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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:Magog the Ogre/to-do

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Dicossato.jpg from [[12]]

File:Priaroggia.jpg form [[13]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturolorioli (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Degiorgis from [[14]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg from [[15]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIle:EnzoGrossi.jpg from [[16]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cavallero.jpg from [[17]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Decarolis.jpg from [[19]]--Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIle:Messeb.jpg from [[20]] --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[21]], as I seldon open my en.wikipedia page. Best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Heya; the "article feedback" category is for things that relate to the Article Feedback Tool, particularly the new version, not just issues with articles. Thanks! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was gonna get something wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked us to tell you of any developments with conduct problems. Please see this mal-intended report filed against me after JCAla edited an article, got reverted (only two times), did not discuss at all and reported me at AN3 [22]. User talk:Darkness Shines‎ from the Taliban dispute has also barged in to this dispute without any sign of relation to that and I doubt stealth canvassing being done here. He and JCAla have gotten into 3-4 disputes which I had with other editors to oppose me after Taliban dispute (and JCAla has gone out of the way - for the second time here, once being on Pakistan studies - to report me). At a previous dispute Darkness Shines openly canvassed JCAla asking him about a dispute at Inter services intelligence where he barged in to revert right away. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you may, handle/action the open report at AN3, which is now uselessly getting filled up with other disputes which are not related by Darkness shines who was called by JCAla to participate [23]. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying on top of this Magog. I'm sorry if it's bringing unwarranted stress or frustration.--v/r - TP 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, JCAla is referring to either disputes where he is still not even involved and cherry picking occasions of my reverts and for the content dispute of the current article, it was a long stable version and a native name. You know better than me about typical reaction of a blocked editor pointing fingers everywhere. I'm sure there's no limit of content disputes one can have at a time. That is an obvious sign of progress, any editor being active will face that. The articles he mention have already been taken care of, and atleast 4 editors were involved in each. But then let's see what he did... he reported me for reverting content at a topic where he never edited (Pakistan studies). The admin protected the page (since there were 4 editors involved) and JCAla was specifically told not to report me again (where he agreed - and now did the same). You are also aware of the contention when he moved my comments and I didn't know what else to do other than reporting since that was blatant. I don't think, esp. after all this, that he has any right to scrutinize my contributions to which he is not related, since that would be hounding (and I think he is even in his block commenting on my edits all over). He has also mentioned my reverting of a new user who has a talk page filled of warnings. Darkness Shines and his "asking for advise" has gone both ways now. They've both reverted my edits on each other's calls. And you do remember when he called you in (the way his comments were) - I just got lucky that it was you. Darkness Shines did in this article while JCAla did it on ISI article where he was called. Would you consider warning Darkness Shines of this? Even though there's enough evidence of starting an ANI only about that, I'll leave it to you. I do make a second revert some times (but then again they are subject to a re addition without taking it to talk). I was properly facilitating him in an RFC just before he left from there and started his edits in this article instead following up with this report. His allegations about me canvassing are wrong, you can see for your self, I've only talked to the editors who were already commenting on that page (and there has been no comment on JCAla rather a link to the page where he already commented and a mention of an event where he reported me). You've been kept in the light all the time, and I'm satisfied that you are being considerate on his talk page without me barging in to your conversation. All my current disputes are going in legit ways and I'll be glad to answer (to you) if you feel you need to clarify something. --lTopGunl (ping) 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I feel I must interject unprompted by 3rd party. There have been issues pertaining to topgun’s editing behaviour on non jcala edit pages as well. Please see the 1971 war page.

• Topgun refused to give a good faith answer to editors on whether he wants the status quo (with valid content changes he may suggest) or rfc/mediation—which was advised by an admin following WP:DR. These were options presented to him after he continued his dispute with DBigXray on whether only casualties should go in the war infobox or also description of irrelevant pakistani attacks which topgun refers to as “achievements”, but topgun refused to answer or suggest alternatives.

1. Topgun had previously editwarred to keep his Pakistani “achievements” there.
2. When I complemented with descriptions of Indian attacks, he edit warred with me, then requested a block for EW’ing with him, then finally reverted my last edit on the basis of his blocking of me rather than on substantive grounds:23:31, 22 December 2011‎ TopGun (talk | contribs)‎ (67,008 bytes) (Undid revision 467255355 by 98.165.115.152 (talk) - reverted blocked user.)
3. When finally asked directly what content changes he would like see, he again refused to answer and then obfuscated with baseless allegations of personal attacks
4. As you can see on the 1971 war talk page, after instigating and trading accusations he only today grudgingly decided to agree with the DBigXray’s initial proposal of only casualities/pows in the infobox after about 2 months of opposing precisely this solution (this unexpected 180 on an solution he has continuously opposed on the talk page is oddly timed exactly with admin scrutiny on account of Jcala’s reporting of Topgun). I don’t expect him to honor an agreement in the long term, which is why I posted here. As such not all his edit wars have been going “in legit ways” as he says.

• Topgun has a habit of warning editors about edit warring when he himself editwars, after which he reports users for blocks on either 3RR or EW. He had been previously reprimanded for that by other admins.
• Given topgun’s continuing threats to block (and now permanently ban me) on my talk page (filled with topgun warnings), I feel obligated to bring other evidence of his disruptive editing and harassment of wiki editors.
• As such, I cannot help but echo Jcala regarding topgun's warn/reportforblock first ask questions later approach. Topgun’s participation has not been conducive to a positive and productive editing atmosphere—and he has a long and well documented track record of this. Even when admins find he has not violated the letter of WP, he has violated the spirit of collegiality in the community (and his edits routinely violate academic accuracy and NPOV). Topgun has become a wiki community problem. Please factor the conversation and edit history of the 1971 war article in your mediation of related complaints. Thank you.

98.165.115.152 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not reply to any thing from the IP since it has been making personal attacks, lying and advertizing my old block, at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971‎, since it started editing (it was just blocked for disruptive editing and is doing the same right away). It has been hounding me at that article for days and I suspect it as a sock, but I'm not yet sure whose (though another IP & alternate (got blocked thrice exactly over this but that is from India and is acknowledged by User:DBigXray for being his IP while this one from US - but I still find WP:DUCK. See the comments on Talk:Sinking of PNS Ghazi for instance). I was not edit warring with the IP, it was being reverted by 3-4 people atleast. What ever the case is - this IP has now made personal attacks even when I was negotiating (where it was adding similar content that it opposed) and after a final warning. --lTopGunl (ping) 10:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Any idea if this version of CC is ok for uploading? Image is here. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not OK, except as fair use, which is basically never. See commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications for information on why it's not OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had not come across that version of CC before. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I report him for edit warring shall I also be blocked as was Jcla? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm you just reverted 3 times and your trying to report someone? I think your going to get blocked again for causing disruption and being a nuisance please look over your edits and try and be more rational and stop vandalising pages which don't agree with your school of thought 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to report him for continually edit warring uncited content into articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is this "uncited" content? 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted a user who removed sourced content and added commentary (twice only), then started a talk page discussion (by my self), warned the user on his talk. Darkness shines enters and reverts me and attacks on my talk page instead of joining the discussion and also posts here. Seeing that JCAla and he have called each other once each into disputes against me, noting that I created the talkpage discussion first, waited for a response (which was quick just for reverts) and then made my second revert with no indication of edit warring further with that user, you should review it your self and see if I'm at fault since this was clearly another WP:BRD and a similar attempt to report as JCAla's. I don't see this user's edits in last 500, so it could only mean the revert came via my contributions list stalking. These hounding attempts are disrupting my editing on wikipedia. I've recently helped promote one article to GA and doing another one for FA if my reputation is to be checked for that matter. --lTopGunl (ping) 15:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you reverted in unsourced content, I explained this on the article talk page. And you do have a habit of doing this with three reverts on unsourced content into Pakistan's role in the War on Terror ad now twice into Separatist movements of India Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User darkness has been stalking editors and periodically removing sourced content from articles which he does not agree with as well as vandalising talk pages with several warnings he was blocked for 48 hours for his vandalism before he/she needs a longer block period109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks by Darkness Shines on the pretext of WP:SPADE: [24], [25] and its edit summary along with the edit itself. Too much to catch up for even me. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to shove myself into content disuptes and edit warring, but some of the reverts going on right now are contentious and could lead up to messy situations, so it would be better to encourage restraint. I'm also rather concerned about the editing behaviour on the part of Darkness Shines, who apparently seems to be removing any content that lacks sources entirely from the article. I'm quite sure the usual process is to always add tags for verifiability and citation needed first (or use the talk page), and if the content does not meet satisfactory requirements after a period of time, then it may be challenged or removed. This is the first time I've seen someone use a policy of blatantly removing large (literally large; see Pakistan's role in the War on Terror and other articles mentioned) chunks of content straight away. Also, Darkness Shines has some explaining to do over at Anti-Pakistan sentiment where he's removing content based on an assertion that it is WP:OR even though the source cited says otherwise. Mar4d (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange then that another editor agrees with my position? [26] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I come back and see the mess spilling over my talkpage, 3-4 articles and their talk pages and then the attacks and reverts out of nowhere. --lTopGunl (ping) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]