User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 22

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

I have reopened a case that you were commenting and ruling on.[1]--Taylornate (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've taken a few files from time to time. But you tagged some of them. Were they not ok or was it just a "Lets have a look at these later"? Perhaps you could check a few so we can get this empty? --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If I put them in there, it's because I was doing a mass delete with you of Cat:Reviewed by BotMultichillT, and was moving anything that looked remotely suspicious into the other category so that Twinkle wouldn't nail it. Most if not all of that was FoP issues which I haven't yet reviewed. So no, anything I've put there is not cleared for deletion, but yes, it might still be OK for transfer because I haven't looked closely yet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, these gateway timeouts are a deal killer. It makes deleting files by hand obnoxious (I'm literally purging pages after I'm done) and it makes mass Twinkle deletions of files next to impossible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at it some time ago and proposed some of the files in it for deletion. Carefully check any images containing the word "kev" (not sure what it means) since those images tend to be from Armenia, where there is no FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. As I remember it Multichill moved about 9.000 files to Commons and we moved about 100 to that category for further check because of FOP and 100+ more because there was more than 1 file in file history. I guess we just have to take a few each day and the category will soon be empty. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

[2] Up to his old tricks again, is it OK to revert this guy on sight? Do his edits construe vandalism as he is a sock? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ip 92.14.188.24 seems like DS has a ip sock for himself they both geolocate to the same location and have the same isp.....86.178.24.96 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, different ISP, does not geolocate to me at all. Feel free to open an SPI. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

They're not vandalism, but if it's determined to be the same user as a banned user, then you are entitled to revert on sight per Wikipedia:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

keep an eye on Kiaxar (talk · contribs) who you blocked recently for edit-warring, esp. on Median Empire (which should be a redirect anyway) and Medes as he is pov edit-warring on both. Real life is going to keep me busy today and probably until Monday. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at File:La Coupole museum.jpg and remembered an issue where this came up in the past - I'm a little confused, can English Wikipedia host images of copyrighted French buildings under a free license because US law allows FoP on buildings? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit ambiguous. There are two overlapping templates: {{FoP-USonly|France}} which treats such images as free and {{Non-free architectural work}} which treats them as unfree. Currently, both templates seem to have the same meaning. See also the discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly. I'm always tagging as {{FoP-USonly}} when I see any photo of a building ineligible for Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming it comes down to a question of where the image is published? If it was published in the US (i.e. by being uploaded to en Wikipedia) then it's {{FoP-USonly|France}}, but if it was published in France it's {{Non-free architectural work}}? Kelly ^hi! 03:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. On English Wikipedia, we only care about US laws. That's why we have {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. US law doesn't recognize architectural works, so (unless I've overseen something) no one should be able to sue in a US court over a photograph which reproduces an architectural work. Commons, on the other hand, cares about the source country for images; AFAIK, policy is vague on whether "home country" means where the image was taken, or where it was first published (it clearly doesn't always refer to first published, because photographs taken by users and uploaded to Commons are being published worldwide. On a side note, Commons is supposed to care about US copyright laws too, but as a practical matter, frequently ignores them if they're free in the home country, as rights-holders rarely are willing to sue abroad if they can't get their work copyrighted at home - an example is non-architectural FoP concerns, all of which are theoretically copyrightable in the US). As such, I think you can upload anything dealing with foreign architectural FoP to English Wikipedia as free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you delete files because they are also available on Commons you need to make sure that the information about the file is correct on Commons. For example File:UK road A9.PNG on Commons did not correctly say who the author was. Instead it said that author was "original uploader was Mahahahaneapneap", who did not create the image. I think I have fixed it now. But it is easier to do that when the edit and upload history on Enlgish Wikipedia is still available here. /217.210.57.95 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The information on authorship was all present in both the description and the upload history. The error comes from the bot-created description - which is an error that should be addressed to the bot's creator. I delete literally tens of thousands of images on English Wikipedia that are destined for Commons in order to address the backlog; I do not have time to fix all of the descriptions, especially for an error created by a bot with thousands of uploads; that is why there is commons:Template:BotMoveToCommons attached. If I had time, I would fix this, but I don't. In the meantime, this template makes clear to the reader of the page that s/he needs to look at the description a bit more closely in order to determine the proper authorship information. Again: the solution here is to address the bot's creator; if the bot's creator is lazy or obstinate, take the issue to commons:COM:AN (FYI I plan to do shortly regarding an glaring bug with licensing on an old bot on one of commons:User:Magnus Manske's tools). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog, could you please look into this IP attack on my Talk page, and all the other edits/vandalism by them? I suspect this is user:Kiaxar who was blocked before giving the message and the city the IP is arising from (Kermanshah). Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of 2 years. In the meantime, you are free to revert his edits at will; it is not a violation of WP:3RR. If the abuse persists, I can place a range block or semi-protect the relevant articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you happened to see any news on possible fixes for the Commons upload bots? Kelly ^hi! 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I've been entirely out of the loop. But if you want a quick and dirty method, you can use tools:~magog/fileinfo.php to create a summary, then save the summary on Commons, then use tools:~magog/oldver.php to upload the file. Fileinfo.php isn't perfect, but it is a good substitute if the others are down. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:User talk:Magnus Manske#Flickr2commons broken. Magnus Manske says that he will try to fix the Flickr2commons tool "later today." Hopefully, he will also fix the Commons Helper. You could also try WP:FTCG which is unaffected by the upload problems, but a disadvantage is that it doesn't work very well under Wine, so I've had to use Windows a lot lately, which has other disadvantages. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I may hold off a few days - got a busy weekend, and also have plenty to do flagging Flickr copyvios. Kelly ^hi! 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

CommonsHelper seems to be fixed, by the way. Kelly ^hi! 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a request for information from you, since I know that you are well versed in copyright rules.

I am wondering how copyright rules apply to books with multiple editions.

If my ancestors printed a book in 1830 it would be PD. I could take a photo of the cover and put it on commons.

However, if I then make some changes to it and print it in 2012, would there be a new Copyright? At what point does my edition have it's own copyright? If I make minor changes, would it be irrelevant? If I add some chapters to the the original text (like adding to a journal) would it be copyrighted again? If I redesign the cover, is it now copyrighted?

Thanks in advance for any input you have.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Any new work is again copyrighted, as long as it reaches the threshold of originality. But the exact case depends on which copyright lawyer, judge, or jury you ask. There are some things that everyone agrees is not copyrightable - having a giant square on the cover for example. There are other things that everyone agrees are copyrightable - for example, the 21st Century King James Version, or newer version of Encyclopedia Britannica. There are some gray areas; for example, the NA27 edition of the Bible claims a copyright over each new edition(IIRC), but I've also seen people who evidently disagree with this logic distribute it gratis under something like "NA10 with NA27 changes included" - the idea being the changes weren't significant enough to claim copyright. (Tangent: my background is such that have a good deal of knowledge of biblical literature,but this says nothing about my religion or beliefs.)

As such, I can't really give you a simple yes/no answer; it all depends on the level of creativity. If you've followed any of the deletion discussions on Commons regarding commons:COM:TOO, you'll see a good precedent for determining what is public domain and what isn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you are scanning a recent edition of an old book, keep in mind that the threshold of originality varies greatly from country to country. See for example Commons:COM:L#Typographical copyright which exists in the United Kingdom but not in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, sorta I hate it when thing are subjective. It makes it hard to know if your following the rules.
Let me give you the situation I'm in and I will let you both comment on if I'm going to violate copyright rules.

My family history in Latter Day Saints, but I am not. I enjoy uploading image from Latter Day Saint history since they are my family history.

I would like to upload an image of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have some images from the 1921 version. However, in 1981 the Doctrine and Covenants along with the Book of Mormon were edited. According the LDS Church the Book of Mormon was Typographical and Arrangement changes only, and no substantive changes were made. However, LDS critics disagree and claim that significant changes were made to the Meanings of the words. The D&C had the same type of changes and 3 new sections added, the last of which was the Official Declaration—2 from 1978. The other two are from before 1923, so they are PD.

Then in 2000 additional Maps were added to the D&C.
So my question is. Do these "Typographical and Arrangement changes" (per the who would be the copyright holder) meet the "threshold of originality" making a photo of the current Book of Mormon a Copyvio. Dose those same changes and the addition of the Official Declaration—2 make a photo of the cover of the Doctrine and Covenants, along with the Book of Mormon, a copyvio?
However, there is a kink in this issue I should bring up. The Cover of the D&C along with BofM might not be copyrighted anyway. If you look at it (see image) both the D&C and BofM there is nothing to it. Only one color and some text. The cover might not meet the "threshold of originality" simply because of {{PD-text}}
That is why I haven't upload a photo of the current Doctrine and Covenants yet. My confusion on the Book of Mormon also worries me as there are alot of image on commons of those books--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that typographical arrangements are uncopyrightable in the US, per the link provided by Stefan. There are numerous countries aside from Britain that do copyright them, but it seems the US doesn't. When it comes to copyright in the US, the important thing to keep in mind is "did this new version show any creativity by the author, or was it simply a mechanical process?" Typographical arrangements are simply fitting words to a page - not copyrightable. A telephone book is simply aggregating data - not copyrightable. A scan of public domain artwork by a museum is just copying someone else's creativity (whose rights have expired) - not copyrightable. The cover of the book of Mormon is just putting a few words on a plain background - not copyrightable. All of these things are probably copyrightable in the UK, and some of them in other countries, but for the Book of Mormon, Commons will only care about American law (I am assuming you are American, and for that matter scanning an American text). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am an American and I am scanning an American text. Do you think I should use the "PD-US" or "PD-ineligible" tags? My guess is "PD-US" for Book of Mormon images, and "PD-ineligible" for the D&C images. Since the D&C hard section added, there may be an issue with using "PD-US".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have a template for typographical arrangements. If you're feeling particularly adventurous, you could create a new template; if you're feeling lazy, you could use {{PD-because}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you closed this discussion as "keep" without removing the {{puf}} notice on the relevant file page. Was this inadvertent or intentional? Gabbe (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done - my fault. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For you work on the Republican Primary County Map. Going the extra mile. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I always appreciate barnstars. You might want to deliver one to User:GageSkidmore as well, as he does most of the heavy lifting regarding the creation of maps themselves (i.e., the boundaries, etc.), and he has a truckload of high quality images he's freely licensed of important political figures. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

... File:Wands14.jpg and many other files. I had to go and when I returned the problems was fixed :-D --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had to undelete a few of them, which technically I shouldn't do without asking, but it was easier to just undelete them rather than offend the user who deleted them in the first place by saying he'd done something wrong; and it was such a trivial matter that WP:IAR applied IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Magog. Regarding this request, I'm curious if the e-mail received by OTRS specifies the actual author of the file. My understanding is that it was created by an outside agency at RIT's request, rather than produced in-house (and even if done in-house, the file description page ought to list the actual artist). Powers ^T 20:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The email directly stated that RIT is the "creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright." It's possible that the email creator simply took one of the forms and filled in the blanks without wanting to alter it, or that s/he considered the act of commissioning a work for hire to be close enough to "creator" (sole owner of the exclusive copyright would be undoubtably correct in this case, while the word creator would be more ambiguous and a less than optimal choice for a word). Other than that, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about a private correspondence (sorry); maybe you could ask for clarification at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard where people have more expertise answering such questions and know how much they can say. Certainly feel free to look further into it, especially if you have contradicting evidence, but IMHO after a while you hit a roadblock where there's only so much we can do without unnecessarily harassing the content creators; at this point, you just say "they've claimed copyright over the work; if this is fraudulent or incorrect, the real copyright holder can start a deletion request or send a DMCA takedown notice" like we do with other content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with copyright, actually, as I'm confident that RIT does hold it for this particular image. But the CC-by-sa license does not specify that the copyright holder must be credited, rather, that the author be credited. As such, determining the correct authorship is vital for maintaining our compliance with the license. Powers ^T 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode: "You must[...] provide[...] the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ('Attribution Parties')[,...] the name of such party or parties" (emphasis mine). That looks to me like the copyright holder can designate another party for attribution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right, then. I've asked for clarification at WP:OTRSN#Verifying attribution - Gene Polisseni Center. Thanks! Powers ^T 14:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I was hoping someone knowledgeable would respond to my request for assistance. Basically, users at Shooting of Trayvon Martin want to include images of the chief of police (who failed a motion of confidence) and an image of the representative who gave the "hoodie speech" I tried to help the users there out, but obviously I did something nonstandard or bureaucratically incorrect.

The shooting of trayvon martin is a very important topic that has led news stories consistently for over a week. It's important we "get this right". I am not up to the task. Can you help the editors get the images they need, with proper justifications? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can help walk you through it; I can't make any promises to do it myself though. In any case, I tagged the page as no source because you said it was cropped "from PD source." I did not see that you said it was from the "US House of Representatives Official Broadcast." Nevertheless, I apologize but I've never heard of such a thing. Can you point tell me how you screen grabbed it? Did you download it from a website? Were you watching it live on a website? If so, which site? Or were you receiving it sent directly to your computer? It wasn't, C-SPAN, I hope, because C-SPAN coverage is all copyrighted (unless they were leasing the footage from the Federal Government's camera themselves). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a fact that Wikipedia has to respect CSPAN copyright? Can you see how I would be a little troubled at that? We went black over the problem of aggressive copyright expansion. Using copyright to LIMIT US citizen's understanding of their own democracy seems antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia (and the US).
Beyond the specific image, I am really concerned that American's can't upload images of their own elected body. CSPAN may have govt-granted monopoly over broadcast television, but I find it deeply troubling that this 'copyright monopoly" is being used to squelch public awareness about their own democracy.
In nature, you hear a good song, you repeat it for the rest of your life for free. In America, our govt grants artists a brief monopoly. Do you really think CSPAN deserves this level of control over information, that even showing a still from one of their House broadcasts is impermissible in a free society?
I'm sorry, Magog, if I sound like a lunatic. It's just that some people on Wikipedia have a very draconian view of copyright at the same time that I know our community and our board have a very liberal view of copyright. This discrepancy is troubling to me.
How can Copyright apply to a still from the US House of Congress? is there any space in the world more 'public record' than that space, created just for public discourse. As an American, I find it deeply troubling that some people are using "Copyright" as a way to prevent people from reading about what their own representatives are saying on their behalf.
(Mind you, my editorial decisions are totally in question-- some have expressed the image wasn't good for editorial reasons, and that's an entirely different issue open to debate. There's wiggle room on what the "best image" is, but it's these claims that a cspan still is an "illegal image" that disturb me. I submit no image created in the US Congress can ever be exempt from PD/Fair Use.
But how can the laws of the US prevent me from coming to Wikipedia to see an image of my congressman on the house floor? This is absurd. I do not know where the error lies, but this is clearly reduced to absurdity. A law from congress that prevents people from view evidence of congress's behavior?
Whether you call it fair use or public domain, we need a major overhaul in how WP handles US public records. Democracy > copyright, always.
I apologize if this rant annoys you--- I hope it didn't. But you see, I'm a nobody on wikipedia. I need you help. In a weird way, I feel like you are now on a "mission from god" to help spread this knowledge, that copyright should not take precidence over democractic politics.
I also apologize that I'm not "easy to work with". I know I'm different. I've grown up in academica, accustomed to the 'priviledge' that my thoughts matter. I don't mean to suggest you are doing a bad job or anything like that. I just need your help to get Wikipedia to understand that copyright statutes are being vastly overinterpreted if CSPAN stills are forbidden.
Think about it. How can a disenfranchised minority in Mississippi participate in democracy if he doesn't have the "right" to share the actions of his own representative in DC??
I respect the ideals of Open Souce that led wikipedia to the conclusion, but unless absolutely condemned by WMF lawyers, we should allow users to upload transcripts, stills, and videos from their respective democractic bodies.
Democracy is greater than copyright. We understand this on SOPA, but we forget it on CSPAN. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The argument you're making is a valid reason to include the photograph under fair use, which is a section of US law that says that, for the purposes of describing something, it is sometimes OK to make use of another person's copyrighted material (there are a lot of legal conditions; if you really are interested in the specifics, you can read the fair use link I provided above). However, the page is currently marked as free use - meaning anyone can use it for any reason under essentially any condition - so the licensing tag is wrong altogether, which legally isn't correct (draconian or not, it is the law; in fact, even the US constitution recommends it be so; if you're interested in why Wikipedia follows copyright laws and also why it licenses itself as freely as possible, with the exception of fair use, I can give you a few links). In order to make it fair use, we'll need to know who created it in the first place, and we'll want to make sure to comply with US laws and Wikipedia policies for fair use. Please just let me know where you got it in the first place so I can proceed to mark it as such. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

user's page Ran into it while trying to work on Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information. What I've seen so far of the images, they're all licensed CC 3.0 but don't see a source for them. Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the uploader is claming to the subject of the article, considering they're marked as self-created. Perhaps the best idea would be to mark it as {{subst:npd}}; I'd do it now but I have limited internet functionality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Will go through the images and do that. Hope you get your internet issues solve soon-thanks! We hope (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; me too. I think I might just have to junk my wireless card because the Linux drivers provided by Broadcom are clearly defective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: your wireless card, do we have an "EWW!" smilie? :-) All images on the user's page were licensed identically. Have tagged all and sorry I had to "tag bomb" the person's user page to list all notices. We hope (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Magog the Ogre. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog, could you please have a look at this image --> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osu,_Ghana.jpg, and then please help me to correct the name of the image, as the location of the image is Labone, Accra and not Osu, Ghana (correct wikilink Osu, Accra). Labone, Accra and Osu are two different cities. The up-loader of the image made a mistake in the naming of the file. That is why I had to re-upload another file of the image, with a the name from the wrong image name of Osu, Ghana to the correct name of the city --> Labone, Accra. Please help me change the file name to the correct location of the city, of Labone, Accra. Regards, ---> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osu,_Ghana.jpg. MarkMysoe (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This image used to show up in my Commons upload file, here. After all, I uploaded it, not "OgreBot". Now, it's not in my list anymore. Bots can undeservedly get the credit before humans (after the fact) for human uplaods is the lesson I'm taking away from this. That's what I work for - no pay and no recognition. Thanks! Doc talk 06:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to do about that. You uploaded a lower resolution version to Commons than you did on English Wikipedia, which was your mistake, not mine. I could have done it manually but it would have been the same result. If you dislike the fact it won't show up in your gallery, maybe the best course of action is to ask the devs to change it. Or you could just reupload exactly the same version all over again so it shows in your uploads. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on copyright status of The Spirit of Detroit? Kelly ^hi! 21:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about restorations; commons:COM:VPC would likely have something intelligent to offer to the debate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain works undergoing restoration. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your advice would be appreciated in the thread at User talk:Sitush#Removal of Logo of Patna University, if you are willing. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey could you comment at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Definition of a revert... there's a small misconception, rather difference of opinions on whether a first novel addition should be considered a revert in 3RR and especially in 1RR if it has been reverted and in cases if the first edit was a revert of content added some time ago. Previous dealings and precedence you've set could clarify things a bit up. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what I could add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. Despite the fact people seem to be talking past each other, basically everyone agrees that a first addition is not a revert unless it undoes someone else's contribution in a concrete manner. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please close this ANI? If you can't can you tell me where to ask? Last time, I spoke to an admin, User:Top Gun accused me of admin-shopping. AshLin (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't. It's too large and too much of a quagmire for me to handle it anymore, and I think that may be the case with many admins. As I stated before, this needs to go through ArbCom (too bad didn't listen). Maybe you can float the idea to an arbcom clerk or two and see if another hearing would be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response & for explaining. AshLin (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; and again I'm sorry I can't do anything. Maybe some time in the future if I have several extra hours of free time to waste I'll read the whole page and close it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Any opinion on File:Ph locator guimaras sibunag.png and Commons:File:Ph locator guimaras sibunag.png? Both show the same area and the Commons one is claimed to be from English Wikipedia but doesn't appear on the English Wikipedia file page. In my opinion, the Commons file isn't properly sourced for the moment. Is the Commons file maybe identical to the old Wikipedia revision deleted by TheCoffee on 2005-12-13T14:33:51? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The deleted revision is no longer accessible but evidence strongly points to it being the earlier version of the file. What I do in situations like this is use tools:~magog/fileinfo.php to generate a quick and dirty upload history and/or {{Information}} template (it is inferior to CommonsHelper in that it has a few bugs, but it is superior in that it takes less time). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And again. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

	Lassi
	For looking into my case, Thanks and regards ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

placed an "admin help" question regarding an image on my talk page, please check if you can help here, thanks-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I read your edit summary, and I'll tell you. The Fotos International was established by Max B. Miller.[3] However, whether Fotos Intl. is part of Getty is unclear. Nevertheless, File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg must have been used for publicity purposes, such as press or merchandises (lunch boxes and trivia booklets, for example, unless they count as commercial opportunities). I'm sure that using the photo in Wikipedia does not affect profits or sales, as low-resolution digital files will be inferior to other files. --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was present on the discussion page when the clause of WP:CSD#F7 was introduced which allowed immediate deletion of images from explicitly commercial sources, and I don't think this image falls under that umbrella - although it's certainly up to interpretation. Namely, that clause was written in to nix the illegal use images that were taken from press sources which vigorously enforce their copyrights on images, especially for breaking stories; fair use law is quite clear that such images must be the source of critical commentary; namely, it's codifying the most frequent example of WP:NFCC#2. However, a 20 year old photograph of Urkel is firstly not likely to harm the ability of the creators to make a profit, and secondly (and more importantly) it is quite possibly publicity photograph. If we could show it is not a publicity photograph but was created explicitly for commercial purposes, then I would go back and delete it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, leave it alone and treat it like a promo image, correct? We know that this image of Jaleel White in that outfit truly represents Urkel, and I'm not using any other images of Jaleel for infobox. If I want to use a free image of him not in that outfit, then I'll just put it in a section where appropiate. --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Right; I'm treating it as a promo image. CSD is written in such a way that if there is doubt, it is preferable to go through discussion process (i.e., WP:FFD). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But I uploaded it as non-free with greater rationale. That is for Hulabaloo to decide. Since Begoon is gone, can I nominate File:2005 0308 urkel.jpg for deletion as an orphan, or can you? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can. That said, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the second image is acceptable under fair use, but there is some doubt about the first one. What if Hulabaloo comes up with evidence this is from a commercial source? Then the first one will be deleted, and there will be no pictures of Urkel. Are you sure you want to use this one? Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, who must put the promo image under non-deletion review? You, I, or Hula? I, for one, believe it to be a promo image, as it is intended for usually ABC affiliates. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care how you handle it from here: it's the article that you're trying to help which might or might not suffer. It's your call, really: there's no rule written for a situation this specific. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'll wait and see what happens. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew this would happen: Hulabaloo just nominates File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg for deletion. I hope you can comment at WP:FFD. --George Ho (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you review this report as Salvio has been taking too much load of this recently (or refer another admin). Don't think ANI helps in our case. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to your message. I will respond shortly, whether in the negative or in the positive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Kind of stale now. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK; as I stated above, the only course of action for this whole stupid melee is an official course of action. You can try either ANI or Arbcom again. Granted, neither would probably turn out terribly well for you, but only because I don't believe you've been totally innocent either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

update: I have requested a temporary mentor. Is this okay? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking if you want me to be your mentor or are you asking if you are allowed to post that request? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are already my mentor since January 2012 or December 2011 per User:George Ho/Block History and User talk:George Ho. I just asked if I'm allowed to post that request? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to make Puerto Rico's results division by representative districts? Here File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png you wrote, that you'll do it. Greetings Bielsko (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to respond; my fault. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that Puerto Rico should be divided by representative districts? They are the closest administrative units to counties (regarding to data which we have). http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/cs_metadata.html#bar Bielsko (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review
• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves
• Talk:Trollhunter
• Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Move
• Talk:All That Jazz#‎Discussion of the RM
• Talk:Firestarter
• Talk:Loving You (disambiguation)
• Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (discussing only opponents' views, not supporters, like me, as I favor proposal based on familiarity, merit, and significance)
• User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:All That Jazz#Move? and User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Requested move

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with policies, such as WP:PRECISION, and guidelines, such as WP:disambiguation? The discussion proves my concerns about interpretations from administrators (no offense), such as JHunterJ, and about my own arguments. I'm just... concerned. I don't know who is wrong or right, unless I'm exaggerating.

As for the "Trollhunter" part, I used WP:OR, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:UE as examples there, yet people oppose by citing rules. However, I tried to convince people about interpreations of WP:TRANSCRIPTION and translation-related pages, but I don't know how I misused steps to achieve impact on consensus. --George Ho (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done very little work in naming conventions, so I'm not a very good person to ask about this. Have you considered posting this on your mentorship discussion page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this, but I merely posted a summary of a very good athlete's career and links to his pages. You deleted me for lack of significance shown however I had not finished the article: I was planning on writing more and explaining how important of a prospect he was. My question is why did you delete it?

One of those "nice" cases where someone has transferred a thumbnail of a file without any kind of source. Try transferring old versions of this using tools:~magog/oldver.php. It says that "Rev #2" is "unchanged from previous upload" but the file size differs: no other version seems to have the same number of bytes. Do you know why this is happening? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes; that happens occasionally for files uploaded a few years ago; the hash value stored by Mediawiki was erroneously not updated. The solution is to purge the page. Unfortunately, when User:Rjd0060 deleted the file, it resulted in Mediawiki clobbering the old version of the file, so we no longer have the original (Mediawiki gets confused if they have the same hash code; see bugzilla:31792). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Annoying bug. I wish User:Rjd0060 would have checked the resolution before deleting the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think Mediawiki might have some backup copies of the database you could pull it from, if you fancy downloading 36 GB or whatever it is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much data to download and then I assume that I would have to import it to MySQL before I can extract the files. It took a lot of time just to import a table with all image EXIF data when I made a list of English Wikipedia files needing rotation last year. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You know you could just open a toolserver account for that; they have a constantly updated MySQL of all the wikis (actually, several of them). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Stefan: to the best of your memory, do you remember if, when comparing the two images side-to-side, they looked different upon first inspection? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of bytes differs. The log comment "Lightened and set levels. Sharpened slightly." implies that some pixels differ, but I don't think I saw any difference, although I didn't compare them very carefully. I think I only looked at thumbnails of the old version, and never anything bigger than the one used by your oldver.php tool. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll bookmark your tool. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I need help. I and Elen of the Roads are having difficulties with Tenebrae. Noetica and Neotarf are having difficulties with him, as well. Look at contributions by User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Tenebrae was making a valid request to you that you discuss something, but he's gotten a little hot under the collar (WP:MASTADON) and said some things that are unfortunate. For future reference, if someone opposes a move you've made, it's usually best to move it back to where it was originally and instead start a discussion of the matter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've requested closure in WP:AN/RFC and reported this in WP:ANI. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Commented there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:ANI? --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, better to just let it go if you ask me (Elen might say something else but probably not). Better to have a thick skin when editing Wikipedia and to ignore ad hominems unless they become outrageous. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to notify you: Dr. K responds to unpleasant comments by Tenebrae in my talk page. --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm here. Let's talk. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You blocked two editors who engaged in an edit war at 2012 World Snooker Championship. The IP has hopped to another address and continued editing. I don't think it's very fair if one editor is forced to serve his block while the other is allowed to evade it in this manner. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not fair: I've locked the page for a week. I wouldn't have any problem with you undoing the IP's edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Lady-gaga-in-meat-dress.jpg and this. Was working on files with disputed copyright info when I ran into it. Thanks, We hope (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, attribution has been lost somewhere along the line; MTV seems to normally credit press agencies. As I'm not sure who made the faux pas, could you please try WP:FFD? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks-will do! We hope (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you have a moment to spare, could you have another look at the latest section of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive? We could do with your advice. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been ongoing discussion in the archive, I have unarchived the case and reopened it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please revdel this obscene Hindi/Urdu abuse. [4] Btw, where are revdels normally requested? ANI? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No; standard obscenities are not revdel'ed, IIRC. And please make your request via the method listed at Wikipedia:REVDEL#How to request Revision Deletion. I don't want to do it because I know nothing about the process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do, didn't know the process. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that also talks about admin talk page and IRC. Don't know what standard ones are lol, but I'll ask some one who is used to the process. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated on the page, ask an admin who has the category attached to his/her username. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what information is missing from the files? I sent the copyright owner with the entire copyright template, and they explicitly stated "First option" I believe. If anything else is required, please tell me. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You deleted this, but there was clearly not consensus in the Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_March_25#File:Lenin_in_Seattle.jpg discussion. The parallel discussion on Wikimedia Commons (which has stricter conditions thatn Wikipedia) remains unsettled, and I really think that should be taken into account particularly when the PUF reasoning was based on the -- presumed -- copyright status of the work. Not sure why you chose to ignore both the questions in the discussion as well as the discussion on Commons before deleting. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You have things wrong on a few fronts. The first is that Wikipedia does not have a lower for determining what is free and what isn't; we allow fair use but that is entirely a different issue. And second, we don't have to prove it's non-free in order to delete it, we prove it's free or else it's deleted. So far your reasoning has been "we don't know who the copyright holder is right now so it's a free image," but this runs completely contrary to law and local precedence and policy. done This the discussion has done nothing to show me that there is even a likelihood that this work is in the public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if the image would be used in an article under fair use, I'd be glad to undelete it. If you won't use it under fair use and still disagree, you're free to take it to deletion review. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Magog, another clerk or myself might have already contacted you about this, but since you looked into the original Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasC.Wolfe case, I was wondering if you could determine what needs to be done so we can close it out? (I ask because of the backlog again) Thanks, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :D -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog, since you were the last admin to block JCAla (talk · contribs), I thought you might be interested in WP:ANI#User:JCAla, source falsification and tendentious editing. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've said before that I think JCAla is a tendentious editor and should be dealt with, either by the community or by ArbCom. I still think that. Unfortunately, JCAla has a history of using WP:SOUP with the effect that he avoids scrutiny that he long ago would have faced (whether intentionally or not, I do not know). This case is no different; I do not have an hour and a half to read over the thread and type out a coherent response, and even if I did, I'm not sure anyone else would understand. Only if someone were to type up a summary of that behemoth of a thread could I hope to respond. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathize with that. Well, here's the executive summary. I saw two instances of rather blatant falsification of sources. One case I tried to fix in this edit [5] (detailed explanation: [6]), the other as explained here [7]. The first of these goes back to his very first edits on Wikipedia, back in 2010, and has stood in the article ever since (cf [8], [9]); the second was a recent edit [10]. JCAla reacted to these charges with the argument that there were other sources that did support the claims he was making, as if that could justify ascribing those claims to sources that obviously didn't. All the WP:SOUP defense you noticed basically boils down to that. In the process, he also managed to break 3RR on Ahmed Shah Massoud. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I this point, I think your best bet is to file an RFC. I know of at least one editor who would second it in a heartbeat, and another user who is sick and tired of the dispute but who agrees with your assertions and would be glad to sign it (I will gladly provide the name for you should it be necessary). I agree completely that JCAla is a problematic user. I realize that filing an RFC is a PITA, but at least there it will be easier to separate the wheat from the chaff (you could, for example, add as part of your evidence "JCAla has found it useful to express himself in gobs of text, as it helps him avoid scrutiny.") At that point, if the problematic behavior doesn't stop, maybe ArbCom would finally intervene. If they don't, and they say it's up to the community, then fuck it I'll block him myself and let the chips fall where they may. Of course I hope it doesn't ever need to go there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quousque tandem abutetur Icala patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor istius nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit obstinatio? Administratores haec intellegunt, forum videt; hic tamen scribit. – Oh man, seriously, in my days we would simply smack them down with a six months block on the spot. Why do so many admins have this sudden reluctance to simply do what is needful as soon as you realize it? There can of course be no hope that this user will mend his ways, because POV-warring is his sole motivation for being here. The only possible change is that through all this attention we'll be grooming him to become a more sophisticated and more subtle POV warrior – which means his net effect on the project will be even worse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason is fairly simple: if I blocked him on my own now, he would just get unblocked. And why are you writing in Latin on my talk page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the Latin just felt appropriate for my present state of rightful soapboxy indignation. ;-) But why do you feel a block wouldn't stick? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Because he's already been blocked for it for a shorter period of time by someone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Paul Lozano III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to this, but I merely posted a summary of a very good athlete's career and links to his pages. You deleted me for lack of significance shown however I had not finished the article: I was planning on writing more and explaining how important of a prospect he was. My question is why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrc3 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it because the only claim to notability, "Listed as one of the TOP 20 QB's In the Nation by YOUTH 1," was unsourced, with the exception of a self-published site[11] and a self-published YouTube video. Therefore the claim was not credible, and the article failed to meet our criteria concerning people and football players (see WP:BIO, WP:NGRIDIRON). I don't think there is much else you could have added to the article to fix it unless you have some reliable, third-party sources that I'm not aware of. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog, could you please look into the edit history of this page? I have tried to provide a balanced representation of all view points, but two users are rejecting one source calling it "fake". Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment. Try taking up the issue at WP:ECCN or WP:NPOV/N, and failing that, WP:RFC or WP:M. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that you could spare time to comment at User talk:Sitush#Hello Sitush? I rarely get it wrong at Commons but my success rate here is not particularly good and I rather think that it might be about to become worse! - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and am about to begin the self-flagellation process for missing the obvious. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the subject to comment on it. I recommend WP:RFC or WP:M (although it's important to remember that you may have to compromise on some issues). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

because you saved a picture of mine today and I often look at user pages of other editors I intersect (don't we all? Or . .. is it just me??). And then i saw something about your maps, and I'm a map person, so dug a little deeper and was hooked. Then I ran across a section of your page wherein folks are asking you, "Can you do this?" or "How about that?" and then I realized that I too had the need of a map. A part of the explanation can be found [12], but the other part is . . .my understanding is that if I send you a list of the zip codes of say 2,000 places, then you can put them all on a map and the size of the dot in a place is proportionate to the number of hits on and around it? My project is not a money making one (I wish it were), just in case that matters. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey. My attempt to create a link above was a complete flop. My many of my other trys at the inside part of wikipedia. Anyway, the site is here. http://www.archsculptbooks.com/home.htm
Carptrash (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, More like 700. It always pays to double check numbers. Just.... it seemed like more. Carptrash (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can do it but I've been without my old hard drive for a few months now so it will take me a bit to resurrect the code. Anyway, do you have the zip codes or latitudes/longitudes? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I currently have neither, but zip codes would probably be easier to get, tho I suspect you'd know better than I. My intention was NOT to put you to work but to play. I too have a hard drive that needs saving. It includes, among things, all my pictures in a drive from Dixon, New Mexico to Cleveland, Ohio. Probably several thousand images of sculpture & architecture - and both combined. I feel your pain. Carptrash (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, do you at least have some sort of list that I could scrape? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Scape?" I'll get you something tomorrow. Where should I send it/them? Carptrash (talk)

No, scrape. And you can click on the "email this user" option on the left. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a rookie because I've never used that email link before. You can learn something everyday if you start out dumb enough. I went to your scrape and was immediately insulted when the link for "Icelandic"Skrappa" (or something) took me to a Swedish definition. Those usurpers! But I digress. I have 700 or so zip codes to look up. Carptrash (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree with you on how stupid you started out as (it's not terribly polite). Anyway, in case you missed it, verb definition #4: (computing) To extract data embedded in a screenshot or formatted medium (such as an HTML web page) by means of an automated program." Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. No I don't think I have this info in scrapable format. You have reason to chuckle, if you wish, about my discovering that pulling together the zip codes is going to take a tad bit longer than I had anticipated, esp. since I have a business breakfast (about a web site. More stuff I don't get all that well) in an hour and more "day off" stuff this PM. This is what I am getting, -BOSTON MA 02110 - and I am putting them in numerical order. Will that work for you? Carptrash (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the easiest way to get the data is to me, just do it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if you received the list I sent and if it is okay? This is not to rush you, I've lived 60+ years without the map and can go many more. I am just seeking information/confirmation. Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did; the next time I reboot into Linux I will post it for you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I sent you back the maps but, um, it got sent back to me as undeliverable. Is this because you're using a different email address than the one you're electronically signing as yours or maybe because I sent >2MB in attachments? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gadzooks. I so appreciate what you are doing . . . and really want to see it, so.. try kvaranandlockley at gmail dot com. That's where it needs to be in any case. Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unveiled here http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Try again http://www.facebook.com/groups/330287573704918/ I told you that I was not very good at this. Carptrash (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)