User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Magog the Ogre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Magog the Ogre! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! triwbe (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Jennifer Lauret, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. triwbe (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Thanks for the welcome, but this is the second time I've been warned for this article, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to a recent edit someone else made: [[1]]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It means all the red links, you just copyied and pasted the french article, links and all, and those links do not exist on the EN Wiki. --triwbe (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Well the French articles are all doing it that way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, IMDB is not considered a reliable source of information and simply copying information from IMDB (e.g. the cast list) is not within Wikipedia guidelines (See WP:ISNOT).

Imagine, any one can create an IMDB entry, therefor if someone wanted thier home move to be included in WP all they would have to do is create the IMDB entry and then cite it in Wikipidia. If you can expand the information in the article then it is worth doing, else the article is unlikely to be accepted. Happy editing. --triwbe (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that all other sites mirror IMDB; honestly, I don't have a better idea. I am not even copying the data from IMDB; I am copying it from other language Wikipedias. And, in fact, as someone who has contributed to IMDB, one cannot just create an entry; they are hand checked by IMDB. I will add content to the article, but I believe that is the purpose of a stub article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK if you are going to add information, but I can show you many deletion discussions where IMDB is not accepted. I have already done a quick search and I see that these articles are notable, I have even helped in previous cases. --triwbe (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Remember the Dot. I don't know if you're an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia, but any help would be appreciated, and you are a well known and valuable community member. I found you at commons as an administrator that speaks both English and Spanish. I am experiencing a high amount of frustration: I keep on removing a proposed deletion for an article, and the administrators keep on reverting it and warning me. But the whole point of a proposed deletion is that it's not supposed to be restored; the template specifically says so on the Spanish Wikipedia. Please do not leave me in the dark on this; I have been routinely ignored and treated poorly by the Spanish administrators: you can see the discussion at [2]. Something stinks to the high heavens about the whole situation. I am afraid I'm about to get blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong for the Spanish administrators to add the proposed deletion template over and over. I agree with you there, though I would recommend that you hold off on creating this particular article for a while. As it now stands, the article's notability is questionable, since your only source is YouTube. I would wait until you can write a good article, using a variety of sources, before recreating it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the response. In fact, I have read over the policy, and it said the reason we ought not to write about future things is for of sourcing. But there is in fact plenty of sourcing: see [3] (about 3/4ths of which are relevant). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of looking like I'm badgering you: perhaps you would be willing to take a second look at your decision to vote delete on this page: I have provided an absolute gluttony of sources. Even if you still agree with your decision, I would truly appreciate that you at least have looked at it. I understand that writing about future events is discouraged, but there are plenty of sources to talk about this article and prove its relevance. Not to mention that people voting no on this page actually believe that it should never be created: that telenovelas, despite how widespread the broadcast is, are not inherently notable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would appreciate a response to this. Upon searching, I was able to find Wikipedia:Notability, which this article passes very easily, but I don't know if the policy applies in Spanish. I would appreciate if you could read my comments and respond here if not there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I probably should have responded earlier. It looks like the closest thing that the Spanish Wikipedia has to Wikipedia:Notability is es:Wikipedia:Artículos sin relevancia aparente. It would seem that the Spanish Wikipedia wants to limit its content to be closer to what you would find in a traditional encyclopedia. I think there's something to be said for this, and I don't feel particularly bad about telenovelas being left out. An encyclopedia of telenovelas seems more appropriate for a different site. Perhaps you could start your own? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really rather silly. The Spanish Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on telenovelas and nearly 500,000 articles, far more than anything in a regular encyclopedia. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this one was singled out. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Magog the Ogre, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback should be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What is with that kid? And why that article? Oops, forgot to sign. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like a rather random assortment of articles that they're hitting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested protection on Monarchy. Dunno why it's suddenly getting attention. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? These type of articles look like they get vandalism all the time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They do. I've never been able to figure out why. Perhaps the kids think it won't be noticed? I dunno. I've reported the user to ARV, also. I will never understand people who take such delight in screwing with stuff other people find important. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's more where the article you described so well came from. This is just a sampling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Silver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lohr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_M._Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rester

Note how each person is attributed a statement, then a derogatory story is used as "fill-in" to ascribe that person with the actions described, some from years earlier or later. Just thought you should know that this why I am so keen on this issue. This is not right. It's intellectually dishonest.Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited. It appears a voice of reason is now moderating this.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Most of those articles are a joke, and running completely afoul of the Biography of Living Persons policy. I'm going to tag them with the same template, and possibly contact an administrator by email. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a request on Talk:Paul Rester. I do my best to take any civil, specific concern others have about my contributions seriously. If you have a specific concern I would encourage you to openly articulate it. I aim to fully comply with policy. But I don't expect to succeed one hundred percent of the time. I count on other contributors here to be collegial and share their concerns clearly and openly, So I can learn when I have lapsed, in time to fix it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed comment on that talk page. Sometimes it's easy to forget that someone writes these articles, so I can talk about the article without remembering that someone might take offense. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you still planning to offer the explanation you mentioned above? Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did on one of the talk pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Here's two more to shake your head over (one KIA, the other who has lost sight in one eye). To be honest, I have yet to see one of these that is either on point, or neutral in any respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_J._Speer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layne_Morris Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for reverting my user page, stupid vandals. - Nick C (t·c) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a big fan? XF Law (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I was just telling it like it is ;).

In all seriousness, Huggle seems to have a bit of a bug, in that you can hit the revert button on the revision you see, but it reverts a newer revision to the revision you see. Apologies. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I figured. After a couple weeks here, I realize who does RC and who just tells it like it is :P XF Law (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted your warning and my warning - she shouldn't get a final warning for edits she made before she had any other warnings. I removed mine because I thought I reverted but another user had actually done it. --Smashville^talk 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a Huggle issue; Huggle must have improperly determined the time of the last warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just letting you know because my whole page went fubar and it went with no edit summary so you didn't think I was just haphazardly deleting your talk page edits. --Smashville^talk 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for actually taking the time to teach me something new, instead of assuming I was a vandal. However, since I don't have a user account, I don't have the Move tab. Right now the redirect is going the wrong way: October needs to redirect to Oktober, not the other way around. 68.38.200.195 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think established users are a bit quick to dismiss users without an account here sometimes (I have personal experience with this). However, you can still follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves; at this point, not even I can move it, because the page has edits in the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

...for the revert. _Gb^T/c 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No need! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[4] – iridescent 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it was not. Apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things: you might be interested in the thread immediately above this one, and I didn't actually realize it was a talk page until too late, at which point I figured a revert was just as good as any. And do you know how to undo something in Twinkle? I've done so by accident before, but I can't on purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need Twinkle to perform undos - just bring up the revision history of any page and select "undo" next to the diff in question. – iridescent 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Much slower. And blanking a warning takes quite a while. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki should never be slower than Twinkle, since Twinkle uses the Mediawiki functions - think of it as automatically clicking buttons for you. – iridescent 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke. I meant Huggle. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you're well. Are you an admin? I noticed that on this user's talk page you said that further vandalism would result in blocking the user. I don't know if you've read all of the user's talk page, but it's final warning after final warning. The user has been told time and time again that "if you continue to vadalise pages you will be blocked", and time and time again he has vandalised pages. Something needs to be done about this user.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  10:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've just noticed that the user has been blocked for 24 hours, and then again for 72 hours.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  10:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That should be enough. The vandalism and block policies on Wikipedia are fairly lax for IPs (see Wikipedia:BLOCK#IP_address_blocks). You can also report vandals at Wikipedia:AIV in the future (I'm not an admin). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was busy composing an ode on what I thought would be a compelling point regarding basic human dignity [5]. Immediately after posting it, I found you had beaten me to the point. Though your post made mine look derivative, I applaud your comment as succinct and well put.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good minds think alike ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello...Was that page retitling actually discussed anywhere, or was it a unilateral decision? I ask because it seems like that might be the sort of thing that you mention to someone before you do it.Gladys J Cortez 04:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not discussed. What you call a unilateral decision I call a bold one: Wikipedia:Be bold. If you have a problem with it, then mark the talk page for deletion and revert it. I don't see any reason to angry about it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi friend, this is regarding the recent page move. I just wanted to bring to you attention a couple of issues regarding the new title. If you go through The Kilgour Matas Reports , what they point out there is that the Chinese government's policy of persecution and incitement to hatred has resulted in such atrocities - which in a minority of cases can even happen without awareness of the "government" itself - despite the fact that the cause lies in the Chinese government's policy of persecution. It's a bit of an extrapolation to say in the title "organ harvesting by the chinese government." I don't think we should make such an extrapolation in the namespace itself. I am sure you could better understand what am trying to get across if you could spend some time, as you would find convenient, to research deeper into the subject matter. We can work on any shortcomings you might have perceived the current namespace as having, but for now, am taking the liberty to assume that I have your kind permission to re-wind back to the pre-existing namespace. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely do. I didn't mean to take sides on any issue; I just realized that the page title has given me exactly the opposite impression of the gist of the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, friend :). The article still needs a lot of expansion, a lot content from the KM reports, which I was just now going through at length[6], I find, has not been touched upon and there certainly could be nuances with the title which call for further improvement. Do kindly point out any concerns you perceive, as your convenience permits, on the talk of the article, so that other editors there could make further improvements to the namespace.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The page title has given me exactly the opposite impression of the gist of the article too. Never mind, perhaps it was mean to. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, CogDis is attempting to gang bang the page with a POV push.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

out of curiosity, why would you revert a page after requesting protection because you disliked all the reverting? Brendan19 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to request protection before I decided to revert. That wasn't intentional, though the result is the same, and I apologize. For whatever reason, I hadn't connected the two in my mind when I made the reversion (tired?). I changed it back because, given your edit history, and the history of the page, it looked like your edit was against consensus. This is very blunt; please don't take it personally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, no problem. Brendan19 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the understanding. It's fairly obvious things don't always go so calmly on here ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy on the huggle there ;-), you reverted a legitimate message on my talk page. --Nn123645 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You think [7] is a legit edit after having vandalized your userpage and placed [8] on a talk page? In any case, I did message the user to explain further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, while the user was vandalizing the talk page of that article he wasn't violating talk page guidelines on my talk page. -- Nn123645 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK then; will take more care. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, I've made many the mistake with the huggle. --Nn123645 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the Château de Bonaguil article page, you(?) are proposing to delete the above image. I confess to being rather unaware of the whole image copyright etc issue, but I can say that the source of the picture is the same as File:Chateau.Bonaguil.png image. Both are from the same work by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and considerably older than the normal time period following the death of the author that would place them in the public domain. Is it possible to use the attribution/rationale from one for the other? Emeraude (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude! Thanks for the response. OK, I admit the rules are quite complex; I went ahead and marked the file not because the claim to age is not necessarily credible, but because there is no source whatsoever on the image. It really needs to have a source (i.e., where did you get it? If on the web, the URL, if in a book, the name of the book, author, page, etc.) so we can verify all claims. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't get it. Way back in December 2006, I expanded the Château de Bonaguil page with information from the French Wikipedia and other sources. The picture came from there I think. It was uploaded to [9] by Archeos where it is noted as "Licence : Domaine public". I note that the version in English Wikipedia was uploaded by Archie at the same time, give or take a minute - almost certainly the same person. I am certain that it comes from the same source as the other picture by Viollet-le-Duc, but I'm afraid that I can't provide chapter and verse. However, if you can extend the deadline for a day I will do my best to track it down. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW. Found it in only five minutes. His book is in French Wikisource at Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle - Tome 3. The actual picture is at [10] - a long way down the page. In English Wikisource, the book is listed as being in transalation ([11]). I'm sure the French source is sufficient. Might I ask that with your greater knowledge of the process, you could update the record of File:Chateau.Bonaguil.png? Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus on the talk page of this article that an article for this subject is not currently necessary due to several concerns documented on the page that have not been addressed. A review of an old afd decision for a 2006 version of the article is not revelant, the current article was not deleted it was merged by consensus into the parent article, i consider using such a method to attempt to gain a consensus seperate from the one already established on the talk page, without notifying any of the editors involved, ignoring both the clear guidelines at WP:MUSIC and the reasons why the page was merged to be highly inappropriate behaviour and borders on gaming the system. All of the points brought up at the drv have already been discussed at length. If you wish to add sourced info about this person, it can easily be added to the members section in main article which is in need of expansion and use the talk page to discuss the need for a seperate article as other editors have done. I think you can agree that this is the best way to proceed according to all guidelines and precedents. --neon white talk 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to that. The "consensus" of which you speak includes, by my count, 2 people for using the page as a redirect (including yourself), and 8 for a standalone page. And ignoring a drv that had overwhelming consensus to allow recreation of the article is silly. I am going to open a thread on WP:AN/I about this, feel free to comment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:Consensus. A consensus on wikipedia is not based on numbers but valid points based on policy. In this case WP:MUSIC. It is a community wide consensus that info on band members whose notability is 100% based on being part of a notable group, who have no actions outside of the group is better contained in a parent article. As i said a review of a 2 and a half year old afd on an article that no longer exists and hasn't for some time, behind the backs of the editors involved in the discussions on the talk page, ignoring wikipedia guidelines and the previous discussions cannot be considered a proper consensus (again consider the guidelines at WP:CONSENSUS. Discuss this properly on the talk page, like other editors have done and stop the forum shopping this is bordering on gaming the system. --neon white talk 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This image is tagged as having been taken by myself, and has been since the moment I uploaded it. Can you kindly correct your error and remove any deletion tags from the article? Thank you. Rebecca (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I didn't know you were the same person as "Ambi". Research confirms it, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Magog, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Magog the Ogre, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find my reply to your request at my talk page. JoJan (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Magog the Ogre! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. So you know, for any old record labels I uploaded to en:Wikipedia years ago, the source is exactly what the information says it is, the label of the record. Scanned directly from originals. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'm sorry. I just was trying to ascertain the license. I'll try to be more careful. I might be gaining experience, bbut i'm not perfect :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Works of the British government enter the public domain 50 years after publication. ViperSnake151 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK; I looked at that template, and it only seemed to talk about photographs and artistic work. I even poured through some documents written by the Crown and couldn't find anything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the tone is in your mind. It was a serious question, I assure you. Now that you know that, perhaps you would reconsider answering? Thans - KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I believe that I do change pages on a regular basis, and usually if I place a tag I try to place an explanation on the talk page. Honestly, I'm not always great at writing prose though, so I do what I can to help a page, but my changes that are anything but factual are few and far between, because it takes me a long time to write them. And most of these have been translations from other Wikipedias. Do you have any specific pages you were thinking of? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a script that does that. I just copy and paste 5000 revisions at a time, and my script parses out the date and time, which I paste into excel for graphing. I would like to write a script hosted on toolserver that automates this for everyone. I think the graphs are often illuminating. I'll let you know (if I ever get approved) where you can find the script and template spreadsheet. Cool Hand Luke 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see you prove that Bakharev has any English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue has less to do with Bakharev's English ability than with the fact that you in fact shouldn't be editing other user's pages. Please do not edit another user's page.

Yeah, but if you wish to argue this, his most recent contributions shows flawless English from what I can tell: [12]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In this discussion, I think the term might have been intended to be presidential government. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, I have been anonymously reverting and correcting vandalism for a few months now and have just (less than an hour ago) created an account. I am interested in gaining Rollback permission and becoming a member of the RC Patrol. Any information you can provide me on these items would be helpful. Simulation90 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. I'm glad to hear we have another registered user; I hope you continue to stay and contribute. Anyone can be an RC patroller: I would just suggest reading up on the page to learn about the procedures for warning and reporting: Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. I also suggest adding Twinkle, Friendly, and/or popups via your preferences under the gadgets tab. There is also a good user revert script at User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool (I'm not sure if that is added automatically on one of the other scripts). You might want to run Wikipedia:Huggle if you have Windows (unlike me) and get rollback, but you will have to get a few hundred edits before you can apply. Enjoy! Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm undoing your edit flurry; if you'd like to make a case that the infobox flags for management constitute WP:FLAGCRUFT, we at WP:HOCKEY would appreciate you doing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, rather than simply going nuts on pages that adhere to a template we've worked on through a recognized WikiProject and come to via consensus. Thanks. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I knew I'd get reverted without asking me nicely. So much for being bold. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. I've been on the B side of it too (though usually on a single page rather than a whole template-governed set). There's a reasonable case to be made for your point (particularly where ownership is concerned -- GMs and coaches that can be involved in international competition less so), so go ahead and make it. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with VT hawkeye on this. If the pages are adhering to the template, it's not nice to go on an edit-spree without at least checking for consensus. Just my opinion, perhaps.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You sent me a message that said: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tito Ortiz, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I want you to know that my edit is historically accurate. Please see my post here in the new contributor's help page.

If i messed up the formatting or what have you, i understand, but can you please edit the article quoting my source. I'm not looking for the credit, it's just bugging me that the article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.56 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I suppose I was wrong, it happens to the best of us (I hope). However, for future reference, changing the word "Guy" to "Gay" without placing anything in the comment field or talk page will look suspicious. See meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. By all means feel free to make the change, but a source and comment would be helpful. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check with the discussion at the current template, as the various wikiprojects NBA, NHL etc recently went through a very long process of merging their individual season templates into one big flexible template (which is the one you just replaced). When you are going to make sweeping changes like this you should check with the relevant wikiprojects as a courtesy because it took many weeks to settle on the standard that was being used. -Djsasso (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the info needed in a caption - it's not great sourcing, but I trust this will do for now? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't some campaign to get rid of all OMC maps. I worked hard on them, and their site does say that the mapping tools are free (GFDL). Anyway, I have now given that map the same licence that I have used for numerous other OMC maps, which nobody ever challenges, and I hope that will be good enough.

The Colombia map was one of my earlier efforts, made when I wasn't fully familiar with licences and suchlike (as if I am now). Kelisi (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No such effort whatsoever. But as I could tell I saw two problems: 1) the source didn't actually say who created the map (it seems this was you, per the above comment) and 2) I couldn't find the GFDL notification - apparently the hawaii.edu site is linked to the above website? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming the GFDL license - license is stated at GMT, OMC is just a web front end for GMT, the connection is stated explicitly here. For new maps using the same data source the GMT/OMC combo has been largely replaced by planiglobe which doesn't make their CC-by-SA license so hard to find. Kmusser (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to write a tutorial very soon. You need to launch Pillar using the Pillar::ini_launch() function. If you want to have a chat about how to use it, I'll be on IRC all day, irc://irc.freenode.net/pillar Really happy to know you're looking at using Pillar, though! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide more info on how to reproduce the Needless space AWB bug you reported, as by default AWB can't insert the text you used it to add. Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time I have access to a Windows machine (i.e., not now, silly nonfunctional Wine), I will try to replicate that. I have a bit much on my plate at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with this bot. There is no problem with it updating statistics, but it is making a lot of changes that are contrary to MOS and contrary to precedent. While the use of the bot was minimally discussed and approved at WT:MLB, the formats that it is using are not. Could we address that issue at the aforementioned talk page? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I share KV5's sentiments and have started a discussion at WT:MLB. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked your post on the WT:MLB archive, and there was nothing there about what the bot would actually be doing ("Updating team-season pages" is pretty vague), which is why I didn't comment. I did comment about bots updating game logs when the subject was raised earlier by another editor, and my concerns (beyond the existence of game logs in the first place) seem well-founded. At the moment, the bot is introducing a lot of problematic things to game logs (especially links to disambiguation pages), so I think it needs to be taken offline immediately and given some runs on test pages for us all to review. -Dewelar (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I purposefully ran a single run first before I set it into motion. I tried very hard to adhere to the MOS (for example, contrary to current pages, it only wikilinks another linked page once on a screen). Part of the problem too is that "precedent" appeared to be different for all the MLB pages. But I'd be glad to make any changes, I don't want to cause any problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that OgreBot seems to have undone the disambiguations on Carlos Villanueva and Juan Gutiérrez over at 2009 Milwaukee Brewers season (here's the diff it removed them on and the diff I fixed them on, I think those were the only ones it messed up). Not sure how you're handling player name disambiguation but it seems to have missed those two for some reason. BryanG (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation is indeed handled, However, the bot uses the first instance of a player that it finds. Therefore, if it encountered the pitcher on another page, and it was not disambiguated there, it will use the wrong disambiguation (the bot can only handle so much differences in human data entry!). I will post instructions on the page on how to handle that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits of File:Age of Consent.png appears to have messed up the colors. The legend used to have RGB colors 9 = (0,51,153), 12 = (0,0,255), 13 = (0,128,255), etc (see version 2009-02-09T05:43:44). You changed the legend to 9 = (15,33,134), 12 = (24,0,252), 13 = (33,103,253), etc. This in itself is no problem (although the previous values were a bit "easier"), but you used a third set to color Mexico. This makes it rather difficult to read the map. Do you think you could correct it?

It's too bad the file isn't vector graphics, but that's a different issue... -- Woseph (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did? The file must have converted over incorrectly. I wish there was a way to change that over in batch form. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, about the Western Sun Conference, its true it is disbanding after the 2009-2010 school year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.88.17 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the sources disagree. Please don't vandalize again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jock Stein is dead so it is not libelous and he did cover up a pedophile scandal at Celtic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.241.95 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, please read up on our reliable sources guidelines, as well as any neutrality guidelines that might apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In "Consistent life ethic", you reverted to the sentence "This stance is comprehensive in that it refuses to leave out any life issue that affects the sacredness of persons." This is a flat-out false statement. If you feel that correcting it to a true statement would somehow be "soapboxing", you should simply delete it, rather than reverting it to a lie. How you can possibly complain with a straight face that I'm "soapboxing" while reverting to clearly adulatory description is beyond me.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Just a quick heads-up, I noticed you cleared the CorenSearchBot report on the above, finding the source to be GFDL licensed. Unfortunately, since we switched to dual licensing on June 16th, GFDL-only text is no longer legit and cannot be included anymore, it needs to be rewritten. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Isn't our license compatible with GFDL, as it is dual licensed? Oh, I guess not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

then tell me, what is wrong with my writing and why do you delete the whole section instead of touching up the errors you see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Grave (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well mainly it has a some issues:

1. it introduces several trivialities into the article (e.g., texting someone with their toes). This might work better as a generality: e.g., "the story has several oddities, including someone texting with her toes."
2. it makes extensive use of original research, i.e, your own opinion of the story (e.g., someone is a "brainless jock" or "a bit of an idiot"). It does not sound neutral.
3. it didn't make use of full sentences - they were all shortened thoughts in summary style. It would read much better as sentences.

If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Please don't be discouraged by my reversion, but take it with a grain of salt. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said Texting with their toes, i said the father texted to his wife while in the same room and Hel could eat with her toes. How did you mix those two up? Also that's all they are, summaries of the character profiles, i didn't need to write down their life stories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Grave (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about any mix up, I must have misread. I was not saying that any more in terms of words necessarily be written, but that the lack of complete sentences makes for poor style and readability. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete this template. It was useful for all the reasons that warning templates are useful. Not for robotic behavior, but how the heck to warn off messages like this: [13]? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding, I am on break. The reason I deleted that template is because you shouldn't attempt to warn off behavior like that. The user adding that info had good intentions, and that edit should be improved, not reverted. No one should be warned for edits that are well intended. I think your response at User_talk:Magog the Ogre#Shorts and your lack of response at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Why are you reverting to lies? are both good examples of situations that should not have been handled with outright reversion and warning. For more information on when reverting another editor's edit outright is appropriate, see WP:VAND, WP:ROLL, and WP:AGF. Prodego ^talk 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand your point, and I will take it into account for future reference. However, I still disagree with the decision and I will bring it up at DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Prodego ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow you're quick. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[14]? Jingby (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm not against you or anything, but I see a clear case of rude name-calling, and a violation of your revert parole. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh the new edit (EC); yeah, you might try a WP:SSP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not uder revert parole, Magog the Ogre! The complaining User is extreme nationalist with lot of disruptive edits on Macedonian Question. You can check it. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Magog, take a look here. Ask Jingiby why he was blocked on the Macedonian Wikipedia and you will find who is nationalist, extreme one.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, i wrote that article about three years ago. But in any case, i think that the picture was taken as part of the July 4 celebrations at Gettysburg, so were probably taken by a United States Army photographer "in the course of his official duties." I am not terribly sure of my source, but I think it would be in the public domain by now. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could find the source, we might be able to verify that. That's why the "unsourced" policy exists for images. Hope that explains everything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry old chap, not sure what you're trying to achieve here. It is a duplicate of a file on wikicommons; and it is {{PD-old-50}} - my understanding is that source information is not required for such reproductions of historic images.

I would think it could be deleted immediately, and the wikicommons version used in preference. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Using occam's razor, I've deleted the file on en:wikipedia; and reverted your notice (as it's about an already deleted file). Wikicommons applies a stronger view of copyright than en:wikipedia; I accept their judgement and it seems the right thing to do. This doesn't prejudge any reply you might get from elsewhere. Hope that's fine with you. Kbthompson (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed something else File:Arrest of Kevin McLaughlin.JPG - this appears to be a scan of a newspaper depiction of an event that happened in 1852. While I heartily agree that what you're doing is valuable and necessary work. I think a scan of a 150-year old work of art has got to be PD. I hope I'm not coming over as spikey and difficult, I'm trying to use commonsense - which I freely admit is never wholly reliable. The source of anything this old is not really useful, as they might well be trying to create a CR where none exists. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do trust commons more as well, they are more picky. But they also miss a lot of files because they have less people process-wonking than we have over here. Also, if you see my comments below, there is a requirement for sourcing which really helps us to verify that kind of thing - I really know nothing about the back story on that. You can feel free to remove the template and put that as an explanation, though I always consider IFD if I"m not convinced by something. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about sourcing - and hope I always remember to do it. I also agree that there are occasions when the provenance of images becomes a difficult issue. The rule of thumb I normally apply is that there are unlikely to be CR issues regarding images more than 100 years old - that can sometimes come a cropper, as a 'right of first publication' has been introduced that can screw everyone up. With Arthur Morrison - I'd say that image dates from about 1905-6; really the height of his fame. So, I took an interest because it's more than 100 years - it also appears in a number of articles I take an interest in!. No excuse, I know, if it does turn out to have a dodgy provenance (I tried to find the source for the image, and have had absolutely no luck - it occurs everywhere in the same 23k form; but nobody seems to source it).

The whole copyright thing is such a minefield, I've stopped putting up anything that's less than 100 years old - unless there's a clear 'fair-use' justification. Kbthompson (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)