Misplaced Pages but I moved it here" does not mean it was made by uploader to commons. And I'm not sure it is a free image as it looks like a websized image, but I'd like to start with the "original". I hope you can help. Thanks in advance. Deadstar (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The file was uploaded by Tkgd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 00:58, 5 December 2006 with the following information on the file page:
== Summary ==
This photo was taken by Jon L., a graduate of 2006
== Licensing ==
{{cc-by-2.5}}
- So it was the same uploader both times, the second of which he claimed as
{{pd-self}}. That said, User:Tkgd2007 identifies himself as Tim on his userpage, not as Jon L. (apparently I missed this, somehow). So placing a{{no permission since}}tag on the file on commons would be legitimate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sri Lanka Matha in Sinhala.ogg
Dear Friend,
I am responding here because I cannot seem to recall my password to the commons project. This is in reference to the file on the subject. This file has been nominated to deletion by you as per the Sri Lanka public domain brief in wikimedia. I disagree on the reasons you have given for deletion, though it is the national anthem that is written by Ananda Samarakoon it doesn't necessarily mean he has copyrights over it. He was commissioned by the government of Sri Lanka to write the national anthem, moreover the national anthem is part of the constitution (the countries law) and it cannot have copyrights. NëŧΜǒńğer 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will leave a note on the commons page indicating your belief in this. You might consider registering another account on commons or resetting your password as well. I am going to further respond there; if you want to respond here instead of creating a new account, feel free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
DSK perp walk pic FfD close
Good close (and not just because I agreed with the result). I had actually thought about making the same argument about how the news event was months ago, but since no one seemed to want to continue the discussion I just kept it in the quiver. And I hadn't thought about the montage argument, either. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
BRD cycle breaking
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Only one section at a time, please Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight.
Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei made a "R" on August 1 pushing us to "D", and now the "D" is still ongoing but not yet finished, while Tenmei made an edit on the Lead Section of this page now. Was Tenmei breaking the BRD cycle here? --Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) modified --Lvhis (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog the Ogre, is the sanction "BRD cycle, crystal clear" you put for the page "Senkaku Islands dispute" still applicable or effective? I was swiftly blocked by you on July 22 due to my indeliberate fault. I believed and hope to keep believing that you apply enforce this sanction in a very fair manner. Tenmei broke this BRD cycle deliberately already. --Lvhis (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- No -- compare Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Discussion between Q and L] which marginalizes my participation with lines drawn across the page. Who's kidding who?
- No, there was nothing untoward about a scrupulously neutral and very strongly supported edit here
- A. In fact, there was no on-going "discussion", only "trick questions" for which any "answer" falls short. Lvhis posted:
- B. In fact, my edit responded to the skewed reality of the talk page; and to the challenge --"if you cannot answer, you fail." My work also responded to a specific complaint. Lvhis posted:
- When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing , he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion .... --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011
- Bottom line: the significant investment in better quality inline citation support deserves encouragement. --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, you did not quote what I said entirely. At there I also said "... Also, now I want to discuss with Qwyrxian calmly first.". And here "For question 3) we can leave it to Tenmei.". That meant I will deal with you later because your usually out-of-focus way needs to spend more time as an expectation. Here is Magog the Ogre's talk page. Let Magog the Ogre make his decision on this BRD cycle breaking. You and I shall not argue each other about this here. --Lvhis (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- QED -- "gamesmanship", not collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Senkaku Islands dispute
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.
Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?
One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
- I don't agree that your contributions alone are feeding the conflict (other editors will probably disagree with me). While I think your means of communication is a problem, I don't think it's the ultimate source of conflict. Of course, I could be wrong (I don't have infinite knowledge more than anyone else), so withdrawing could be one way to test the hypothesis. I'll let you know privately if I suspect any foul play (i.e., if a specific editor or editors purposefully starts editing more agreeably just to make it look like it was your fault) - but I seriously doubt that will happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)