Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:57, 16 May 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.

User:Magog the Ogre/to-do

24

Magog, I am unsure about this discussion regarding the 67 IP. It seems as though 97 and CA are now being connected to 67. I really do not want to continue all of this, but I thought I ought to just mention that. I want to note that 24 has in the past created a vast list of my possible sockpuppets (a list rejected by an administrator for having no teeth). Perhaps this connection to 67 was born during that time and accepted as truth? I don't know. One can view the list of "possible sockpuppets" here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CAtruthwatcher/Archive 97.77.103.82 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you maintaining that you're not CATruthWatcher? Because, with all due respect, I know you are. In fact, when I blocked CATruthwatcher, it placed an autoblock on your IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Magog, thanks for the response. I am speaking only about other connections, like this 67 one that is now being discussed by 24. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for the clarification; we now know that you're saying you haven't edited from that IP. On the same matter, can you explain why you, someone originating from California and living in Dallas, have such a keen interest in things New York? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. Would it be possible, then, to remove the unsubstantiated references on this 67 IP to CATruth? One could use this incorrect connection, as 24 is currently doing, against me. Editor DC (currently blocked forever) and 24 (currently blocked) tried to connect me to any and every editor who has ever created a disturbance on Misplaced Pages. And, to answer your question, I have diversified interests and would like to visit New York and Washington one day. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed it. To be fair, we administrators are, on average, a rather bright bunch of people. We don't make decisions based off whether the sock tag is currently applied to the page, but rather look at the overall behavior and circumstances behind why the page might (or might not) deserve the tag. Which means me removing it really doesn't change anything in terms of how process in the future might be carried out. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. I was not worried about administrators' own judgment; I was more worried about non-admin editors who could lob accusations against me with incorrect information and perhaps influence an administrator. Any purported connections could be used in a list of grievances, as 24 has compiled in an attempt to appeal a block. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Magog -- 24, just off block, is literally re-making the St. John's page. He refuses to discuss any of his major changes, many of which are factually inaccurate, poorly written, and disingenuous. I ask for your immediate assistance. I left the same message on Eagle's page; my hope is that one of you will see it soon. Thank you. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts

Magog, Thanks for addressing the 3R report made here. However, the same content is getting re-inserted by User:bijuts using IP in . Please help to block the user or/and semi-protect Kerala too. Regards, Samaleks (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- you can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address. --Bijuts (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I locked the page because I was unable to firmly establish if it was you making the edits, if it was meatpuppetry, or if another editor altogether. However, one of the first two seemed most likely; so while blocking you would have been unfair, locking the page to avoid surreptitious editing was not, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after semi-protecting the page, User:Bijuts is edit-warring in the article, Kochi:

Moreover he just copy pasted the same warning from his talk page to my talk-page :

Your attention is requested. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Samaleks was blocked on February 28 for edit warring in Trivandrum article. See . And i reinstated the "Commercial Capital tag with solid reference". Administrators can check the references Bijuts (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not edit-warring in the article, which is evident from the article history. Even after the page was semi-protected, User:Bijuts is continuing to push POV without consensus in talk pages. The evidence is given in my above message. --Samaleks (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TD update

Here is an article that might interest you. I think your map is accurate given the specifics.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already combined the branches on the maps, haven't I? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So I guess there's no more to be done.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle matter

Hello again. I know that we haven't been much of agreement since November, but I think I am ready to return to handling the gadget once again. I've addressed the matter here and here and am ready to accommodate my use of CSD tags, as well as take any responsibility should I step out of line. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I simply ask that you would take care to not bite the newcomers or perform incorrect actions. Hopefully having used the original templates will have been a good education. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Miranda Raison

Thank you for bringing the Problems with the Miranda Raison photo to my attention can you provide me with some simple easy to follow rules for future reference? thank you! Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; any image of a living person must be free (read the first half section of commons:Commons:Licensing to get an idea). This means the vast majority of images that exist on the internet or elsewhere are non-free. Only images specifically released by their authors under a compatible license are free. Sadly, this means many people don't have an image on their article at all; we do this for two reasons: one is legal, and the other is ethical (we don't want to leech off someone else's copyright unless there is no possible alternative, ever). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well if those are the rules those are the rules! Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2005-terry-speaking.jpg

Hi. This file has an OTRS ticket so please hold on until you have the information you want from OTRS. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem; you can probably just ask at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have time right now. You're welcome to follow up on this yourself. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully we don't need access to the webpage, because it's locked except by invitation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bother you, but would you mind taking a look at this? Does it make sense to you? Is it easy to follow?

Also, if you don't mind, do you think that {{Talk header}} would look better above or below that notice?

Thanks for your time. – AJL 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense. And I think it would look better below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! – AJL 16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting blocked editor's edits

Hello, Magog the Ogre. I have just been reading up the history relating to a block of 24.239.153.58 for edit warring. The user cites statements by you to the effect that it is acceptable to repeatedly revert edits by a blocked user. However, I can't find anything anywhere saying that. It is certainly not in the list of exemptions to the edit warring policy, and I can't see it in the blocking policy either. In fact this is actually listed in the banning policy a part of a list of differences between blocks and bans: it applies to banned users, but not to blocked users. It seems to me that you made a mistake here. Or have I missed something? Pleas let me know if I have misunderstood. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog, here's another suspicious thing about 24 being related to that sockfarm. He made an AfC, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/St. John's University Lacrosse Rape Case, and in the references section, lists 1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case, which was an article created by Uconnstud. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: James, I have no idea how I got that wrong. I could have sworn I saw it say blocked and banned.

Re: Eagles: it looks like we have two blocked/banned/whatever editors at war with each other. No wonder they can't conduct themselves in a half-civil manner. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: James: I must have been thinking of WP:CSD#G5. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Note: this is in your inbox, but I couldn't wait)

New twist: 24 is suspected of being a sock of that huge sockfarm. One of those sockpuppets is Armyguy11 (talk · contribs), who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned user Mykungfu (talk · contribs) per User:Armyguy11.

One of the suspected sockpuppets of Mykungfu is 24.239.149.9 (talk · contribs), which matches up perfectly to 24.239.153.58 (our 24) see and . Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Want to open a(n) SSP(typo) SPI to put it to centralize a formal investigation, or just block outright? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

CheckUsers can't link IPs to registered accounts, so it would be pointless to start an SPI. More evidence just for reference in the future: Freakin Fool (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of Mykungfu, edits Dominican Republic , an article 24 and that side of the farm have edited multiple times. GreatChimp (talk · contribs) edits a Dominican Republic-related article . MrDouglass (talk · contribs) edits Dominican Republic . Finally, a common theme to Mykungfu's socks' edits is fraternity-related articles, which has also been edited heavily by 24. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I did say SPI, but I didn't specify it would be checkusered, rather to "centralize a formal investigation." iMHO, the evidence sounds pretty damning, but I admit I haven't looked extremely closely yet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case, 24 will certainly be appealing the block, so you might want to point him to the evidence you've compiled in order to make a valid defense. I suppose this could be a wild coincidence, but color me mightily skeptical. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I found some gray area. Mykungfu is not formally banned per , so I'm not sure that's a valid reason to block now since the policy has changed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ogrebot error

Ogrebot made this change to Dassault Mirage 5 - the two photos in question are definately NOT duplicates - one is a colour photo of an aircraft on the ground, the other a bloack-and-white photo of an aircraft in flight.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe that was an error: the history is a bit deceiving . There was an image on English Misplaced Pages at the previous location which is the same as the image at the latter location; when the en.wp image was deleted, a different commons image showed through. Thanks anyway though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PD-Maldives

Hi, Maldives was like Afghanistan, no copyright protection. So I based the template on PD-Afghanistan. Perhaps the link to the US code is useless. I will have to do more research on this. But Maldives only introduced copyright protection in 2010. I can see that we need a Copyright in Maldives article with all the refs. At the time of the new law, it appeared in some newspapers and the government website. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for using your talk page as a sandbox, however for the purposes of the testing, I could not use the WP:Sandbox, nor my own. If you have any questions for me about the purpose (if not obvious), please feel free to ask away on my talk page. Thanks, – AJL 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Crumb self portrait

Hi. You deleted File talk:Crumb self portrait.jpg, stating that "The result of the debate was to delete the image." But where was the debate? Could I be pointed to it? Because I wasn't even aware of it.

Also, you point to bullet point #1 of WP:NFC#UULP, the second part of which reads:

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

If I had been aware of the debate and had WP:NFC#UULP been brought up to me, I certainly would have brought up this quote, as Crumb's image is well known and an important part of his persona—especially the way he depicts himself in his famous autobiographical period (mainly in the 1980s), and he no longer looks like his most famous portraits of himself (he has grown a beard). Acidtoyman (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right; "debate" is misleading (in fact I've already corrected it for future reference ; good catch). I simply took your comment off the file description page which you had left in the {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} template. As you can see, that template says "Closing administrator: if ... the decision is to Delete please archive the discussion on the talk page between {{Rtd}} and {{Rb}}." I admit the process is a bit cumbersome; if I have time I'll be bold and change it some day so all discussion takes place on the talk page anyway.

The fact is the image was not being used in a way that discussed its famousness; it was being used for illustrative purposes (the infobox). I don't see this image being irreplaceable unless the only reason it's included is to show a famous image drawn by the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean that if the image had been used in the body of the article to illustrate Crumb's style, then it wouldn't have been up for deletion? Acidtoyman (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It means I wouldn't have deleted it; yes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

125.whatever.whatever.88

Thanks for the db-u1. Barong 08:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MosMusy

MosMusy is named in a currently-open 3RR report. I noticed that you took some actions in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive. MosMusy is confirmed by checkuser as the same as another guy, User:Mov25, who you have indefinitely blocked. I don't know if either one is likely to be Meowy; perhaps the SPI doesn't answer that. MosMusy has broken 3RR, according to my analysis, and it's about Armenia. This would show a common interest between him and Meowy. What would you think of an indef block of MosMusy for abusing multiple accounts? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, Ed, I'm just not very familiar with this case. My comments were related only to another case I was familiar with, and I indefinitely blocked the second user because it was an illegal sock account (but I didn't block the main account, to which he could return). I'm sorry, I'll have to keep my judgment to myself, as I know basically nothing more than you. However, given that it is regarding Armenia, you might consider heavier sanctions, like a topic ban. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

File:OiAparadektoi.jpg, File:Ti psixi tha paradoseis mori.jpg, File:NtoltseVita.jpg, File:OiTreisXarites.jpg. Are they ok now? --GhostFace1234 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not perfect but they work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--GhostFace1234 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NEMap-doton-Aurora.png

I am unable to transfer this image to commons because of the license template not being recognized by commons mover. Can you help? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. It was kind of a pain , granted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Dream Focus

—Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

Hello Magog

I'm dealing with an editor (Giovann..eeer, BernieW650 who is in a slow motion, multi-front edit war. He has been advised of WP:BRD and understands that 3rr is not a license to make 3 reversions but is steadfastly ignoring that. He is obviously trying to suck me in and get me booted again. He has reverted twice, and his last revert summery was simply "1st rv", indicating that he was ready to take it up to 3. I'd appreciate it if you could take a second to reiterate that 3rr isn't a guarantee of 3 reversions and that we are supposed to adhere to WP:BRD. -Thanks MTOV7-sport (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit war, and I am aware of the rules. I know that V7-Sport is as well, and yet he continues. I admit I am am annoyed at his following me to that article in order to edit war and don't appreciate his uncivil remarks, including the above accusations he is spreading around and spear heading. I find it very uncivil. Please advise each of us. I asked him to step away and allow other editors to handle the content question on this new article he followed me to. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironic that you have accused me of following you as you post here... I have been adhering to the BRD cycle, you haven't. V7-sport (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernie, how about you come clean as to what your longtime IP edits were. Where have you edited from as an IP? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting Bernie. Cuz your edits look exactly like Giovanni's. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV-title tag

Would you mind taking a look at this thread (on the Senkaku Islands talk page) and seeing if you agree that the tag should be placed on the article, particularly taking a look at my post here? If you'd rather not make a decision, I completely understand. Thanks. – AJL 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's entirely appropriate, because there is an ongoing dispute on the issue. At this point, I can only say: shame on them for making a big deal out of such a stupid thing, but shame on you for trying to remove a legitimate tag letting the casual reader know about a disagreement just because you like the status quo. If it were up to me, I'd think that a 24 hour block (given the warnings previously meted out on this page) of Lvhis, Oda Mari, STSC, and John Smith's would have been more appropriate than locking the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I never removed the tag in the first place; in fact, I don't believe I've ever edited the article itself Nope, I never have (I'll assume good faith regarding your comment directed about me). I completely agree that it should be on there too, but I thought I would get an outside opinion first. – AJL 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I didn't read the discussion closely enough. Thanks for the good faith though, making it unnecessary for me to assume the assumption of good faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the "pro-Misplaced Pages" point-of-view?

Magog the Ogre and AJL -- No, please think again. The POV tag should not be posted. The reasoning you both express is arguable, but flawed in a way which bodes ill for the future.

In contrast, the rationale which supports a more nuanced analysis is informed by the edit history of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. Please consider this: Unlike you both, I did participate actively in the development of both the articles and the talk page threads. As a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with the specific tagging of this article. In fact, I paid little notice at the time; but this issue has fully engaged my attention now.

• ARGUMENT #1: In the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV-title "tag" is unjustified -- pending the necessary engagement in discussion threads in this venue.

  Mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution. This is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Misplaced Pages stance in the face of an uncooperative strategy.

According to WP:DR, we are able to parse the different types of arguments in terms of their strategic content. In other words, WP:DR helps us to recognize and acknowledge categories of constructive comments, such as:

• Refuting the Central Point
• Refutation
• Counterargument

WP:DR also identifies argumentative strategies which are unhelpful:

• Contradiction
• Responding to Tone
• Ad Hominem.

In the very clear context WP:DR creates, we are compelled to recognize that the strategic and needlessly provocative addition of a POV-title tag was, in this instance, not justified, not reasonable and not constructive. It is only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.

In future, WP:AGF encourages us to hope that those who perceive a problematic issue will decide to confine themselves to constructive contributions.

As a good first step, it is necessary to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented in extended talk thread discussions about this very topic. If not, why not?

• ARGUMENT #2: Last week, I heard a television commentator use an idiom to describe the US Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden. Dick Couch explained, "This was not their first rodeo." This American idiomatic expression also serves to distill the accumulated threads at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. In other words, this is not our first rodeo.

The content of the "tag" is construed to function as a headnote or "value-added" component. The development of our talk pages informs a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". (See WP:FOC)

Can we agree that it is forward-looking to re-focus on content rather than validating a tactic? If not now, when?

Do you see my point? This cannot be expressed more succinctly. Some issues are not simple. Sometimes first impressions do not offer the best or most constructive analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre and Ajl772 -- Is it fair to conclude that you each appear to accept one or more implied premises? IMO, your acceptance of unstated premises only serves to endorse and validate a concurrent refusal to acknowledge or engage what has gone before.

In other words, is it fair to conclued that you make yourself part of our problem rather than part of our solution.

This begs a question: What moves us towards constructive resolution rather than an enduring impasse? What helps us to fashion a flexible management strategy for future disputes which are likely? --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- I plan to contribute no more to this thread. An unresolved issues are better addressed in some other venue. I hope my diffs are construed as arguably constructive steps in an unfolding process. --Tenmei (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Tenmei, can you please explain (without being excessively verbose) in which way our reasoning is flawed? We understand the WP:DR process, so please don't keep bringing that up over and over and over and over... again, please. – AJL 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AJL -- Again I ask: What is the "pro-Misplaced Pages" point-of-view? In the context of this question, "verbose" is a non-responsive ephithet, a label. You may repeat it ad nauseam, but the ad hominem "tag" remains foggy, a mere opinion which you introduce in order to deflect attention from substantive matters. It is a hollow contradiction which WP:DR encourages me to disregard because, in the words of Gertrude Stein, "there is no there there"

In this context, "verbose" is non-responsive. The label "verbose" is an easy gambit, a cheap trick. Your words do not engage any explicit issue to which I can respond.

In other words, your resort to "verbose" becomes an ad hominem tangent which serves in no way to enhance the quality of our collaborative editing. Why not decide to look again at what I've written above? On further reflection, why not address the content of what I wrote -- see WP:FOC?

AJL -- In order to be very, very clear, I reproduce the familiar pyramid graphic. It is not "verbose" to point to the caption which appears along with this graphic at WP:DR. What part of this graphic and this caption do you persist in misunderstanding? As an alternative, please do explain what you perceive I misunderstand when I rely on this specific phrase at WP:DR: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."

In a thread concerned with the title of an article about a controversial subject, the unhelpful label "verbose" is not in the top three sections of the pyramid. Aha -- at last? Do you begin to grasp the emerging outlines of an recurrent pattern?

Paraphrasing the words of the first paragraph of WP:V,

• A. The POV tag is only affixed because someone "thinks it is true"
• B. The "verbose" label is only affixed because someone "thinks it is true"
• C. WP:DR informs my rejection of both because a bare assertion has not been married with elements of refutation or counterargument to which a constructive response is possible

Perhaps you are unaware that the record of threads developed across the span of many months supports the title of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute? The title has been subjected to a process which includes (a) refutation; and (b) counterargument; and (c) a collaborative editing process.

Perhaps you do not know that there is extensive research which informs the choice of article title? No part of this research has been subjected to refutation as a context for a POV-tag. No counterargument has been explained as context for a POV tag.

These are marginalised.

As a constructive step, can you point to a threshold we can cross together? --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AJL -- I plan to offer no further comments on this specific subject. I hope that the effort to write clearly in this talk page thread will lead to better and more effective prose in future. Thank you for the investment of time in trying to come to grips with a perspective which is not fully congruent with yours. --Tenmei (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I will attempt to address your concerns stated above, in no particular order (I'll sign after each point so that you may address each point individually).

• First, the statement you provided here, leads me to believe that you will accept no compromise – even if only for the interim time, until the formal dispute resolution process is finished, after which the tag will be removed, and the title changed (or not change) to reflect the outcome of that formal process. I had believed I had clearly stated those were the terms of having the tag placed on the article. However, I fear that once the process runs it's course, and the outcome is not in your favor (i.e. the name is changed to "Diaoyu Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands", however likely or unlikely), somehow you will raise a fuss about it, even though we already hashed it out in a formal process. I am considering raising this particular discussion at WP:ANI to see what the community has to say, but I would like to see a response from you first before I do, and hopefully they will alleviate my concerns. – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Second, before accusing me of not reading the substantive threads and discussion and research done on what the title of the article should be, please check your facts. Did I not go through the archives and search for relevant discussion content for the purpose of filing the Request for Mediation? Did I somehow miss a discussion somewhere? If I did, why did you not bring it up before now? – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Third, let me state very clearly: I am not disagreeing with the choice of the article title, I honestly could really care less what it is. I am merely attempting to find a solution that everyone can compromise towards that will remove the title as a battleground topic. And yes, it is a battleground topic, as obvious from the numerous archived threads – unless you disagree with that? Also, do you agree that having one less item to battle over would benefit the article more, rather than leaving it open for a potential battleground item? – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fourth, your response was indeed very much "excessively verbose", however, I am willing to look past that in order to respond sufficiently to your queries. I explicitly asked you explain the reasoning that you find flawed, and to not bring up the WP:DR process (again), which (in my opinion) was a reasonable request – I was asking for clarification. Instead, you proceeded to post a slightly different re-wording of the same "WP:DR says " that you post over and over again, which was not what I asked for. How can one proceed with attempting to resolve the dispute when you keep bringing up how no one else understands it? – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fifth, you stated "As a constructive step, can you point to a threshold we can cross together?". I already did. Compromise with the editors on the other side of the issue and allow the tag to be placed on the article while the mediation takes place, then once mediation is over (however the outcome), it will be removed. – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal attack (and I really do not have nothing against you); I am merely attempting to provoke some thoughtful contributions. – AJL 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to Tenmei: first off, I don't think AJL was making an ad hominem: it was a simple request to say what you have to say less verbosely. I have experience with this: some editors on Misplaced Pages manage to write around in circles and say the same thing 25 times over, spending too much time on tangents; this makes it very hard to read their responses. While I didn't think your comment above involved any tangents (in this case), WP:AGF requires us to assume it's a reasonable request and wasn't made to degrade either the conversation or you in particular.

Second off, I probably shouldn't say anything, but I'm compelled to anyway: it took you five paragraphs to explain why you're offended by the term "verbose." A more..., er..., succinct way to respond would be "Please don't call me verbose, it's the lowest level of disagreement (refer to diagram on the side)." See? I said the same thing you said, except I only said it in one paragraph, and in one way.

Third off: on to what you responded above (I'd really not dwell on the points 1 and 2... I brought them up for simple edification). You seem to have said, 1) the tag is unjustified because the dispute over the name is unjustified. But that doesn't follow at all: the dispute is over the content, and while the dispute is ongoing, the tag ought to say. The logical conclusion of your argument is that you like the title, so it shouldn't go up. That doesn't follow. And 2) you argue this isn't the first go around. So what? Clearly the issue has been brought up before without going anywhere. Unless you can point me to a thread on the talk history that shows where this was resolved (good luck with that, but I have my doubts). Thus, if the debate is unresolved, and the request is not ridiculous to the point of absurdity (e.g., "we should move it to The Islands owned by China but stupidly claimed by Japan"), then the tags ought to stay. This isn't a difficult concept: if there's a dispute, the tag goes up until the dispute is somehow settled. Whether you agree with it or not - it's respect of process that we afford others out of fairness, and because we'd want them to afford it to us when they think they're right but we're convinced their wrong. Unless you're unable to fathom any way whatsoever that they could be entitled to a different opinion than you (in which case, see WP:MPOV). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Whole bunch of copyright-infringing images

There are a large number of copyright map images being used on UK general election articles, uploaded by User:Mwhite148 - you deleted one of them as a result of this PUF discussion but there is a comment by an IP at the very end of the discussion that correctly identifies that the images Mwhite148 claimed he had "got from a friend who abandoned them" are simply taken from a website that claims copyright over them. Someone needs to go through his uploads (which may have been transferred to Commons by now) and get rid of them all! In the past when confronted by the fact he's just taken copyright images, Mwhite148 has just simply repeated the implausible claim they were made by a friend - he's still a schoolchild which probably explains his behaviour. I don't have time to deal with this and so apologies for "dumping" it on you - you just seemed the most appropriate person to let know given that you closed that PUF discussion. Hopefully you can find an image-copyright wikignome to do the grunt work - if I knew a board where they hung out, I'd have taken it there instead, any suggestions where to look in future? TheGrappler (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; for long term copyright abuse, the location is WP:CCI. Depending on the nature of the uploads, I might dump it there anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links