Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 5 August 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:Magog the Ogre/to-do

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your help and bearing with me! Really really helpful and polite. Activism1234 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more eyes and editors on this

Having a hard time keeping the two parties focused on a positive resolution, seems to have begun at a somewhat uncivil An/I thread and moved on into Wikiquette. Would love it if you have a moment to drop in at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#AndyTheGrump's accusations

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'll take a look at it soon enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

To quote wikipedia policy, administration guidance: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.". I'm flattering you saying you probably won't even accept that, so I'm not going to waste my time saying anything other than next time pay more attention when you block my IP.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You edit warred against multiple people and even violated the 3RR rule. You were the only one who breached 3RR, and it wasn't even close. You have completely misunderstood the application of 3RR and page protection; the latter is practiced when there are many sides which are guilty. In this case, there was only one guilty side: you. I will by all means block you and your IP if you continue to edit war. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record

I filed an ANI in regards to that AN3 report you closed out. I'll try to, but can you also keep an eye on the block user's talk page in case he wants to contribute to ANI? - Penwhale | 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit unfair?

I see you blocked User:IIIraute for 31 hours for breaking the 3 RR. But did you notice, that - as was explained in the same thread - his opponent User:Volunteer Marek similarly broke the 3 RR, by changing the title in the article Malbork Castle 4 times back into Malbork Castle → , , , . As VM has been blocked before for edit warring, I don't think he warrants amnesty here. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Miacek, seriously, stop it with the hounding, block shopping, grudge pursuing and the general battleground attitude. So you were tag-team edit warring on Dhimmitude. So I pointed it out. And now you're agitating for a block. Not very nice of you. Disruptive in fact.

As per the supposed reverts, as has been pointed out half a dozen times, at least the first of these edits is not a revert but a regular edit. And Miacek knows this very well, since he's been around. Yet, here he is pretending otherwise in pursuit of a grudge.

And hey, if there is some edit of mine that you want me to self-revert, I'll be happy to do so, just ask (not Miacek, Magog).VolunteerMarek 17:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. My last block for edit warring was like, ten years ago or something (and I'm good wiki friends with the guy I was edit warring against). Miacek also knows this, so this is more bad faithed poisoning the well..

Of course it was a revert: you reverted the title back into Malbork castle, cf .Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

VM: please assume good faith. In this case, it is entirely appropriate of Estlandia to ask the admin who performed the block why he performed it and ask for me to make sure my actions were even-handed.

E: I'm just not seeing the revert in the first edit. What change was undone, and can you show a) the version he reverted to and b) the version that he reverted? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, is there any edit you want me to self-revert, just let me know.VolunteerMarek 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first edit, he reverted the title Marienburg Castle in Malbork back into Malbork Castle as it had been before IIIraute's edits: .Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 07:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I definitely missed that. If I'd caught it earlier I would have blocked VM but now frankly it's stale. VM is on warning against future edit warring and violation of 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre/Indo-Iran

Since the topic area got sanctions, do you mind deleting this (or removing my name/diffs from here)? The diffs with my name are cherry picked and I wouldn't like to be listed on a page with a series of allegations. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit keeps getting reverted, editor doesn't care for explanation

Hi again,

The 2012 Burgas bus bombing article had an edit added by someone to it that said "On July 21, it was reported that Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the official who is in charge of the investigation, "denied rumors in the international media about the bomber's identity and said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack.""

The reference is an article from July 21. I explained to the editor that the minister's statements are written above nearly exactly the same thing, but on July 20, and most likely, the newspaper just repeated what he said the day before for context, as is often done. There was no proof he said it again, and it's just redundant. When I removed it, it just got reverted. The editor has failed to explain why he feels it belongs twice.

I added a section on the talk page for other people's comments, but didn't get any replies. I again tried to explain it to the editor, but no luck - he just reverted it, saying "Look at what day the article was written." In other words, ignored everything I wrote.

Do you think that it should be kept in the article, or removed? Need more info? And if you're not up for this, do you know which forum I can take this to? The editor has been blocked for 72 hours in the past for edit warring, and this is really what it feels like, but I'm not interested in sanctions or anything... Thanks. --Activism1234 01:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please make an attempt to discuss this with the editor in question, in particular at Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing . Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done just this on the talk page, see here. I also brought it up on his user page here. He has refused to answer or help out, which makes it very difficult. Thanks. --Activism1234 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

He has not refused to answer, he just hasn't answered very thoroughly or helpfully. You might try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, I think I'll go to "third opinion." I'm not sure what you are referring to though about not answering thoroughly, he hasn't provided an explanation to my section on the talk page or his user page. The only explanation I've heard from him was his comment in the summary box when he reverted me in all capital letters, which essentially ignored nearly everything I wrote to him. --Activism1234 04:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I just meant that he did answer you, he just didn't do it in satisfactory fashion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I could be overlooking something or just not sure what you're referring to, but either way I took it to 3O, but it was rejected since it was on his user page rather than the talk page. I once again posted on his user page, but it didn't get anywhere (and I moved it to talk page as well), and then went to dispute resolution. I posted on his page that I went to dispute resolution, so I'm waiting for his opening statement so others can discuss it. Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it. --Activism1234 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was quite surprised

to just learn that a "decision" was reached regarding File:Roger Morigi gargoyle, National Cathedral, Washington DC, USA.jpg. Looking at the discussion this seems like an odd decision to reach unless there is more discussion elsewhere. In this decision I find the phrase "Artwork placed in public in the US after 1977 is not considered "published"" Do you know when the artwork was placed? Here is a bit of a bio regarding Roger Morigi - the subject of the gargoyle. "Among the more famous of the carvers was Roger Morigi, who came to America in 1928 and worked at the cathedral from 1956-1977, earning the title of “master carver.” So unless this was done after he retired, which I doubt, but am working on, the piece was placed before 1977. Which means what? einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well none of this information was included in the discussion. The only information that I saw in the discussion speculated that it was carved in 1990 or earlier, and possibly in August of 1989. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It appeared to me that the discussion had ended at KEEP. I had stopped digging stuff up. As you know, research is a never ending process, mostly at some point we just go, "Well that seems like enough." Which is where I believed the issue to be. I discovered after playing softball for a quarter of a century that if I'd won more than I had lost then I could feel okay. I can absorb this loss and still be well over .500 here. Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are not SUCH an Ogre. The 1990 date that you saw, I think, was when I took the picture, probably incorrectly listed on the upload form. Carptrash (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

An understandable mistake, no? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Carptrash (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed your comment

But I had already responded, should I now remove mine? I have never had this happen before. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, please delete this page Milos Bozovic. That player does not exist at all. Page creator removing the template for deletion. Thanks--Заза (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for intercession, the page is deleted. Cheers. --Zaza (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

70.118.102.247 and ARBMAC

You may want to watch this user; after you left the block template and the other comments, the IP removed almost everything, the block template and the statement about WP:ARBMAC being the only exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup; I already placed it on the user page where the IP cannot edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkness_Shines. Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Wow thanks so much man! Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your 6 month 1RR/week probabation on 70.118.102.247

Already broken on Yugoslav Wars. See 1 and 2. Blanked your notification here before the first revert, so he can't claim he didn't know. Meters (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of one week. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Capt MK Durrani.jpg

Can this file be deleted? You tagged it as {{keep local}} to test something in January and then tagged as {{NotMovedToCommons}} a month later. —innotata 01:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well seeing as they've ignored the bug report for 7 months now, sure, why not? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Shame

Shame on you - diff - Youreallycan 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd stop edit warring with other people on talk pages then you wouldn't have to deal with people like me saying you should be outright banned from them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

People like you. - Youreallycan 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think your recent edit warring was justified? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No edit of mine could possibly warrant me being banned as you desired - Youreallycan 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you - is not a question - Youreallycan 14:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop being coy. There is a question immediately above and you know what it is. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous tossers get what they deserve Youreallycan 14:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the question. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel source distortion/edit war

I noticed that you warned Cwobeel about edit warring very recently on the Mitt Romney articl here.

Recently, he engaged in source distortion two times. See here for more info.

In between his first source distortion and the second, an editor included a "citation needed tag," another editor removed it with a different source that didn't support it either, so another editor removed that... So I'm not sure whether it constitutes edit war or not, but I'm almost positive it's serious source distortion. The edits were specifically made to write that it was a fundraiser, and the second time refs were specifically included to support this assertion, yet the refs don't make any mention of that at all.

Not sure what to do, but I notified you since you originally warned him, and maybe you can look whether it's edit warring or not, and whether it deserves a response. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He's a new editor who joined last month, so I'm not saying he should be blocked for this, but maybe, if appropriate, a warning and temporary ban (1 week?) from Mitt Romney related articles, and by that time the issue should already be solved and he can edit with that off his back. Of course, that's completely up to you (and I don't even know whether you can do that or I need to take it to ANI), and you may feel he doesn't deserve that either. Just wanted to notify you, that's all. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, where exactly was the distortion? You've just written me five paragraphs and didn't even tell me what was wrong with the additions. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The third link, where I wrote "See here for more info" explains it in full. here Not such a big deal to me now though if you want to ignore it. --Activism1234 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He claims it was an honest mistake (although I'm skeptical since his edit was made specifically to include refs). --Activism1234 03:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U, which mentions your block, can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links