| Revision as of 04:29, 23 September 2009 edit98.234.169.63 (talk) →RFA: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:30, 23 September 2009 edit undo98.234.169.63 (talk) →RFA: signed out....Next edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ::Don't worry about it too; it was a good faith removal, and it's not like my life will end if my unsuccessful RfA is unsuccessful a few days earlier ;). We all have lapses in judgments. ] (]) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | ::Don't worry about it too; it was a good faith removal, and it's not like my life will end if my unsuccessful RfA is unsuccessful a few days earlier ;). We all have lapses in judgments. ] (]) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Just a word of encouragement, as it took me two RfA's to get the mop. You had my support this time, and you'll have it again next time. ] (]) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | Just a word of encouragement, as it took me two RfA's to get the mop. You had my support this time, and you'll have it again next time. ] (]) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hi Magog the Ogre. Just like Hiberniantears above, I also think you have the potential to become a good sysop. I see you're willing to work with images (an undertaking few users dare to take on) and have a fair grasp of image use policies/fair-use. I'm technically supposed to be on Wikibreak right now but when I come back in December, I'd be more than willing to admincoach you. Please consider. Best, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">''']'''</span> <sup><span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS"><small><small>]</small></small></span></sup> | |||
| 04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:30, 23 September 2009
Camilo Polavieja
Hello,
Just a quick heads-up, I noticed you cleared the CorenSearchBot report on the above, finding the source to be GFDL licensed. Unfortunately, since we switched to dual licensing on June 16th, GFDL-only text is no longer legit and cannot be included anymore, it needs to be rewritten. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Isn't our license compatible with GFDL, as it is dual licensed? Oh, I guess not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Shorts
then tell me, what is wrong with my writing and why do you delete the whole section instead of touching up the errors you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Grave (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well mainly it has a some issues:
- it introduces several trivialities into the article (e.g., texting someone with their toes). This might work better as a generality: e.g., "the story has several oddities, including someone texting with her toes."
- it makes extensive use of original research, i.e, your own opinion of the story (e.g., someone is a "brainless jock" or "a bit of an idiot"). It does not sound neutral.
- it didn't make use of full sentences - they were all shortened thoughts in summary style. It would read much better as sentences.
- If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Please don't be discouraged by my reversion, but take it with a grain of salt. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said Texting with their toes, i said the father texted to his wife while in the same room and Hel could eat with her toes. How did you mix those two up? Also that's all they are, summaries of the character profiles, i didn't need to write down their life stories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Grave (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, sorry about any mix up, I must have misread. I was not saying that any more in terms of words necessarily be written, but that the lack of complete sentences makes for poor style and readability. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
{{Uw-spellcheck}}
Please undelete this template. It was useful for all the reasons that warning templates are useful. Not for robotic behavior, but how the heck to warn off messages like this: ? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delay in responding, I am on break. The reason I deleted that template is because you shouldn't attempt to warn off behavior like that. The user adding that info had good intentions, and that edit should be improved, not reverted. No one should be warned for edits that are well intended. I think your response at User_talk:Magog the Ogre#Shorts and your lack of response at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Why are you reverting to lies? are both good examples of situations that should not have been handled with outright reversion and warning. For more information on when reverting another editor's edit outright is appropriate, see WP:VAND, WP:ROLL, and WP:AGF. Prodego 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I understand your point, and I will take it into account for future reference. However, I still disagree with the decision and I will bring it up at DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. Prodego 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow you're quick. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. Prodego 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I understand your point, and I will take it into account for future reference. However, I still disagree with the decision and I will bring it up at DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Really
? Jingby (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah; I'm not against you or anything, but I see a clear case of rude name-calling, and a violation of your revert parole. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh the new edit (EC); yeah, you might try a WP:SSP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not uder revert parole, Magog the Ogre! The complaining User is extreme nationalist with lot of disruptive edits on Macedonian Question. You can check it. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Magog, take a look here. Ask Jingiby why he was blocked on the Macedonian Misplaced Pages and you will find who is nationalist, extreme one.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Arthur morrison.jpg
Sorry old chap, not sure what you're trying to achieve here. It is a duplicate of a file on wikicommons; and it is {{PD-old-50}} - my understanding is that source information is not required for such reproductions of historic images.
I would think it could be deleted immediately, and the wikicommons version used in preference. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Using occam's razor, I've deleted the file on en:wikipedia; and reverted your notice (as it's about an already deleted file). Wikicommons applies a stronger view of copyright than en:wikipedia; I accept their judgement and it seems the right thing to do. This doesn't prejudge any reply you might get from elsewhere. Hope that's fine with you. Kbthompson (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed something else File:Arrest of Kevin McLaughlin.JPG - this appears to be a scan of a newspaper depiction of an event that happened in 1852. While I heartily agree that what you're doing is valuable and necessary work. I think a scan of a 150-year old work of art has got to be PD. I hope I'm not coming over as spikey and difficult, I'm trying to use commonsense - which I freely admit is never wholly reliable. The source of anything this old is not really useful, as they might well be trying to create a CR where none exists. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do trust commons more as well, they are more picky. But they also miss a lot of files because they have less people process-wonking than we have over here. Also, if you see my comments below, there is a requirement for sourcing which really helps us to verify that kind of thing - I really know nothing about the back story on that. You can feel free to remove the template and put that as an explanation, though I always consider IFD if I"m not convinced by something. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree about sourcing - and hope I always remember to do it. I also agree that there are occasions when the provenance of images becomes a difficult issue. The rule of thumb I normally apply is that there are unlikely to be CR issues regarding images more than 100 years old - that can sometimes come a cropper, as a 'right of first publication' has been introduced that can screw everyone up. With Arthur Morrison - I'd say that image dates from about 1905-6; really the height of his fame. So, I took an interest because it's more than 100 years - it also appears in a number of articles I take an interest in!. No excuse, I know, if it does turn out to have a dodgy provenance (I tried to find the source for the image, and have had absolutely no luck - it occurs everywhere in the same 23k form; but nobody seems to source it).
- The whole copyright thing is such a minefield, I've stopped putting up anything that's less than 100 years old - unless there's a clear 'fair-use' justification. Kbthompson (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed something else File:Arrest of Kevin McLaughlin.JPG - this appears to be a scan of a newspaper depiction of an event that happened in 1852. While I heartily agree that what you're doing is valuable and necessary work. I think a scan of a 150-year old work of art has got to be PD. I hope I'm not coming over as spikey and difficult, I'm trying to use commonsense - which I freely admit is never wholly reliable. The source of anything this old is not really useful, as they might well be trying to create a CR where none exists. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Anders-quinn-gettysburg-1927-photo-01.jpg
Gosh, i wrote that article about three years ago. But in any case, i think that the picture was taken as part of the July 4 celebrations at Gettysburg, so were probably taken by a United States Army photographer "in the course of his official duties." I am not terribly sure of my source, but I think it would be in the public domain by now. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you could find the source, we might be able to verify that. That's why the "unsourced" policy exists for images. Hope that explains everything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops
Please fix these edits - you wiped two of your own nominations. — ] (talk · contribs) 21:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think I'll file a bug report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind about filing reports - just fix your mistake. — ] (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Er, OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
RFA
Although I know that you are capable of becoming an administrator, I know that the other editors here aren't going to look kindly upon all your image edits. I really feel badly about closing it, and I know that you might feel the same, but I'm 100 percent willing to help you meet the minimum for becoming an administrator. Have you considered working on WikiCommons and eventually becoming an administrator there? If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I meant to put this in there earlier, but I'm sorry about closing it so soon. I figured that it would go poorly, and I wasn't thinking clearly at that time. I'm sorry for any confustion that was caused. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reopened the RfA - it doesn't strike me at all as being a NOTNOW case. You should also have given the user a chance to withdraw first. Wisdom89 (T / ) 03:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Magog has been editing since 2008, so this is not a NOTNOW case. Also, you should have spoken to Magog first, which I see you have not. Regards, Javért 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it too; it was a good faith removal, and it's not like my life will end if my unsuccessful RfA is unsuccessful a few days earlier ;). We all have lapses in judgments. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a word of encouragement, as it took me two RfA's to get the mop. You had my support this time, and you'll have it again next time. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Magog the Ogre. Just like Hiberniantears above, I also think you have the potential to become a good sysop. I see you're willing to work with images (an undertaking few users dare to take on) and have a fair grasp of image use policies/fair-use. I'm technically supposed to be on Wikibreak right now but when I come back in December, I'd be more than willing to admincoach you. Please consider. Best, FASTILY
04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)