User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 4

Copyvio images

File:Hispanolian slider.jpg uploaded in '09 can be seen here from '07 and at least half of File:Trachemys-gaigeae-gaigeae.jpg (also uploaded '09) can be seen here from '06. It's clear they did not originate on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I need to track down archive copies for every image I tag of this known repeat infringer? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2010

Nope, I'm working on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, help with CCIs is always appreciated. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK; FYI, you might want to include that in the F9 rationale in the future. Also, I'm going to let the rest be for now, as I'm not very familiar with CCI procedure; I might look into them in the future though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to do that. I think I've found all of the easy copyvios for that one anyways, so the rest of it is probably down to browsing obscure turtle websites to try and figure out if any of the images are clean. Of course any help you could give on this or any of the other CCIs would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider logging your recent 1RR sanction

Hello Magog. I noticed your recent action at the 3RR noticeboard concerning 217.157.212.160. The 1RR sanction should probably be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Log of blocks and bans, to be sure that people don't lose track of it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm a bit of an admin newbie still. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Carry on the good work at WP:AN3. That board used to get long backlogs, so I am happy to see new admins show up to close cases there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Juancarlos131291 unblock

Re. your unblocking of Juancarlos131291 (talk · contribs),

Please take note of the discussion about their suggested edit, in User talk:Juancarlos131291#Asking for review of the above.

Of course, I hope they will indeed contribute usefully, but I have concerns because their 'demonstration' of an edit had BLP concerns and referencing issues - so, please, could you monitor their work. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually did monitor that; the transvestite/prostitute bit I sourced with my own website, and the other link indicates in Spanish the bit about 50K pesos. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed the added source. I'm still not too sure about some of it though - see the talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG

Hi, I tried to get J Milburn to do this, but he's probably not going to be able to for a couple of days: Could you please delete File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG. I uploaded it to Wikipedia but then I moved it to Commons. Can you delete the Wikipedia version? Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, if you have a pressing need to not want to wait for the normal commons deletion procedure, feel free to tag it with {{db-f8|optional alternate file name here}} and it should be gone within 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.144.248.22&oldid=387111997 --175.144.248.22 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Your warning didn't have any effect. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Handled. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Block of 217.157.202.160

• 217.157.202.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see you blocked 217.157.202.160 with a hard block, meaning that registered users from that IP can't edit. Is there any reason for that? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes: I see no evidence it's a shared IP. I see FunkMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was autoblocked; tbh I now have my suspicions it wasn't FunkMonk doing the edit warring to begin with, given his/her history: [1]. I also note the user has just recently shown signs of poor faith [2] (edit summary: RV vandalism.), although editing style alone isn't enough to draw the conclusion that it's the same user. I wonder if a CU might be in order to find any other editors on the IP? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006

Hello. I have reason to believe this blocked user is operating a second account (Alrightwithme (talk · contribs)), just wanted to let you know. Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done blocked, timer reset. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir! Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hawthornewipes2009

Why did you remove my vandalism warning? This editor has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images, and when his particular image wasn't allowed at Harold Gould, he removed the one that was already there. That sounds like vandalism, to me. In addition, it would certainly have been collegial of you to discuss it with me, first. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that vandalism per se; it's just as likely an issue with clueness levels on Wikipedia (i.e., WP:NOTVAND). A templated vandalism warning there will do nothing but confuse the user at best. I'd say feel free to put a {{subst:stop}} template and a final warning but definitely make sure to be more specific than "vandalism". Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Hi Magog. When unblocking a user, please verify that you've removed autoblocks as well. This block had a related autoblock that needed to be removed. If you don't remove them, unblocking the user really won't get them any further. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the heads up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Regarding what you said: "I will delete the information from history if requested where the socks have been valid." Could you? I feel dumbstruck that I've been hit with such accusations from an editor I've never met before; I didn't make any malicious edits, and the whole mess seems to have started from having a tenuously similar name to another user. Thanks in advance.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the information; I hope that's enough! Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Image to delete

Dear Magog, This file has two images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic_21.jpg Would it be possible for you to delete the one of them -- a mother with a child, because it was not used and it needs to be cropped anyway? Best regards and thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you upload it in error? This is an important question because we don't like to delete files that have been donated freely. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hemant.India

Hi. User:Hemant.india just posted on his talk page that he wants to be unblocked. Now, he clearly still doesn't understand the reason for the block (either the socking or the OR issue), but I figured he should have a chance to make a formal unblock request. I'm not sure which account you would like him to do that from, and there's no info about how to add an unblock request on his page. Since I was one of the people watching and reverting the original problem, I figure I at least owed him the courtesy of pointing him in the right direction if he actually wants to make such a request. While I don't see how it could be successful, hope doth spring eternal, I guess. Could you leave a note on his talk page telling him how to request an unblock (and which account to do it from)? Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

This is Hemant from india. My account was blocked on 23 sep-10 because of making frequent changes in the article "Traffic Congestion". I created two accounts on WP. one was free. traffic and second was hemant.india. i edited the article through traffic.india. i was not aware of the WP users and accounts policies so i did it. Whatever the changes are made, they will be made through Hemant.india.

You are requested to unblock my account so that i may edit or create a new article on "Traffic Congestion". The reason for unblocking my account, i want that people and experts should know that the problem of "Traffic Congestion" can be resolved.

I am contacting different people , Organistions etc. for my design so that it may be used in practical and cities may signals free and a better Traffic Management may be done.If you want to know the people , companies and organisations where i contacted for my design, i can give you details.

One more thing i would like to request that the permission of editng in an account should be more than three times because sometimes changes has to make in the article due to improper editing.

The second thing which can be done that a user should be able to post the article and may go through it on the posted page with the same format and font.

Thanks

Hemant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant.india (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I would normally respond to your request in the affirmative, but it is an obvious request to enable you to advertise on Wikipedia. Please read WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia's rules do not allow for you to edit an article to promote your own product, no matter what (don't bother arguing for it, it won't help: see also WP:COI). Please don't do so.

2) You can edit a page more than 3 times in a day; the only exception is undoing another user's edits.

3) I don't know what you're trying to say about formatting and font. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

sorry to bother you. I am not going to edit or post article on WP according to your rules and policies.

Thanks

Hemant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant.india (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, no need to go leaving on us. I'm sure there are other things you could add to other articles, or maybe add your expertise on the issue to traffic articles. Don't worry about being shy; newcomers make mistakes all the time (believe it or not, I was once new myself). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Policies, Slander Related Content, Edit Warring

I was reviewing the "contributions" of the user "GarnetAndBlack." Seems that for the past year, he hasn't contributed much to this site except tear down other people's content and abuse, bully, & vandalize other people's edits, then try to blame shift the other parties into the rule's violations he has actually broken. He has also been using multiple, anonymous IP addresses to continue posting, re-editing, & vandalizing content after the supposed 3 edit rule. It's obvious that objectivity is not his goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=GarnetAndBlack

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1975 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this user is posting on your page in retaliation for the 3RR/edit warring report I filed concerning their obvious violation of policy. It's laughable that this sockpuppeteer would accuse me of engaging in the same behavior that they are clearly guilty of, in a transparently desperate attempt to somehow put the attention on someone else. The sooner an admin reviews the 3RR case I have filed in this instance, the better. As I have stated, a CheckUser on this editor would also probably be a good idea. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A checkuser will likely be declined; they don't like to do them on IPs because it reveals personal information. The reason I protected the article is that I couldn't make heads or tails of who was a sockpuppet and who not. However, upon unprotection, I will certainly block anybody that continues to edit war against our policy.

To Apollo1975: accusing someone of vandalism for disagreeing with you is poor form: in fact, it discredits you altogether (users who do this are generally bad editors). As for whether he's socking or not, I can't comment, but please use the talk page to discuss the edits. If you're worried about sockpuppetry you can file a report after you've exhausted other methods. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you go back and look at the edit histories it's clear that the user has been doing all of the things I mentioned, for almost a year. And I never really accused anyone of anything until now. I did some research this morning. Seems that this user has been using and re-using an IP that has been flagged for "sockpuppetry" in the past. If you go a view content edited and re-edited (so called "edit-warring") on corresponding dates (July or September, for example), it's clear that this is the same person or persons:

• User IP--129.252.69: User_talk:129.252.69.40
• Special:Contributions/129.252.69.40
• GarnetAndBlack [3]

Thanks for your time. I only came to you for help.Apollo1975 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Garnet has been accused of being precisely this IP before: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive#Report date September 1 2009, 12:53 (UTC). But that IP address appears to be belong to the entirety of South Carolina University, or much of it. Nonetheless, you can open at suspected sock puppetry report if you'd like, detailing your evidence. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your attention. I filled out the information in the link you provided. Since this user has caused problems in the past, I wanted to let you know in advance that I have taken some source material on another page that had expired citations, condensed the information through careful edits, and have spent hours making certain that all of the citations are valid and follow wikipedia guidelines. I just wanted to let you know this now, in case another problem arises. Is there someone who I can get take a look at it or make appropriate changes so that the edit will not be blocked in case a user attempts to tear it down again.Apollo1975 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Babe Dye.JPG

Hello. I have to disagree with your close of the PUF for File:Babe Dye.JPG. {{PD-Canada}} is clear that it is the creation date, and not the publication date, that determines the copyright status of a photograph. All we need to know is that the image must have been created prior to 1949 for it to be free in Canada, and that it is free in the USA at the URAA extension date if created prior to (1996 - 60 == 1936). This is also true. No source is needed to determine these things, so no source is needed, period. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And can you have a look at File:ColEvansFreakeLYStandS.jpg? I have added the information I got from the uploader and my conclusions as to the copyright situation of this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, it is public domain in the US, I made a typo. But are you saying we don't need to get the source?

2) It appears to be PD; I will mark it as such. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re (2) thanks. Re (1), I can't see that we *need* to know the source. It would of course be far better to know it, but it does not impact the copyright status that we do not. I can't see that this is remotely as bad as not knowing the source of a non-free image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad

• Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.49.14.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You recently block Nyisnotbad for his edit warring on Armenian language He is using IP 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. I have filed a report on the edit warring user board. Please let me know if I need to file a report somewhere else in this case. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Quack Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

TD Bank merger approved

• File:TDBank footprint.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Go here and see if that's enough for you to update your File:TDBank footprint.png.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK; would you want them in different colors or the same color? I'm leaning towards "same color". Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the artist here. I don't even have dealings with this bank. I just look at that paper online.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So aesthetically, just asking your personally opinion, which do you like the best? [4] [5] [6] [7]. I can easily adjust the size of the dots, the size of the county and/or state lines, and any of the colors if you prefer another combination. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell any difference between them, and my Internet is so slow it took a long time to see each one, so I really can't say. It probably doesn't matter at this point because we probably need to wait until they rename the branches. But I didn't know what stage was the best one for the change.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PNC Financial Services formally merged its charter with National City on November 9, 2009, but that was before all branches were renamed; I had my map showing the merger though. I wouldn't be opposed to showing the two together after FDIC merger, or even if its shortly pending (with an explanation on the said article). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The branches won't change names right away. See this article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I moved the old image to File:TDBank Pre-South Financial footprint.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for posterity sake, so you can choose to use that in the article until you'd like to combine. I personally think it's best to maintain it as is; the same company owns both, even if under different names and charters atm (actually this was the case for Carolina First to begin with... their Florida based market is a different name) - but that's just my haughty opinion. On purely discussion note, I wonder if TD Bank was only willing to purchase the bank if the government took a loss on the TARP funds (which it did, to the tune of $200 million). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Skatetown, U.S.A.

• Skatetown, U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You're wholly mistaken. Moreover, you should have asked me about this first. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in no way mistaken; you were edit warring on a page you've been working on, didn't take the time to respond to the messages the user left you on the talk page, or take note of the edit summaries the user left. If anyone needs to be more careful it is you to not simply revert a text removal because a user has a red link. As the patrolling admin at AN3, I will block you if you continue to edit war; there is no requirement that an administrator ask an offending user before taking action on said user. Again, this will warning remain intact unless you want to bring it before the community at WP:ANI and appeal it, the email you sent me aside. How have I done harm for warning you not to violate 3RR or use your tools in a dispute you're in? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A red-linked user repeatedly blanking sourced content, with only that same blanking in their contrib history, is vandalism. I see you've only been an admin for three weeks. You have been heedless. You should have asked me about the warning I gave the user and you should have asked me about the background of the other editor who made the 3rr report. Hopefully, you'll learn. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, you are out of line. Another admin on that page has already agreed with me. I am going away; I have real life to worry about. I hate to have to leave you like this; you sound like a good-hearted guy and all, but the decision is a proper one. If it means anything, I'm sorry, but I am not unprotecting the article or rescinding any given warnings. I've reduced the time to 36 hours. If you want to appeal this decision, you may bring it to WP:ANI. Please don't do anything rash, for the sake of WP:NOSE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing a lot here. As I said, hopefully, you'll learn. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I understand the situation properly here: you reverted under the impression it was vandalism. Given that the new user was typing edit summaries and left a wordy response on his talk page to try to resolve the confusion, can you agree with me it's not vandalism? If so, I can unprotoect the article if you don't plan on continuing to revert the change. Again, I hate to take such a tough stance with you as a veteran administrator, but edit warring is edit warring... Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As I later told an uninvolved admin who had emailed me (hours before any of this happened) over worries about that editor (and no, it wasn't that admin), I shan't do anything that might allow anyone to be further dragged into the mud, which is all that editor ever wanted. This means I'll say nothing further than that which I've already said, which was enough. As anyone can see at User_talk:RollerBooger, there is no risk of an edit war. The protection will lift on its own tomorrow. In the meantime, please do as you see fit (unprotection will be welcome anytime, so that I can make the edits the new and inexperienced user wanted all along) and thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done OK, I've unprotected. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This user Gwen Gale has abused her admin right several times before. She is totally incapable of adminship in Wikipedia.--94.182.165.51 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@IP: notices from users who clearly have edited before and refuse to disclose their normal screenname are disruptive and will be further ignored. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...and of course, that message by the IP pretty much proves that Gwen was right. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I never doubted that assertion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Magog. Was I warring? If so, how so, looking at WP:WAR, first paragraph? If not, why must I wait 14 days on Padillah's (cough) disruption, if GG, who was warring, waits only 19 hours (or, who do I ask about it)? Thank you! JJB 19:14, 03 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were unquestionably edit warring (the "rather than" portion is poorly worded: using the talk page or trying to resolve on the side doesn't mean it's not an edit war - additionally other sides were trying to use the talk page). The length of protection is up to the protecting administrator. I removed the protection on GG's page early because she agreed to stop warring, and in fact completely conceded the other editor's side of the agreement. As a note, GG may not be happy I've responded to your comments, but I'm happy to give a forthright answer to anyone that asks; I will be transparent to all in the decisions I make. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

/* A Guy a Girl and a Voodoo Monkey Hand ~ D.I.Jolly */

• A guy a girl and a voodoo monkey hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why was this article deleted, What was wrong with the reference , how was it a copyright infringement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskoekemoer (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hadn't seen on OlYeller21's talk page that you were claiming that the author had given you permission. In fact we need to get permission so we can do one of two different things:

1) I can temporarily undelete it, but I'd have to ask you to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and the page will be replaced with {{copyvio}} while we wait for the incoming permission from the author.

2) I can leave it deleted until we get that permission, then you can recreate it with a note about the permission.

Which would you prefer? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok my question here is this... the Blurb at the back of the book, have you deleted the article because using it in this forum would constitute a copyright infringement? or Do you believe that some other part of the article is a copyright infringement? As the blurb is a description of what the book is about and is used as a marketing tool. I am under the impression that it would not be copyrighted. am I wrong? If so please keep the article deleted until i can complete the permission procedure Chriskoekemoer (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sadly you are wrong! In fact, all text and images are automatically copyrighted per a US law in 1989 (US law being important because Wikipedia's servers are in Florida); they don't even need to state "copyrighted" on them anymore (although a book surely will). Promotional does not mean copyright free. And in fact, I would have deleted only a portion of the article, but the entire article was comprised of just the text from the back of the book. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the lesson :) i will follow the copyright permission procedure. should i then contact you regarding un-deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskoekemoer (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or you can ask at WP:REFUND for a more prompt response. If you see the note on the page I linked for you, make absolutely sure to add {{OTRS pending}} to the talk page. I would also caution you though, to make sure that the text is encyclopedic; often times off-site text is too puffy or flowery for the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Just make sure you write it correctly, that's all. Good luck. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is the notability of the book. If the author of the book is found to not be notable, likely the book itself will not be notable either, per WP:NOTE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Minden image

• File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, you said to me:

"Thanks for uploading File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license."

This is just not right! I went to great lengths to contact the owner and get him to grant permission using a standard licence. Please reread the material that accompanies the image and you will see this. Sincerely, 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus33 (talk • contribs)

I have read it. However, as you can see in the message on your page, for legal reasons we need to have a copy of that permission. Can you please email that to us, as per the reasoning spelled out on your page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was one edit war party blocked and the other rewarded?

• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fox News Channel controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why was Arzel blocked for edit warring at Fox News controversies while PrBeacon who also participated in the edit war, reverting Arzel twice in the last 24 hours, left alone and granted his wish to block his edit warring partner? Surely Arzel wasn't blocked because he had 3 reverts in a 24-hour period instead of the 2 reverts of PrBeacon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I looked back into August, and Arzel had been revert warring *last time* as well. In other words, by sheer numbers, Arzel was guiltier. That said, upon a second review this afternoon, the facts are popping out differently at me, as PrBeacon looks nearly as guilty. I'm not sure why, as last night I research this in-depth; I must have missed something. Regardless, the article is protected, so I will unblock. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and for reconsidering your decision. Drrll (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog...a judicious approach and quite exemplary. My compliments as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Drrll conveniently ignores facts which do not support his opinion. Arzel has been edit warring with at least 2 other editors on those 2 articles in the past week-plus, or more. He does not engage in collaborative discussion on the talkpages, if he participates at all, and often seems to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with him. Of course, Drrll and Jake agree with him so they overlook each others' transgressions. They continue to protect the articles from our attempts at balance. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see two articles, one subject, several editors, and mountain of meatpuppets. On second look, it was clear to me that you too, PrBeacon, have edit warred on the said articles. Arzel's behavior is thus not relevant in this context. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Perhaps you could encourange him to stop what appears to be WP:STALKING. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore previous. Appears to be resolved. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

M- Respectfully I disagree. His behavior is relevant and much more of a violation of the nature of this project. He lies about discussing the issue on the talkpage, and he insulted you and another editor in his requests for unblocking. Only after unblocked did he appear contrite.. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Come to check it

• Senkaku Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Magog, although your recent advice on the article Senkaku Islands has been disputed, there is no way to stop further exploitation on it. As a responsible admin, you surely need to explain this.

A few days ago I added this dashed sentence to the article but now it looks totally redundant as it mentions the same thing, the same idea, same fact in the same paragraphy. Today when I removed my addition, I was told by John Smith's that I wasn't allowed to do it because of you.

There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC (Taiwan) governments as to whether the Senkaku Islands are implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa".[8] The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were not implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

As you're the first and only admin to decide to intervene this recent controversy, you're expected to do the follow-up on it. It seems that any removal of a sentence with a word "Japan" and addition of any sentence with a word "China" is touchy and relentlessly regarded as WP:EW.

In response to this, a few new discussions have been started regarding John Smith's reverts of recent edits. Welcome to join rather than making uninformed warning and leave the mess. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog, I'd be quite comfortable for you to review recent edits/reversions to the page and comments on the talk page, because I don't think I've been doing anything wrong. However, sadly I doubt it would make a difference if you told Winston that... John Smith's (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please continue to engage in dispute resolution; if talk page comments fail, you might consider mediation or an RFC. I do not care about the contents of any edits, but I do see you're discussing Winston, which is proper rather than just reverting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Winstonlighter

• Winstonlighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senkaku Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Magog. I'm sorry to trouble you, but Winston keeps refusing to act in good faith. He is now telling people uninvolved with the Senkaku Islands page that I'm a sockpuppeter. He has also raised the allegation on the article talk page. This is a very heavy allegation to make, and I have a good reputation on the project in as far as I don't do that. I would appreciate it if you could have a word with him, as he is just ignoring me. John Smith's (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've left a note at AN3 that he needs to either put up or shut up (i.e., file a SSP with evidence or not). As for Bobthefish2, who (to be fair) you did accuse of sockpuppetry, it does look a bit suspicious, but the English pattern is slightly different. I don't know what a checkuser would turn up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a suspicion of a user as a sock doesn't necessarily means bad faith so I naturally assume that John's suspicion over user:Bobthefish2 and user:winstonlighter only aims at making the discussion fair.

When I said I don't remember who is who, they look the same to me in terms of tones, use of grammar, writing and editing styles)..., it's true that I still can't distinguish John Smith's, phoenix777 and scorchingphoenix because their styles are exactly the same. That's. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that Magog the Ogre has been referenced a few times during the many spats between Winstonlighter and John Smith I decided to see who is. Well, suprise surprise, I am yet again accused of being a sock puppet. It is as if I haven't been accused of being one before. Honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to accuse John Smith as a sock-puppeteer. However, I do find his objectivity in a disputed article quite questionable and some of his reverts/modifications outrightly rude and POV pushing. While I wouldn't say Winstonlighter's reaction is appropriate, I'd have to say the frustration he expressed is somewhat understandable since there is zero cooperation between editors in deciding what to put/edit on a page and certain people do not appear to be helping the situation by making dubious reverts and deletes.

Anyway, there are a number of ways to tell whether or not one is an alias of another. One would be to check the IP addresses. This would fail against those who use proxy servers, but most people don't use proxy servers. Another would be to look for temporal patterns of wikipedia usage. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've accused you of nothing, Bob, although your editing pattern immediately strikes as suspicious; a recently registered editor with little experience suddenly jumping into an edit war for a subject he's never touched before, and who makes proper use of edit summaries. In most circumstances like that, the person is a sockpuppet. The evidence is circumstantial and there is every possibility you are indeed a new editor who is savvy enough not to make the same mistakes that most n00bs make. However, if you are indeed a third party, I suggest mediating the two sides to knock it off and come to an agreement on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't say you accused me of anything.

I've used Wikipedia for almost 10 years. Even though I've only recently started editing, it doesn't mean I have to be make every possible newbie mistakes. Like many here, I am an educated person, which implies I can read instructions and learn how to use a simple mark-up language.

The spat between Winston and John is nothing new and not something significant enough to deserve this kind of attention. Accusations of sock-puppetry are common (given my experience). If John Smith is the esteemed senior Wikipedia editor that he passes himself as, then he should know how to parry the claim and move on. While I don't question your professionalism as an administrator, I'd caution you of anchoring, since John Smith's accusations are only a small part of their actual dispute and will most definitely be presented in a way that is most favourable to his stance. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:New eurostar train e320.jpg

I give up - I have no idea what copyright tag this is supposed to have - it's an obvious copyright violation from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11493287 , alternative images exist, and the image itself is garbled. It should be deleted fairly rapidly.

Can you help me ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a hole in Wikipedia's speedy deletion categories. I've tried to put forward to have it changed, but there appears to be little support for it. The only solution is to wait for it to be deleted for {{subst:nld}} after 7 days, or wait for the uploader to attach a fair use license and then fight it as {{subst:rfu}}. Ostensibly the reason our policy works as this is that the photo could conceivably have a valid fair use rationale under the right circumstances. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks, I was beginning to suspect a hole too. It was really getting on my nerves - I'll go to sleep now for a bit. Thanks again.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. You can see my argument here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#New criteria for existing bands and living persons without a license. I probably should have worded it better to say "clearly non-free photos without a license", which would cover this upload. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

Hi Magog, just alerting you of these images, uploaded by User:D400j2000, all of which are tagged for deletion. Personally, I just can't stand seeing all these obviously not-allowed-for-Wikipedia files! Too bad I'm not a sysop yet. :-) Anyway, can you delete them? Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I've deleted all the mislicensed copyvios and warned the editor; the others will be deleted within the week. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wells Fargo and PNC Footprint Maps

Hello Magog,

Where did you find the branch location data for the "Wells Fargo Footprint" and "PNC footprint" maps?

Thanks in advance!

Chrisbrunner.com (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

You can actually see the link in the FAQ above: User:Magog the Ogre/Maps FAQ. It has a link to the FDIC site which lists all bank locations by street/city/state/zip. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Al Lohman Image

• Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:AlLohman.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Magog. This is a duplicate of what I just wrote regarding the Al Lohman image:

I'm the uploader. I'm also the photographer and the publisher of the newsletter. This was for a small in-house newsletter. No more than 20 copies were run, and there was never a copyright notice attached. Q-103 sold out to a large media conglomerate in 1999, and is no longer in business. I've typed this to so many people that I can do it in my sleep now. :) I change the license to indicate it's my property and it keeps getting changed back. Can you help me with this, Magog? I would sure appreciate it. Regards

What else do you need? It's pretty cut and dried that this was not a "publication". I have the backing of two admin on this, and wold appreciate some help on getting the license right. But I change the license and one of the "image patrollers" changes it back. They do not understand the real story behind this. Thanks for any help you can give. Regards, --Manway (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I will respond at the PUF page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)\

WHEW.....many thanks. That was uploaded when I first started on Wikipedia. I know better now. Appreciate your help. Kind regards, --Manway (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

why?

can you please explain why you did this revert?. I had clearly explained in my edit summary why i was undoing the previous edits. They ahve been discussed atleast twice in the article's talk page and consensus was against adding the wording. This particular user has been told many times to read talk page archives or discuss things first before he makes changes of this kind. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw for pete's sake, I accidentally hit the revert button on my watchlist. I escaped and it didn't show up on my contributions for even a few minutes. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So i am not the only one who hits revert by accident. hallelujah! ;-)--Sodabottle (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Minden image

I have sent an email to Wikipedia with a copy of the original permission email for File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. If there is still something wrong with the bureaucratic support for this image, please refrain from deleting the image without consulting me first. The original correspondence concerning the image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opus33#File_permission_problem_with_File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. Opus33 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

James O'Keefe ‎

• James O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magog, can you suggest how I might resolve an issue here? The problem is that on the James O'Keefe page, it needs to be pointed out that O'Keefe did not "plea bargain" as the article claims (given that it is a BLP, that would even seem to be slander). Here is what I had posted before and what I think is very fair to post:

The government acknowledged it had no evidence of intent to commit a felony by O'Keefe and his friends, and confirmed that O'Keefe's explanation was truthful:

"In this case, further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses despite their initial statements to the staff of Senatorial office and GSA requesting access to the central phone system. Instead, the Government’s evidence would show that the defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose for gaining access to the central phone system to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony."

That comes directly from a court document: http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf

But apparently I can't use this as evidence of anything because it is a primary source, and WP:BLP says:

Misuse of primary sources

Main page: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

It seems to me that this regulation is mainly intended to protect the LP being biographied. Given that the information provided here is exculpatory and corrects a false slander about him existing in the current BLP page, I would think the LP would want that published. The document contains no personal details that I can see. There has to be some sort of exception regarding primary sources here, right? I mean this requires almost no interpretation - it says right there that the government's evidence supported O'Keefe's explanation.

Moreover, the document also points out that the video evidence obtained proved O'Keefe's investigation was successful:

"One of Senator Landrieu’s staff members (WITNESS 1) told BASEL and FLANAGAN that she did not report any phone problems and that the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system."

Can you suggest what I need to do to put these in the record? Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, I just noticed that someone else on the page used a few government documents and primary sources as references. http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1888& and http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm and http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf, for example. Is there a difference between those and the document I produced? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion has been fruitful on the talk page. If a publication is clearly misrepresenting the facts (yes, this does happen sometimes, usually in the case where the reporter has a bias and/or doesn't do his job correctly), it seems OK to use a primary source. That's just my opinion though. However, if it is indeed a BLP issue, feel free to remove the entire assertion while the discussions is under way. BLP is the major exception to 3RR, so you would be exempt from edit warring to protect BLP, but I don't suggest you do that at the moment. I suggest instead posting at WP:BLPN for input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies at WP:AN

Hello Magog. I noticed your request for ideas at WP:AN to deal with what you described as an ugly mess. While I don't want to quibble with the notion of discretionary sanctions, I think that the FNC controversies article might be kept from running off the rails through a continuation of the full protection. There seems to be a constant back-and-forth about some sentence on ethical issues being added to the lead. If you simply leave the full protection there indefinitely, you could allow editors who feel strongly about that sentence to open an RfC. The last RfC, while vast, was probably not as painful an outcome as some others could have been. A full article probation like the one used for Obama articles would use up a lot of admin time and surely would produce many aggrieved editors, somewhat like the Climate Change situation. DGG's closure of the last RfC shows how these things should probably be handled. Meatpuppets in AfDs are often dealt with in the same way. Another idea might be to impose long-term semiprotection, which would reduce the flow of edits that are not fully discussed before being made. Semiprotection is often used in meatpuppet situations, but it would not hurt to get it reviewed at a noticeboard to be sure it would enjoy general support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be our only solution. I'm not sure I have the patience for it, but I could certainly try. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'disruptive'?

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[13] —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Lights

I was told by another Wikipedian to do exactly what I had just done. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's rather unfortunate because multiple people had reverted it; did the other Wikipedian recommend you do so after you were reverted multiple times? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Hendersonmckinney.jpg

The rationale has nothing about why the appearance of these two men is of significance, and it certainly isn't clear. Just because the people are of importance to the article, doesn't mean we need to illustrate them. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to you shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'll get back to you now. The second piece of the rationale "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article" is a good explanation, and I personally believe it adds to the article every bit as much as, say, the photo of a deceased subject adds to the article about the subject. If you'd like to appeal, it'd be fine with me if you remarked it dfu and another admin can view it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As I was posting below I saw this and had a look. I concur with J Milburn. Aside from that the image needs to meet *all 10* of the criteria found in the policy - stating the image is used "for informational purposes" and it has been seen on/in "numerous news reports" is not enough. And it really does not add "significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion." Show where this image is the object of discussion anywhere in the article...it isn't. And how this, in your words, "adds to the reader's comprehension" to any of the article. It does nothing to aid in understanding commentray such as:

• Police arrested McKinney and Henderson shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun and Shepard's shoes and wallet in their truck
• At trial, the defendants offered various rationales to justify their actions
• Henderson pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999...
• ...he received two consecutive life sentences
• ...Shepard's parents brokered a deal...
• Henderson and McKinney were incarcerated in the Wyoming State Penitentiary in Rawlins, later being transferred to other prisons because of overcrowding

I do not see this image being acceptable fair use at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Paul Palumbo and Jessi.jpg

Could you rethink your "keep" on this deletion discussion? Your reason for a "keep" and suggestion to send it to a deletion discussion if I felt the file was not useful *and* that there was no explanation provided why it is possibly unfree makes no sense. I stated in the nom it is an "Unused personal photo" - that alone should indicate the the file is not useful. That was followed with saying the uploader is one of the *subjects* of the image. In other words the claim of "self" in a license is not accurate as the subject did not take their own photo, thusly it was sent to PuI. There is no need to send this to another deletion discussion where the exact same nom would be made, and files of this type are sent to PuI, not IfD. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In most private situations like this, there is a "work for hire" agreement, or (more likely) a verbal agreement that the photo now belongs to the person being photographed, and/or that they own the rights to the photo. That's why I declined to delete it as PUF. Absent a compelling reason otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that the uploader is the copyright holder. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Work for hire is highly unlikely here. Do you have signed contracts for every snapshot someone has taken of you to establish they were a "work for hire"? I have gone ahead and re-submitted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you should have resubmitted that; it should have gone to deletion review. A friend who verbally authorizes you to, say, upload a photo to Wikipedia under the cc license - this is a valid license. A friend who verbally gives you the rights to a photograph - this too is a valid license. It's more difficult to enforce legally, but it's still legally valid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Too late, already done, and you stated "If you think the file isn't useful, suggest WP:FFD". And in reply to your thought that images uploaded when someone "verbally authorizes" the uploader to do so contain a "valid license", that is not true, nor is it accepted. Wikipedia does not accept "with permission" (or like worded - "used by permission of...", "They said it was ok", "they are sitting next to me", "my neighbor", "work for hire", etc) files (Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted) and are regularly deleted by various means unless a permission OTRS has been sent and verified. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't accept "with permission" because it usually implies the copyright holder retains the copyright, and it was only meant for the specific use of Wikipedia, and/or the license isn't specified. If you're implying that anybody who states that their friend gave them permission to upload with a given license must have their image deleted, then I think you will find yourself in conflict with a great number of hosted images and the historical implementation of policy on all Wikimedia projects. And I suggest for FFD only if you wished to submit the image for deletion as not useful - I certainly did not mean if you wanted to contest my answer that it was free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No - images that are claimed to be used "with permission" are deleted and/or questioned quite often. This is going "off topic" a bit as this image does not explicitly state it was "used with permission" or was a "work for hire", but any file that *does* explicitly state something along the lines of "Permission given by the author" and it is *not* the author who uploaded it and there is *not* any OTRS associate with it will be questioned, not only be me, but by most all editors/admin who deal with images all the time. I use {{di-no permission}} a lot because of this, others may send such files directly to PuI or if the source is blatant (i.e - a myspace page, AP, Getty, another website) be tagged a a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your logic completely warped. By that reasoning, someone who doesn't use a computer is incapable of having an image uploaded to Wikipedia, even if they were to grant formal permission to the WP user. Not to mention that your own nominations do not count as precedent when you are the one doing the arguing (and that I have turned down multiple of these npd's in the past). In any case, I still believe the proper process would be deletion review. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not *my* logic at all - it is Wikipedia policy, and has been policy since before you or I started editing here. For example see the Wikipedia Image use policy. It is fairly well laid out - when uploading a "free" image make sure You own the rights to the image, prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license and/or prove that the image is in the public domain. Also there is some good advice at Wikipedia:Uploading images, part of which suggests that you must gain permission to use the image from the copyright holder and that if successful, tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} when the upload procedure is completed. Lack of verifiable permission can result in a {{di-no permission}} tag being used, which in turn becomes an I11/F11 after 7 days. I used my own words above, which you feel is only my "completely warped" view/logic but in the words of Wikipedia policy: Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. In the real world, one that I live in and deal with this sort of thing a lot, this is called obtaining a release, or in the case of distribution, obtaining a signed contract or agreement with the copyright holder which would also lay out the terms of use. A distributor of any product would not (ok - "should not", although some do and they usually end up in courts) simply obtain that product because somebody walked in and said "Here, it's ok to distribute this/use this/do whatever you want with this because the person who created it said it was ok." This is why all major studios and distributors have full time legal departments that make sure all the "i"'s are dotted and the "t"'s crossed. Not doing that results in lawsuits, and in the computer age finding an image on the internet that one presumes to be "free" without dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s can lead to lawsuits such as this one (An interesting piece on it from a Harvard Law school student is a fun read) and the Daniel Morel suit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see you've closed the FFD discussion. It belongs at DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)