User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 18

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.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

I protected it since at the time we were told license templates should not be freely modifiable, but if you feel it should go, don't hesitate to nominate it. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Radar-faisceaux.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I'm the author of this image. It is now an orphan, as a bot notified me, because of the svg image that has been done of it on Commons which is of much better quality. Since it is no longer needed, I have put the NowCommons but you refused to delete it because it is not the same format. What should I do now ?

Pierre cb (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it now; sorry, didn't realize you were the uploader and author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog, how are you, hope all is going well. I just needed to ask you, do you have your Commons talk page set up to receive email notification of new messages? The reason being, I keep my enwp and commons editing separate as much as possible, and I have some questions in relation to a certain thing that I would like to ask you, but would prefer to keep it on Commons if possible. I will leave a message on your Commons talk page anyway so you know what it is about -- like you don't know already lol.. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just leave Commons discussion on Commons; it's easier that way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, I trust your neutrality that is why I ask you for your advice and opinion. I hope you find some time. User:Darkness Shines and me agreed on a version of including the Pakistani ISI's support to the Taliban 1995-2001 in the lead of the Taliban article.[1] There were multiple reliable sources provided for this: [2]. Unfortunately, the editor User: TopGun has made it his job to try to block any such content being added. Another editor User:TParis has shared TopGun's position several times in the past and today and has issued statements such as "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no." although anyone familiar with the issue knows it is indeed very important (as shown in the sources). We have a 2-2 situation and it is not moving forward. Could you please take a look at the issue or know of any other administrator with expertise in this issue? Would be very much appreciated. JCAla (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very tricky issue. But let's see what I can observe. I see a few problems problems that TP is having so far:

• The lede is already too long, so it should be in the rest of the article.
• He seems to have an issue with the term "militarily."

Now, I will give you my opinion, and it is only a matter of my personal opinion as an editor, not an administrator or a subject expert:

• For the first issue, I'm not very impressed with argument, because Al-Qaeda's support is mentioned. IMO if there is time to mention AQ's support, Pakistan's support probably should be mentioned in one sentence. I'm assuming there were no other major military supporters. I also have not read his arguments terribly closely (see below) so I might have missed something.
• I don't understand the issue with the term "militarily." In all honesty, I probably could if I tried hard enough, but the talk page is pretty WP:TL;DR right now. Can you summarize it for me?

Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. First, yes, there were no other major military contributors to the Taliban. And the Pakistani military support to the Taliban was imperative for the Taliban to rise to and stay in power as described by the provided reliable sources. So, a sentence in the lead should be clearly given. The term "militarily" is clearly used in the sources, too. A short summary of the events:

I added Pakistan's support 1995-2001 to the lead and backed it up with reliable sources (George Washington University, Human Rights Watch, etc.). TopGun removed it. TP (who has backed up TopGun's pov in the past also) came to start the discussion and said he thought it wasn't even worthwhile mentioning. At this point Darkness Shines explained to TP that it was indeed a very important issue to mention and agreed on my formulation which he/she said was concise and according to what the sources say. TP then agreed to add the content (although not in the form proposed). But with and after frequent unconstructive interventions by TopGun (who at one time also wanted to include the Soviet era support of the ISI to the mujahideen - although totally out of scope of the article -, then wanted to include "other nations" - which are not in the sources - and then another time claimed everything was too long) then TP tried to make the majority position as described in the sources the position of "several" and is intent on not including "militarily" which he says is not neutral (although it is what the sources are explicitly stating). I find it very hard to argue with editors who simply try to block everything and are not open to logical arguments. That is why I asked for your advice.JCAla (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now there are always two sides to a story; it's never as simple as just "frequent unconstructive interventions." The description you've given me of TG/TP sounds too one-sided to me and uncharacteristic of good faith editors; can you give me their stated motivations for not wanting the content? If not, I can go get that information directly from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts of some of the most outstanding discussion points below (you can of course ask them yourself also) - hope it's not too long:

Darkness Shines: "That ISI support needs expanding upon, you need look at the vast amount of sources which discuss the alliance between these groups, to not mention it in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE in my opinion."

Me: "Suggestion: "From 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power as well as in their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Among a variety of international sources Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports i. e. state that senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials were planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals were providing direct combat support. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.""

TopGun: "Any addition made to the lead should not exceed 3 to 4 lines and in case the consensus is to add the support of ISI (read Pakistan) in lead, then the support of other nations and their Intelligence should also be added in a similar way to the sentence including CIA (read United States) and any other notable. Also, a point to be noted is that the lead addition should rather focus the whole time span before 2001 which includes soviet invasion era and the groups that were once Mujahideen where ever notable."

Me: "I disagree. The Taliban are a distinct group which first made an appearance in Afghanistan in 1994. This article is not about the Soviet era and the mujahideen. The mujahideen and Soviet era are a completely different issue which the article does not cover and has not relevance at all for the lead. There were former anti-Soviet mujahideen in both the Taliban and the anti-Taliban faction. Further, the provided reliable sources do not mention the United States, which officially did not recognize the Taliban regime, as providing direct support to the Taliban. The only other country which could be mentioned is Saudi Arabia who is described by one source as being a major financial contributor to the Taliban until 1998."

TP: "I think we're close to coming to an agreement here. The only problem I have with JCAla's suggestion is that it gives too much detail for a "summary". I suggest the following:

According to several international sources such as Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.

This is much closer to giving due weight that meets both WP:UNDUE and also WP:LEAD. The mention in the lead should be proportional to the body of the article."

TopGun: "JCAla's details are clearly deliberate introduction of UNDUE and POV. ... The denial by Pakistan itself is enough to reduce the content related to it in the lead. Although I agree with your suggestion, but I think it can be made even more shorter to put lesser burden on the lead and to give proper weightage. For example:

"Several sources claim Pakistan and other (mentioned) nations' support to Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001 which is refuted by Pakistan." "

TP: "You're right, that is better. Sources can be listed in the body. For grammatical fixes, I suggest:

"Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan.""

Me: "Your last suggestion is clearly violating WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY. 1) It puts equal weight on the majority position and the minority position and it does not identify the majority view. It thus does not represent what is in the reliable sources. "Several sources" and "claim" does not represent appropriately that this is the majority view. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. 2) The "other nations" are not in the sources provided below. No other country (other than Pakistan) provided direct military support to the Taliban. Including "other nations" suggests to the reader that Pakistan and other nations were providing an equal amount of support when this is nowhere to be found in the sources. 3) "Refuted" implies that Pakistan has provided evidence for its stance, but it just has denied. 4) Also, I would like someone's else input on whether, given the amount and reliability of the sources, it is necessary to give in-text attribution. I suggest a mix of TP's and my version:

"From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban."

TopGun: "I disagree with you on that. The sentence never mentioned about military support ..."

TP: You're putting too much in the lead. The details will be explained in the body of the article. It needs to be a summary, not a stand alone description of the support. I'm still set on my last proposal, your's don't fit with WP:LEAD.

Me: "Mine fits perfectly with WP:LEAD and WP:VERIFY. The only difference between my and your last version is that you dropped the "militarily" and did not present appropriately that this is the majority position of a variety of sources. So the difference between my and your version is what ... 8 words ... 8 words which make the statement more in line with the reliable sources."

Darkness Shines: "Support for JCla version as it is concise and aligned with what majority sources say on the matter"

TP: ""Militarily" is the point of view of the sources. We are giving almost zero weight to the opposite point of view, instead saying simply that "Pakistan has denied providing support". We are running into a problem where the article lead is already too long and has to be cut. When in the context of the discussed sentence, you are right that giving more weight to Pakistan's denial is WP:UNDUE, however, in the context of the entire article it is also WP:UNDUE to give so much space in the lead to this particular issue. ..."

Me: ""Militarily" is the majority position not pov. We need to represent what the reliable sources and the majority position say correctly. Pakistan's support is important for 5 out of 5 (excluding etymology) main sections of the article. More than half of the history section deals with 1994-2001. The ideology, governance and economy also all stand in connection to Pakistani support - not to mention the international relations section. I restructured the lead according to the timeline. Now we have 4 paragraphs. And as you can see one is suspiciously lacking information."

TP: "I don't agree that "Militarily" is neutral. Further, I think that it can and will be sufficiently discussed in the body of the article not to warrant inclusion in the lead."

Me: "The United Nations say "military assistance", Human Rights Watch says "planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and directly providing combat support". ... my last suggestion for the 1995-2001 period :

"According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan denied providing support to the Taliban."

JCAla (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading that excerpt, I now think my point of view is actually closer to TP and TG. I had thought they don't want the phrase in the lede at all; instead, it looks like they are willing to have one sentence about it, which I think is appropriate. I will bring further discussion of the wording itself to the talk page to avoid cross-posting; you can feel free to continue any discussion over the nature of the disagreement here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, notice, that I also agreed to only one sentence for the majority view. I will see what you have to say about the wording. I think the following sentence, "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denied." would be appropriate. JCAla (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, can you please continue keeping an eye on this issue? Now, you will see him disputing sourced content of the article body. You will see with time, and I can tell you already now, that this is a similar case (with regards to agenda) as it was with another user. And I don't say that out of pov difference. JCAla (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of socking, then I strongly encourage you to go to WP:SPI. I have no agenda and I've never touched this article or any terrorist related article before (that I recall).--v/r - TP 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to you. JCAla (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case I suggest exactly the same! If you have no evidence for it, you should know what it constitutes. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion of files such as File:Vyloppilli.jpg when used in biographical articles? Someone has gone to a lot of trouble (and demonstrated a lot of talent) in producing these things for the Malayalam WP & other India-related WPs ... but they do not sit right with me. The depictions could be of anyone, and it begs the question of sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends; if you can find an image it's clearly based on, then it should be deleted. But if it's based only on what the original drawer knows of the appearance of the individual, then it's OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it is pretty obviously based on this, although it looks likely that site is also misusing the image. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh what a pity. Yeah that has to go; I'd nominate it for deletion. You might consider giving the uploader advance notice though at ml:User talk:Sreedharantp and asking for him to drawn one that isn't a derivative, but only based on what he knows of the subject's appearance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try that approach. I did attempt to work my way through the en-WP/ml-WP/Commons system, which appeared to involved bots, and I got hopelessly confused. Not helped by the fact that I have zero knowledge of Malayalam. I'll try to find a Malayalam contributor who can convey the message. I have the feeling that the contributor has done a lot of this type of thing but Gibberish is my only other language & so it is awkward to track. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to recommend try posting at ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:Embassy, which is for international speakers, but no one seems to check it.. Instead you might consider asking at commons:User talk:Praveenp; he seems to be multilingual. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe one of the editors at Wikipedia:Local Embassy#മലയാളം (ml). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note directly for the uploader, in English and with apologies for that. Not that the apologies will convey anything if the uploader is unable to translate. I linked to this discussion. Will wait a couple of days and then, yes, follow through with your suggestion if there is no development. Your comments are, as always, appreciated. I find this sort of stuff a bit of a nightmare and sometimes feel that it would be easier just not to get involved! Images are awkward enough but when my monoglottism to the mix, well ... - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have had second thoughts and have now left a note on the talk page for commons:User talk:Praveenp. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I can read, write and converse in Malayalam. Can I be of any help? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Sreejith K, who has now followed through & made enquiries in Malayalam. We shall see what develops. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, great! Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been no response, per Sreejith K's talk page, & so I have nominated it for deletion here. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was an image of my own work, uploaded under a free license that you deleted. I am trying to find my missing images (that were moved to Commons and deleted on this project without anyone ever notifying me -- and now I can't find them because they won't show up in logs) and I believe this image that you deleted was not a duplicate, contrary to your claim when you deleted my image. Even if it was a duplicate, I desire to keep a local copy here, not on Commons. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, slow down there. It states right in the deletion log (which can be accessed by clicking the link you gave) that the file is at File:Intercellular connections in a549 cells.jpg, where it is clearly attributed to you. You also didn't mark the image with {{KeepLocal}} or anything like it. Nevertheless, I will undelete it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Taliban". Thank you. And thank you for your neutral input so far. JCAla (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply in my talk page. Walter Ching (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion was never created for File:Chunauti.jpg. Feel free to renominate. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; Y Done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog. I get the impression that George edited without too much incident for a while. Perhaps if you could suggest on the talkpage the type of work he did without problem, that would be a start point for unblocking. To be honest, I hadn't expected him to remain blocked for this long, but I find his communications quite impenetrable and cannot work out whether he understands what led to his block. I don't think he feels able to edit articles, but he got the Argentinian copyright rules right, so there are surely tasks that he could do, with a proviso that if he's not sure he can ask his mentor or whatever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing; his communication style is just so thick that no one can understand what he's saying, and it's not encouraging even when we do understand it. What I'm thinking is that we can unblock him under these conditions: he can tag which ever the heck he wants, but if someone politely asks him to stop doing something, he must stop until he can get permission from me. In the case that I'm absent (e.g., because the new job I'll be starting in a week or so is time consuming), then he can ask you, Fastily, or MGA73 and do it with a humble attitude. I list the other two admins because they're quite familiar with image policy. In the extremely unlikely event none of us is around, then he can go to ANI. Whatcha think? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, thanks for your messages about the photos in the abovementioned article. As I have indicated in the summary, the images had been released to public domain by the Italian Army amd Navy.

According to the Italian law N.633 dated april 22nd 1941, and the following modification according to law n.128 dated may 22nd 2004, generic photos created in Italy or on italian territory, devoid of artistic content and the repriductions of figurative arts work become public domain starting from the solar year following 20 years from the original publication (article 92). According to the text of the law, this "simple photos" are identified as "images of peoples or aspects, elements or facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic or similar process, including reproductions of figurative art works and frames from movie pictures. Not included are pictures of letters, documents, business papers, technical drawings and similar products" (article 87). Art photos, on the other side, become public domain after 70 years from the author's death, according to article 2, point 7 and to article 32-bis.

The avovementioned definition has been taken by the italian wikipedia, see it:File:Carlofeciadicossato.jpg.

About the author of the pictures, the names are not know, as they are pctures taken by military photographs as part of their military duties. As such, according to the italian laws, the copyright of those pictures is not held by the photographer but by his military service (Navy, Army, Air Force etc), and so the names of the actual photographers are not even recorded.

I hope that this explanation is adequate to satisfy your perfectly legitimate doubts. In case, please do not ehsitate to contact me for any further informations, I would just ask you if you can please contact me on my Italian Wiki user page at it:Discussioni utente:Arturolorioli, as I seldom acces to en.wikipedia.
Thanks for your interest and best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Right; I'm aware of the licensing and that the files may have a proper license; however, we need to know the source of the image. The automated message placed on your talk page isn't a very good one; what it really should say is "how did you get this image?" As such, we just need to know how you got the image so we too can verify its copyright status. For example, if the image was first published in a country outside Italy, then it is not free in that country or in the United States (where Wikimedia is physically located, so whose laws we need to follow). Also, if it was never published until after 1996, it isn't free in the United States. Usually we don't worry about those details unless necessary, but we always want a source so that we can verify them if needed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magog, thanks for your kind message. If it is necessary, I will certainly try to back-track the websites from where I did got the images. Please just give me a few days. Thanks --Arturolorioli (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Dicossato.jpg from [[14]]

File:Priaroggia.jpg form [[15]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturolorioli (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Degiorgis from [[16]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg from [[17]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FIle:EnzoGrossi.jpg from [[18]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cavallero.jpg from [[19]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Martinat.jpg from [[20]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Decarolis.jpg from [[21]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FIle:Messeb.jpg from [[22]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Magaog, I hope to have provided all the extra informations you requested. In case you need any further element, , please contact me on my Italian Wikipedia user's page at [[23]], as I seldon open my en.wikipedia page. Best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you have ever run across this - there are a bunch of images here that use the {{self2}} template, which now simply redirect to {{self}} - I don't know what the difference ever was, if anything. However, there is a longstanding problem with Magnus' bot in that the "author" field is dropped when these images are moved to Commons and "self2" is converted to "self", necessitating a manual fix. Is this something the cleanup script can handle? Kelly ^hi! 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean something like commons:File:Muscatine-ia-bridge.jpg? It's something I can work on when/if I'm around, but it will take a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly...though probably a simpler solution would be to have an en Wikipedia bot replace {{self2}} with {{self}}. Kelly ^hi! 23:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the simpler solution would be to get Magnus to fix his bot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh-huh, good luck with that! :) Kelly ^hi! 23:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Perhaps you could bring the issue with this particular template to a wider attention? I'm seeing a LOT of images tagged with this also seemingly being given NFUR blocks, which doesn't exactly help me when trying to find images with genuinely 'incorrect' licenses because of how they get categorised. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PD-US but not country of origin/doc. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PD-US but not country of origin/doc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Got an anonymous IP committing vandalism on these two pages. I've reverted at Parthian twice and Balochi once. --Taivo (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't immediately strike me as vandalism, more like a content dispute. Are you sure it's vandalism? WP:NOTVAND. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is a Kurdish nationalist placing the words "Kurdish" throughout these two articles about Iranian languages--replacing the term "Iranian" with "Kurdish" or "Iranian Kurdi". It's not a content dispute. --Taivo (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK; looking more closely, it looks like a an automatic text replacement. While it might have been well intentioned, it probably wasn't. I would call it vandalism. If it happens again, place a warning on the user's page (if not already done) and report to WP:AIV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the image work, much appreciated if you could look over my contributions some time Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, if I see anything awry, I'll let you know. Do you have anything specific you were thinking of? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but the pattern of my contribs in the last few days might suggest areas you may wish to look into in more depth :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm NOT seeing a deletion disscussion at Commons, Can you provide a link? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved - JPG/jpg issue Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind adding this to your to-do list? I'm seeing some things in it that I'm not sure about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FAL&namespace=6&limit=500

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Hope everything is ok at your place and you have a nice hollyday to look forward to :-)

When someone move a file to Commons without adding a original upload log or with a wrong license it could take more time to repair than if we had moved the file ourselves.

So I was thinking that it would be nice if we could move a lot of good files to Commons in no time to reduce the number of "bad" transfers.

The best idea I could think of was to find users that upload a lot of good "own work-files" and move those.

So I have been looking at User:Multichill/top self uploaders. I pick a user. Check their uploads. Add puf or ffd on possible unfree files and useless files. Make my bot move the rest without checking them manually.

So a lot of files will show up in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by MGA73bot and there may be a few files that should not have been moved.

If you want to join the fun you could pick a user and check for copyvios and bad files and then either move the uploads or leave me a note with "I checked the uploads of xxx and they are ready to move" and then I can move.

You may ofcourse also tag if you find that any bad files have been moved. --MGA73 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea; better yet, you could have your bot create a gallery of all their images, and scan them en masse, and then just remove the offenders. Once the offenders are removed, your bot would transfer them, and you or I could use twinkle mass delete. Only caveat: if we do that, we should only do it on files that have the same name on Commons, because the deletion summary needs to have the new name on Commons, and any relevant talk pages need to be moved. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes if file has a different name then we need to do it manually. Cat scan can help us find files with a DYK-template or a Keep local-template. It would be really cool if we could move a lot of files in no time :-D Let me know if you know any good candidates. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for me to stop for today but first list is here User:MGA73/mtc. It is all files uploaded by one user. The best would be to make a list of files that excludes fair use and files nominated for deletion and files with a NowCommons and ...?... --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but wouldn't it be better to have the bot prune fair use works before they're placed on the subpage? This is how I would do it: see if there are any templates on the page whose name starts with Non-free (it is easy to get a list of templates... it's an API function). If not, see if there is a free use template on the page, pruning for known templates. You could make a list of known templates, and if any images come up without any such templates, depending on the nature of the template, you can a) nominate them as {{subst:nld}}, b) add the license template to the blacklist, or c) add the license to the whitelist. That's how I would do it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure... First list was just a test :-) I updated the list User:MGA73/mtc with a new user. Now the list only have files in Category:Self-published work and all files with a puf or a fdd are excluded. That should take care of fair use files and files with known problems. --MGA73 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider pruning everything in Category:All non-free media and checking for Category:All free media? This could be an issue for File:1974 Iceland 1100 year coin (reverse).jpg, for example. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... Well I think that mixing free and unfree files like that is a mess. I would prefer that the free license was removed from files like that. But untill that happens I could exclude files with category All non-free media. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. Well it does happen sometimes, and it's not just me who does it, so best to keep it simple and prune the category. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep... But not all likes the mass transfer. Was reported to AN/UP on Commons ;-) Have you looked at User:MGA73/mtc? --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it now; currently I'm working on tools:~magog/ogrebot.htm; have you looked at that yet? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that tool... Cool... Sadly my connection is very slow today so the tool takes veeeery long time to show up... --MGA73 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the text alone is 13MB, so the entire page will take a long time to load. I should have broken it into smaller pieces. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I added a new user :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could fix the first files in Category:Wikipedia_files_reviewed_on_Wikimedia_Commons_by_MGA73bot (Older versions to Commons). --MGA73 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean fix them? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

They have old versions. Perhaps we should move those to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh definitely: tools:~magog/oldver.php. I'd say if your bot finds any files that have more than one version, it should not tag the image as immediately deleteable. Or if your bot is particularly intelligent, and can compare sha1's to see if all the uploads are the same (you'll want to purge the cache first if you do that; for about 1 out of every 3000 images, MediaWiki misreports the sha1 as being the same for a subsequent upload, when it is two different files). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All files I mentioned above is now fixed...

My bot only marks files as reviewed if it has moved the files to Commons itself. So the hash value should be ok. Perhaps the easiest way is to open the category with reviewed files check all photos if there is a puf, ffd, dyk, keep local, coordinates outside the information tempate or if there is older versions that should be moved and if not delete the file manually.

I updated User:MGA73/mtc with a new user. Funny mix of files. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Would I be able to get a second opinion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Prashantkharat_reported_by_User:Mkdw_.28Result:_no_violation.29? I know this is unorthodox and generally frowned upon when a decision has been made by another admin, but I feel that it was very clear that this editor broke the 3RR by directly reverting 4 times in a row the same unchanged content, and then added a citation and reverted it two more times after that. I shouldn't have mentioned the single purpose IP's but that doesn't change the fact that if you exclude them he's made over 6 edits of reintroducing the same material. Just baffled how an admin came to the conclusion of no violation. Mkdw^talk 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Unusually, I agree and have blocked the editor. I don't mind blocking because I don't think I was reversing an administrative decision, rather blocking for disruptive behavior. Please note the slight rebuke I've left you at AN3 though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On File:1007thevibe logo v2 cropped.png, there is now a {{NotMovedToCommons}} tag, but the reason shown is "because see template", and the template itself doesn't seem to have any further details about this file. I can't see to find anything on English Wikipedia or on Commons that mentions this file coming up for review. Why has the tag been applied? Is there concern that the file will come up for deletion on Commons for having more artistic creativity than simple shapes under Commons:Template:PD-textlogo? (I noticed that some of the items in Commons:User:Magog the Ogre/questionably PD-ineligible content are even simpler and seem to be well within the usual standards for PD-textlogo on Commons: e.g. File:1023BOBFM.jpg, File:Acc name.JPG, File:Api logo.jpg, File:Random.org logo 2009-10-23.png, File:TheCrystalBucket.jpg.) --Closeapple (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To copy the wording of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}: "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country[, Canada]. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States." See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos for relevant information regarding British commonwealth countries. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. But what about File:1007thevibe logo v2 cropped.png then? It's certainly American, unless it is derived from the logo of another country. (Granted, I could see someone bringing it up for nomination on Commons to get consensus because of the concentric waves off the "i" in "Radio".) On a side note: one might find a country parameter useful on the {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --Closeapple (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well boo; I had that one listed as Canada. I'll fix it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

On a related file: I think I've got Commons:File:Fortran acs cover.jpeg solidly in the public domain in the U.S. now. (I don't know how long corporate authorship copyright lasts in any countries that recognize copyright on U.S. works despite the U.S. itself not recognizing the copyright; that's probably irrelevant for Commons though.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)