VID-2127 Add support for Maker Studios ingestion, clean up VideoIngestion code

The work to add support for Make Studios ingestion can be found in the following files. That was the main purpose of the ticket:
[MakerstudiosFeedIngester.class.php](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/feedingesters/MakerstudiosFeedIngester.class.php)
[MakerstudiosApiWrapper.class.php](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/apiwrappers/MakerstudiosApiWrapper.class.php)
[MakerstudiosVideoHandler.class.php](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/handlers/MakerstudiosVideoHandler.class.php)

The rest of the work involved cleaning up the VideoFeedIngester code and corresponding IngestPartnerWithVideoData script.

The main things that were done were:

* Move logging into its own class: [FeedIngesterLogger.class.php](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/feedingesters/FeedIngesterLogger.class.php)
* Move data normalization into its own class: [IngesterDataNormalizer.class.php](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/feedingesters/IngesterDataNormalizer.class.php)
* Add the [RemoteAssetFeedIngester](https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/VID-2127/extensions/wikia/VideoHandlers/feedingesters/RemoteAssetFeedIngester.class.php) subclass to handle logic for remote assets.
* Move a bunch of variables that were being passed around inside of VideoFeedIngester into member variables making it much more Object Oriented. Note that I updated necessary methods in the subclasses , but otherwise didn't update those too much.
* Add unit tests
* Delete a bunch of stale/unused code.

In terms of code reviewing, I think the diff for the VideoFeedIngester might be a little overwhelming, so I'd recommend just reading that file. The main entrypoint is createVideo and it flows from there. I tried to make it flow more logically from top to bottom, so reading it hopefully won't be too hard.
I'm inclined to suggest using preg_match here since we aren't doing anything with the substring match.  As far as speed is concerned (likely the reason stristr was used) its not an given that string functions will be faster than a regex.  Out of curiosity (and because I'm procrastinating) I timed ```preg_match``` against ```stristr``` against a set of 4 strings where only one contained the matching word.  For 10 million iterations, ```preg_match``` was 2 seconds faster than ```stristr``` at 20s vs 22s.