User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ogrebot error

Ogrebot made this change to Dassault Mirage 5 - the two photos in question are definately NOT duplicates - one is a colour photo of an aircraft on the ground, the other a bloack-and-white photo of an aircraft in flight.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe that was an error: the history is a bit deceiving [1]. There was an image on English Wikipedia at the previous location which is the same as the image at the latter location; when the en.wp image was deleted, a different commons image showed through. Thanks anyway though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PD-Maldives

Hi, Maldives was like Afghanistan, no copyright protection. So I based the template on PD-Afghanistan. Perhaps the link to the US code is useless. I will have to do more research on this. But Maldives only introduced copyright protection in 2010. I can see that we need a Copyright in Maldives article with all the refs. At the time of the new law, it appeared in some newspapers and the government website. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for using your talk page as a sandbox, however for the purposes of the testing, I could not use the WP:Sandbox, nor my own. If you have any questions for me about the purpose (if not obvious), please feel free to ask away on my talk page. Thanks, – AJL^talk 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Crumb self portrait

Hi. You deleted File talk:Crumb self portrait.jpg, stating that "The result of the debate was to delete the image." But where was the debate? Could I be pointed to it? Because I wasn't even aware of it.

Also, you point to bullet point #1 of WP:NFC#UULP, the second part of which reads:

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

If I had been aware of the debate and had WP:NFC#UULP been brought up to me, I certainly would have brought up this quote, as Crumb's image is well known and an important part of his persona—especially the way he depicts himself in his famous autobiographical period (mainly in the 1980s), and he no longer looks like his most famous portraits of himself (he has grown a beard). Acidtoyman (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right; "debate" is misleading (in fact I've already corrected it for future reference [2]; good catch). I simply took your comment off the file description page which you had left in the {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} template. As you can see, that template says "Closing administrator: if ... the decision is to Delete please archive the discussion on the talk page between {{Rtd}} and {{Rb}}." I admit the process is a bit cumbersome; if I have time I'll be bold and change it some day so all discussion takes place on the talk page anyway.

The fact is the image was not being used in a way that discussed its famousness; it was being used for illustrative purposes (the infobox). I don't see this image being irreplaceable unless the only reason it's included is to show a famous image drawn by the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean that if the image had been used in the body of the article to illustrate Crumb's style, then it wouldn't have been up for deletion? Acidtoyman (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It means I wouldn't have deleted it; yes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

125.whatever.whatever.88

Thanks for the db-u1. Barong 08:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

File:OiAparadektoi.jpg, File:Ti psixi tha paradoseis mori.jpg, File:NtoltseVita.jpg, File:OiTreisXarites.jpg. Are they ok now? --GhostFace1234^SCREAM 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not perfect but they work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--GhostFace1234^SCREAM 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NEMap-doton-Aurora.png

I am unable to transfer this image to commons because of the license template not being recognized by commons mover. Can you help? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. It was kind of a pain [3], granted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Dream Focus

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

—Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

Hello Magog

I'm dealing with an editor (Giovann..eeer, BernieW650 who is in a slow motion, multi-front edit war. He has been advised of WP:BRD and understands that 3rr is not a license to make 3 reversions but is steadfastly ignoring that. He is obviously trying to suck me in and get me booted again. He has reverted twice, [4][5] and his last revert summery was simply "1st rv", indicating that he was ready to take it up to 3. I'd appreciate it if you could take a second to reiterate that 3rr isn't a guarantee of 3 reversions and that we are supposed to adhere to WP:BRD. -Thanks MTOV7-sport (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit war, and I am aware of the rules. I know that V7-Sport is as well, and yet he continues. I admit I am am annoyed at his following me to that article in order to edit war and don't appreciate his uncivil remarks, including the above accusations he is spreading around and spear heading. I find it very uncivil. Please advise each of us. I asked him to step away and allow other editors to handle the content question on this new article he followed me to. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironic that you have accused me of following you as you post here... I have been adhering to the BRD cycle, you haven't. V7-sport (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernie, how about you come clean as to what your longtime IP edits were. Where have you edited from as an IP? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting Bernie. Cuz your edits look exactly like Giovanni's. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Whole bunch of copyright-infringing images

There are a large number of copyright map images being used on UK general election articles, uploaded by User:Mwhite148 - you deleted one of them as a result of this PUF discussion but there is a comment by an IP at the very end of the discussion that correctly identifies that the images Mwhite148 claimed he had "got from a friend who abandoned them" are simply taken from a website that claims copyright over them. Someone needs to go through his uploads (which may have been transferred to Commons by now) and get rid of them all! In the past when confronted by the fact he's just taken copyright images, Mwhite148 has just simply repeated the implausible claim they were made by a friend - he's still a schoolchild which probably explains his behaviour. I don't have time to deal with this and so apologies for "dumping" it on you - you just seemed the most appropriate person to let know given that you closed that PUF discussion. Hopefully you can find an image-copyright wikignome to do the grunt work - if I knew a board where they hung out, I'd have taken it there instead, any suggestions where to look in future? TheGrappler (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; for long term copyright abuse, the location is WP:CCI. Depending on the nature of the uploads, I might dump it there anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MosMusy

MosMusy is named in a currently-open 3RR report. I noticed that you took some actions in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive. MosMusy is confirmed by checkuser as the same as another guy, User:Mov25, who you have indefinitely blocked. I don't know if either one is likely to be Meowy; perhaps the SPI doesn't answer that. MosMusy has broken 3RR, according to my analysis, and it's about Armenia. This would show a common interest between him and Meowy. What would you think of an indef block of MosMusy for abusing multiple accounts? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, Ed, I'm just not very familiar with this case. My comments were related only to another case I was familiar with, and I indefinitely blocked the second user because it was an illegal sock account (but I didn't block the main account, to which he could return). I'm sorry, I'll have to keep my judgment to myself, as I know basically nothing more than you. However, given that it is regarding Armenia, you might consider heavier sanctions, like a topic ban. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

---

FYI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mov25, where i've taken action. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I hereby award you the very small and discreet admin's barnstar ( * ) for figuring out how to place people under supervision under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my userpage: [6] Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback MosMusy

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at MosMusy's talk page.
Message added 05:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NPOV-title tag

Would you mind taking a look at this thread (on the Senkaku Islands talk page) and seeing if you agree that the tag should be placed on the article, particularly taking a look at my post here? If you'd rather not make a decision, I completely understand. Thanks. – AJL^talk 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's entirely appropriate, because there is an ongoing dispute on the issue. At this point, I can only say: shame on them for making a big deal out of such a stupid thing, but shame on you for trying to remove a legitimate tag letting the casual reader know about a disagreement just because you like the status quo. If it were up to me, I'd think that a 24 hour block (given the warnings previously meted out on this page) of Lvhis, Oda Mari, STSC, and John Smith's would have been more appropriate than locking the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I never removed the tag in the first place; in fact, I don't believe I've ever edited the article itself Nope, I never have (I'll assume good faith regarding your comment directed about me). I completely agree that it should be on there too, but I thought I would get an outside opinion first. – AJL^talk 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I didn't read the discussion closely enough. Thanks for the good faith though, making it unnecessary for me to assume the assumption of good faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Magog the Ogre very much for your wonderful explanation on the NPOV-title tag issue here and there the "Response" below on 06:14, 16 May 2011. BTW, for what I did on this issue I think I also deserved the AGF, but did not deserve a suppositional 24 hour block that was mainly resulted from that you were busy and didn't read the discussion closely enough. I was and am surprised that the NPOV-title tag itself has made a big deal there, and fully agree on what you described as "such a stupid thing". I ever left a message on Feb 25 in User Bobthefish2's talk page as follows:

I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag. Without that tag, the discussion is just like "closed door" discussion. I think this discussion needs to attract more users or readers, as an "open door" discussion as Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) prefers. The second point is, we need to go step by step if everyone is really serous to want to solve this dispute. So the tag is the very first and essential step, which means at least all participants should admit there is dispute on the title. If we cannot go through this step, forget next step. Otherwise, as you mentioned, this discussion will go nowhere, and will go along a dead loop again and again. It just wastes time. It was far beyond my expectation that the NPOV tag itself can cause such problem. ...--Lvhis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Lvhis (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the "pro-Wikipedia" point-of-view?

Magog the Ogre and AJL -- No, please think again. The POV tag should not be posted. The reasoning you both express is arguable, but flawed in a way which bodes ill for the future.

In contrast, the rationale which supports a more nuanced analysis is informed by the edit history of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. Please consider this: Unlike you both, I did participate actively in the development of both the articles and the talk page threads. As a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with the specific tagging of this article. In fact, I paid little notice at the time; but this issue has fully engaged my attention now.

• ARGUMENT #1: In the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV-title "tag" is unjustified -- pending the necessary engagement in discussion threads in this venue.

  Mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution. This is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Wikipedia stance in the face of an uncooperative strategy.

According to WP:DR, we are able to parse the different types of arguments in terms of their strategic content. In other words, WP:DR helps us to recognize and acknowledge categories of constructive comments, such as:

• Refuting the Central Point
• Refutation
• Counterargument

WP:DR also identifies argumentative strategies which are unhelpful:

• Contradiction
• Responding to Tone
• Ad Hominem.

In the very clear context WP:DR creates, we are compelled to recognize that the strategic and needlessly provocative addition of a POV-title tag was, in this instance, not justified, not reasonable and not constructive. It is only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.

In future, WP:AGF encourages us to hope that those who perceive a problematic issue will decide to confine themselves to constructive contributions.

As a good first step, it is necessary to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented in extended talk thread discussions about this very topic. If not, why not?

• ARGUMENT #2: Last week, I heard a television commentator use an idiom to describe the US Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden. Dick Couch explained, "This was not their first rodeo." This American idiomatic expression also serves to distill the accumulated threads at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. In other words, this is not our first rodeo.

The content of the "tag" is construed to function as a headnote or "value-added" component. The development of our talk pages informs a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". (See WP:FOC)

Can we agree that it is forward-looking to re-focus on content rather than validating a tactic? If not now, when?

Do you see my point? This cannot be expressed more succinctly. Some issues are not simple. Sometimes first impressions do not offer the best or most constructive analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre and Ajl772 -- Is it fair to conclude that you each appear to accept one or more implied premises? IMO, your acceptance of unstated premises only serves to endorse and validate a concurrent refusal to acknowledge or engage what has gone before.

In other words, is it fair to conclued that you make yourself part of our problem rather than part of our solution.

This begs a question: What moves us towards constructive resolution rather than an enduring impasse? What helps us to fashion a flexible management strategy for future disputes which are likely? --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- I plan to contribute no more to this thread. An unresolved issues are better addressed in some other venue. I hope my diffs are construed as arguably constructive steps in an unfolding process. --Tenmei (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Tenmei, can you please explain (without being excessively verbose) in which way our reasoning is flawed? We understand the WP:DR process, so please don't keep bringing that up over and over and over and over... again, please. – AJL^talk 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

AJL -- Again I ask: What is the "pro-Wikipedia" point-of-view? In the context of this question, "verbose" is a non-responsive ephithet, a label. You may repeat it ad nauseam, but the ad hominem "tag" remains foggy, a mere opinion which you introduce in order to deflect attention from substantive matters. It is a hollow contradiction which WP:DR encourages me to disregard because, in the words of Gertrude Stein, "there is no there there"

In this context, "verbose" is non-responsive. The label "verbose" is an easy gambit, a cheap trick. Your words do not engage any explicit issue to which I can respond.

In other words, your resort to "verbose" becomes an ad hominem tangent which serves in no way to enhance the quality of our collaborative editing. Why not decide to look again at what I've written above? On further reflection, why not address the content of what I wrote -- see WP:FOC?

AJL -- In order to be very, very clear, I reproduce the familiar pyramid graphic. It is not "verbose" to point to the caption which appears along with this graphic at WP:DR. What part of this graphic and this caption do you persist in misunderstanding? As an alternative, please do explain what you perceive I misunderstand when I rely on this specific phrase at WP:DR: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."

In a thread concerned with the title of an article about a controversial subject, the unhelpful label "verbose" is not in the top three sections of the pyramid. Aha -- at last? Do you begin to grasp the emerging outlines of an recurrent pattern?

Paraphrasing the words of the first paragraph of WP:V,

• A. The POV tag is only affixed because someone "thinks it is true"
• B. The "verbose" label is only affixed because someone "thinks it is true"
• C. WP:DR informs my rejection of both because a bare assertion has not been married with elements of refutation or counterargument to which a constructive response is possible

Perhaps you are unaware that the record of threads developed across the span of many months supports the title of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute? The title has been subjected to a process which includes (a) refutation; and (b) counterargument; and (c) a collaborative editing process.

Perhaps you do not know that there is extensive research which informs the choice of article title? No part of this research has been subjected to refutation as a context for a POV-tag. No counterargument has been explained as context for a POV tag.

These are marginalised.

As a constructive step, can you point to a threshold we can cross together? --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AJL -- I plan to offer no further comments on this specific subject. I hope that the effort to write clearly in this talk page thread will lead to better and more effective prose in future. Thank you for the investment of time in trying to come to grips with a perspective which is not fully congruent with yours. --Tenmei (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I will attempt to address your concerns stated above, in no particular order (I'll sign after each point so that you may address each point individually).

• First, the statement you provided here, leads me to believe that you will accept no compromise – even if only for the interim time, until the formal dispute resolution process is finished, after which the tag will be removed, and the title changed (or not change) to reflect the outcome of that formal process. I had believed I had clearly stated those were the terms of having the tag placed on the article. However, I fear that once the process runs it's course, and the outcome is not in your favor (i.e. the name is changed to "Diaoyu Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands", however likely or unlikely), somehow you will raise a fuss about it, even though we already hashed it out in a formal process. I am considering raising this particular discussion at WP:ANI to see what the community has to say, but I would like to see a response from you first before I do, and hopefully they will alleviate my concerns. – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Second, before accusing me of not reading the substantive threads and discussion and research done on what the title of the article should be, please check your facts. Did I not go through the archives and search for relevant discussion content for the purpose of filing the Request for Mediation? Did I somehow miss a discussion somewhere? If I did, why did you not bring it up before now? – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Third, let me state very clearly: I am not disagreeing with the choice of the article title, I honestly could really care less what it is. I am merely attempting to find a solution that everyone can compromise towards that will remove the title as a battleground topic. And yes, it is a battleground topic, as obvious from the numerous archived threads – unless you disagree with that? Also, do you agree that having one less item to battle over would benefit the article more, rather than leaving it open for a potential battleground item? – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fourth, your response was indeed very much "excessively verbose", however, I am willing to look past that in order to respond sufficiently to your queries. I explicitly asked you explain the reasoning that you find flawed, and to not bring up the WP:DR process (again), which (in my opinion) was a reasonable request – I was asking for clarification. Instead, you proceeded to post a slightly different re-wording of the same "WP:DR says [this]" that you post over and over again, which was not what I asked for. How can one proceed with attempting to resolve the dispute when you keep bringing up how no one else understands it? – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fifth, you stated "As a constructive step, can you point to a threshold we can cross together?". I already did. Compromise with the editors on the other side of the issue and allow the tag to be placed on the article while the mediation takes place, then once mediation is over (however the outcome), it will be removed. – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal attack (and I really do not have nothing against you); I am merely attempting to provoke some thoughtful contributions. – AJL^talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to Tenmei: first off, I don't think AJL was making an ad hominem: it was a simple request to say what you have to say less verbosely. I have experience with this: some editors on Wikipedia manage to write around in circles and say the same thing 25 times over, spending too much time on tangents; this makes it very hard to read their responses. While I didn't think your comment above involved any tangents (in this case), WP:AGF requires us to assume it's a reasonable request and wasn't made to degrade either the conversation or you in particular.

Second off, I probably shouldn't say anything, but I'm compelled to anyway: it took you five paragraphs to explain why you're offended by the term "verbose." A more..., er..., succinct way to respond would be "Please don't call me verbose, it's the lowest level of disagreement (refer to diagram on the side)." See? I said the same thing you said, except I only said it in one paragraph, and in one way.

Third off: on to what you responded above (I'd really not dwell on the points 1 and 2... I brought them up for simple edification). You seem to have said, 1) the tag is unjustified because the dispute over the name is unjustified. But that doesn't follow at all: the dispute is over the content, and while the dispute is ongoing, the tag ought to say. The logical conclusion of your argument is that you like the title, so it shouldn't go up. That doesn't follow. And 2) you argue this isn't the first go around. So what? Clearly the issue has been brought up before without going anywhere. Unless you can point me to a thread on the talk history that shows where this was resolved (good luck with that, but I have my doubts). Thus, if the debate is unresolved, and the request is not ridiculous to the point of absurdity (e.g., "we should move it to The Islands owned by China but stupidly claimed by Japan"), then the tags ought to stay. This isn't a difficult concept: if there's a dispute, the tag goes up until the dispute is somehow settled. Whether you agree with it or not - it's respect of process that we afford others out of fairness, and because we'd want them to afford it to us when they think they're right but we're convinced their wrong. Unless you're unable to fathom any way whatsoever that they could be entitled to a different opinion than you (in which case, see WP:MPOV). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mov25's new sockpuppet

Hello, you are the admin who had blocked Mov25 earlier for sockpuppetry. He has returned with a new account: MosMusy. Could you please review this case of the sock master. Neftchi (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll comment on the SPI page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does this person get away with sockpuppeting when his MosMusy account was blocked, then being blocked as Mov25, and finally continuing the same behavior as MosMusy after Mov25 was now blocked. I thought sockpuppeting and sockmastering was not encouraged. But now I see with handling of this person, looks like, it is. I even provided diffs of his nationalistic edits in previous years where he added Armenian flags to Azerbaijani articles and added "Armenia Forever!". Where does this stand and how is this supported by the spirit of Wikipedia?? Last I heard sockmasters should be blocked. Thank you. Neftchi (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, he's not getting away with anything here. He sockpuppetted, and received a block extension of approximately 60 hours for that back in April [7] (and had the second account blocked permanently to force him to use his first account). But there hasn't been any sockpuppetry since then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand and I appreciate your response but considering the fact that he vandalized the page Azerbaijan in the past by nationalistic comments like "Armenia forever" and replacing Azerbaijani flag and coat of arms with Armenian, AND that he does the same thing with his Mov25 account AND then again continues the same behavior with his unblocked MosMusy account, isn't enough proof of unchanging pattern, and not enough to restrict this editor somehow? With all the abundance of evidence, no one should hesitate to impose sanctions on this editor. Neftchi (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have placed sanctions on the editor; however, he is appealing, and I think it's only fair that I ask a second opinion from another administrator. I cannot promise how the conversation will go, but we certainly plan to make it fair. Without question, someone will be upset by the outcome. By the way, do you have a diff of him replacing the flag inappropriately and literally vandalizing? In the right circumstances, the edits you describe might be legitimate, but in many they might not be; vandalism isn't appropriate, and I'm sure Mov25 is aware of that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

He has a long history of vandalism. For example here (1) he replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan and wrote about humiliating defeat for Azerbaijan and Armenian freedom fighters. In this (2) example he again replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan with Armenia's flag and coat of arms. And he did it again here (3), in fact he vandalized the page after an admin corrected it and even wrote "ARMENIA FOREVER" as a new headline. And again (4) he added Armenian power and vandalized the page. This editor very well knows the rules and yet he continues to defy Wikipedia rules and regulations. I gave more examples in the investigation. Is this what you meant? Neftchi (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre. MosMusy's 2-3 year old edits presented here are really bad... In the meanwhile, to clarify who you deal with, I would like to draw your attention to Neftchi's recent edits. Being aware that Onnik Krikoryan is not just a blogger, but also a reputable journalist (see here and here), he still posted this and this edits. This is a characteristic and very recent example to reveal the nature of Neftchi as an editor. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@Neftchi: yup, that's pretty bad. I would like to remind you though that Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLEGROUND), as your petitions on this page do somewhat come across as trying to get an enemy, so to speak, in trouble.

@Ashot: sadly, I'm not particularly surprised. I didn't expect anyone hear to have clean hands. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned Mykungfu sockpuppet edit warring on the ANI thread

Magog, I can't believe this, but the sockpuppet of Mykungfu -- 24* -- is edit warring on the ANI thread you began. I posed a response to an editor there and 24 moved it. I reversed that move once and requested in the edit summary that he not move it again, however he went ahead and moved it a second time. The audacity of this individual to continue his warring on an ANI thread. I do not want to continue this with him; he is a troll, a sockmaster with over 100 sockpuppets, and a vandal. I have created a registered account, as someone suggested on the ANI thread I do, and I will not use it until I am notified of the consensus view on the situation. I do not want to engage a troll and vandal; please tell him to stay away. I do not understand why he keeps getting away with this. Thanks. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

All I see is that he moved your comment, which you found inappropriate. That's not edit warring - he didn't revert even once. Edit warring necessarily involves multiple reversion, and the only reversion was by you (which was justified; anything else would have been unjustified). In any case, feel free to use your new account, and just specify that it's you, and we can work from there. If you're particularly worried about it getting blocked or being misaccused, feel free to place a note on your userpage about your identity and explain that one of the two admins handling the issue advised you to do this (while adminship is nothing special, and my word shouldn't mean more than anyone else's, hopefully this will assuage any potential concerns that might arrise from anyone). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog, thanks for the reply. He moved my comment once and I reversed that. He then slickly moved the comment again without actually using the Undo option. So, he moved my comment, I moved it back, and he reverted my move. I stated in the edit summary that I would appreciate if the comment were not removed again, though he moved it a second time.

On to another issue. I will begin using my account perhaps after today when this particular discussion is over, and so I will likely no longer edit with this IP address. I may not receive any messages placed on the talk page because I won't be paying attention to it. I think that it is better to have a registered account.

And third -- how can I go about getting the CAtruth block removed? I can't access the account, but I just want to avoid any future headaches. I would appreciate if it could be unblocked. Again, I don't think I'll ever be able to use it again anyway. Thanks. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the first question: I don't see it being moved twice. Maybe I'm just missing something. In response to the second, we can wait for this discussion to finish up, and then we will do with CATW whatever we allow for the rest of your accounts (IP, new account). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Help request

Would you please mind taking a look at this help request about images? Thank you. – AJL^talk 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

~Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi, as you seem to be familiar with image policy, I'd appreciate your having a look at some of my recent laughable attempts to add {{information}} to images and identify possible images for Commons... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The information template use seems to be pretty good. It's really not at all complicated; just put the stuff in the right fields . As for moving images to Commons, your edits generally seem pretty good; I'd recommend you check the following things:

• Does the image meet the threshold of originality? If not, you can tag it with {{PD-text}} or {{PD-shape}} and move it to commons without problem, regardless of issues presented below.
• Is the image free in its home country? I have List of countries' copyright length bookmarked for pd-old stuff.
• Is it a derivative image (that meets the threshold of originality and doesn't fall under de minimis)? This includes architecture in many countries. The only way you won't have to worry about the problem is if the source country has freedom of panorama.
• Is the image properly sourced, and does it have the requisite permission?
• Is the image worth moving to Commons? Usually the answer is yes, but if it's an orphaned userpage image or something, it can be deleted.

Does this answer your question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It does partialy, It's analysing the permissions side I get cautious about because of having been overly deletion happy in the past. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page poll

Please consider closing a poll on a talk page -- see Talk:BRICS#Consolidated discussion about flag icons. Consensus opinion rejecting the use of flagicoms in the infobox and in tables on this page seems plain; and the reasons which inform this decision are clearly expressed.

Hopefully, the results of this poll will help avert further disputes about this very narrow topic in the context of BRICS. --Tenmei (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have a problem doing that. Let me explain: the flagicons are used on many similar tables across Wikipedia (e.g., Use of capital punishment by nation), so the consensus is poor as a precedent. I would be willing to close the poll as "flagicons not supported for this page only at this time, until there is clear evidence of more editors supporting them" but that's it. Not to mention, I like them myself, although I'd only give it a weak support myself, because I only like them for aesthetic reasons (aesthetics can help the reader better relate to the article IMHO).Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Maurizio Rossi

Hi Magog, you recently tagged this page as an advertisment. Thank you for pointing out the poor writing. The page has now been rewritten and a few other sources have been added. Do you think the tag can be removed? Thanks Jeremyjoshua (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC).

No, in all honesty it still sounds like a plug for the man. Check out this sentence for example: "Having heard about Mr. Rossi's creativity and design capabilities[,] Howard Brandston one of the most gifted and prolific architectural lighting designers in the U.S.A.[,] asked him to join his renowned and prestigious architectural lighting design firm in New York" (emphasis mine). While I realize that's praising Mr. Brandston, 1) it's overdone (four peacock terms in one sentence), and 2) it's praising the subject of the article by proxy. Check out Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms. If you still have questions, we have a lot of editors at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests who can help you out. Cheers! Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the praising by proxy, and the peacock terms should be removed. Nevertheless, Brandston does appear to be all those things, at least according to the IESNA publication cited in note 2. But I get your point and will do. One last thing. Do you have to eventually remove the advertisment tag or can any editor (ex. me) do it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyjoshua (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No; anyone can remove the tag. However, as a new user, I would recommend getting a second opinion. Also, it may or may not be relevant but you might want to check out the conflict of interest guidelines. I don't personally know your affiliation to the subject, but I still want to make you aware just in case. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Magog. I'll ask for a second opinion in the Editor assistance. Take care. Jeremyjoshua (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

Please consider what I have written at User talk:Ged UK#Senkaku Islands dispute.

It is probable that Nihonjoe's decision to lock Senkaku Islands here and Senkaku Islands dispute here mirrors the reasoning which informed the judgment of Ged UK when he locked one of these articles here.

Nihonjoe's succinct analysis bears repeating: "It's a POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently."

Despite the ways in which Nihonjoe and Ged UK are each correct, is is possible that both misconstrue the problem at hand?

IMO, this is a temporary bandaid. It is a mismatch which rewards an edit warring strategy rather than suppressing it. Compare Lvhis's explanation: I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag.

Can you envision an alternative approach which we have not yet perceived? --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement in its entirety. Nevertheless, I can affirm that you jumped into this edit war late, and were as guilty as anyone, and frankly deserved to be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

KeepLocal

Magog, you're an admin, so you should know not to keep bucking consensus like this. There's no problem whatsoever with an image uploaded to WP being copied to the Commons but not deleted, and there's a strong consensus that it be allowed, so please just let it be. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I declined the deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You declined which deletion?

You posted something about "until this is resolved," as though the Keeplocal tag is a problem that needs to be fixed. Perhaps I misunderstood the point of what you wrote, but if that wasn't what you meant, what did you mean? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write it at all; I converted NowCommons to NotMovedToCommons [8], which has some unfortunate wording about not being resolved. I was declining the deletion by this method (and not simply removing the tag) because this problem has cropped up before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't see the previous edit that in effect requested deletion. I'm sorry, I was thinking this was some new KeepLocal issue that had emerged. I should have looked more carefully before commenting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm sorry again for snapping at you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts

Hi. You recently blocked this user for edit warring. But he has evaded his block here as an IP. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Blocked. IIRC, this isn't the first time this has happened with Bijuts, but seeing as I lack definitive proof that the IP is him, I will not extend his block log. Don't worry about it; prolific sockers always end up indef blocked anyway in the end (WP:ROPE). If there is any more block evasion, let me know, although I might not be around (see ugly message at the top of the page)... try WP:ANI if not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

UnclePaco and Friends

Regarding This ANI thread, 24.239.153.58 (UnclePaco) posted on my talk page [9] asking about the "standard offer". It looks like this ANI thread disappeared with no real decision of any kind. My personal opinion is (1) I don't especially think it's the best use of our time to worry about rehabilitating contributors with issues and that his edits evidently were tendentious enough to attract attention even before anyone knew who he was doesn't speak well of his chances of becoming a positive contributor, but (2) the "standard offer" isn't going to result in anything any worse than what is going on right now (whacking the new socks every few months). Do you have any objections to giving the user what he wants? (Namely, a blessing to come back with a new account on or after December 9, 2011 with the understanding that he will work peaceably and use only that one account.) --B (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No I don't have a problem with that. Eagles247 and I are both a little sick of the wikilawyering in the situation and kind of just wanted it to go away, which is frankly why we forgot about it. I think a standard offer is a good idea; that said, he did ask a while ago, so if you're going to make a six month timer, you might consider starting it back when he first asked, which was about a week or two before I posted on ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Some Facts

Dear Magog, First of all this is not a request. Here I am providing some facts, and please accept it, if it is good for wiki. You have completely mistook my views and edits. On May 4th you blocked me due to edit warring in Kochi. Once you told me “If you will agree to wait for consensus before editing again, you may be able to avoid sanctions”. That means, eventhough it is a valid information, we shoulld convince all those who are against it illogically? For about Kochi, Commercial Capital of Kerala is a valid one and a group ips and users trying to remove it. The commercial capital tag is an official and it has n number official and unofficial references. The tags for other cities in kerala remain same without any reference. For eg: Thrissur (Cultural Capital), Trivandrum (Evergreen City) etc... .. New Delhi is the capital of India, but a group of peoples and ips come and it is not, and then is it mandatory we should convince them? I don’t know much about it wiki.

Then about recent block with Nemom article:- Somebody trying to put Nemom railway station name Trivandrum Nemom. There is no such name for that station. For any reference www.indianrail.gov.in. and also somebody put some express trains stop there. Till date (14/06/2011) no expess trains stops at Nemom. Then Kerala page, Ernakulam Town Railway Station handles 41 pairs of trains daily. In the same page stations include like Kasaragod Railway stations handles (34 pairs of TRAINS), ALLEPPY station (26 pairs of trains), Kochuveli (Just 9 pairs of trains only) and Trivandrum Central (39 pairs of trains). You can get these informations from the above mentioned Indian Railway website. It is proved that some anonymous ips and users tried to mistook to administrators and they succeeded it. They all are Trivandrum biased editors. If you look at their contributions in detail you can find it. Then about User:Samaleks: Till date I never revert any new contribution done by samaleks. You can check our contributions and edit history. Samaleks always trying to revert my edits. Even I appreciated him for creating a new article to wiki. Actually I took a gap in May month in wiki. Surprisingly, the same samaleks is missing the same May month. Then I came in to wiki on June, suddenly user Samaleks reached in wiki. I do not have any solid proofs regarding these. I request you to check at least my contributions to wiki for verifying any vandalism that I did. For your kind information I suspect Kerala related pages in wiki are in the hands of Trivandrum biased editors. Some users informed you, that I am doing editing with some other ips. For the past 3 years, I have only one internet connection and its ip address is 59.93.43.177. I ready to provide more references on your request regarding any of the points mentioned above.

You just check the edit summaries of ip address 117.230.140.22 in Nemom article- [10] and [11]. Is these are allowable in wiki? If I am going to edit these again, I am sure, I will get a block from you.

--Bijuts (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring, please make use of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In fact, it doesn't matter whether your point is correct or not; it is most important that you stop edit warring. Also, if someone undoes your edit, they're well within Wikipedia's accepted precedence; if you put it back, you're not (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Again, rather than just undoing edits, please read up on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and put it into use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Newbie is Confused

• See commons:File:NEPTUNE Canada overview map.jpg (this line added later by Magog the Ogre (talk) 26 June 2011)

Dear Magog, I posted an image I created by adding some overlay graphics to some NASA and USGS images. I received an automated email, and tried to add the source info, but all the wiki markup and jargon is getting me really confused. I hope I did it right. The image is really truly bonafide clean. Public domain images mashed up with a little overlay annotation....by me. I promise. Swear I created it, and did not rip this image off from somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.222.5 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've gone through a lot of images today; can you point which one you're talking about to me? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kollmann-Sun.png

• File:Kollmann-Sun.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• commons:File:Kollmann-Sun.png

I was the original uploader of this image on en.wikipedia, which was a screenshot from a book. There is no record of that on wikipedia now or on commons. Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I completely missed that the attribution was from de.wikipedia, which was uploaded after it was to here. I'll fix it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I created it originally for the article Clavier-Übung III. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Permissions - apologies - don't know how to comply with the posting requirement, but have responded to your message on Wyrdlights page

WyrdLight (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

Can you delete it also on commons? And can you delete other images by this uploader? Thanks Bulwersator (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially File:James kelly.jpg - I am unable to find source but it is probably copy Bulwersator (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh Bulwersator (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Futa wheel.jpg is probably ok (FOP) but File:Futa logo.jpg may be not Bulwersator (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny how those redlinks work? Anyway, I can't delete the image on commons because I only have admin status here; but if you mark it with {{copyvio}} instead of {{delete}}, it will be deleted faster. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bulwersator (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Info

I like your "Completely original and (hopefully non-partisan) observations about political issues, from an American perspective" especially Russia+journalist - it is good that sb see this problem with media Bulwersator (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm; well thanks! I think I need to add something about the turmoil in Syria though; thousands of people being murdered by the government while people in the rest of the world complain about... tax rates. But I do appreciate! Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL - clusterfuck

I like anyone who knows how to summarize a situation accurately. - RoyBoy 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. That may have been like the second or third time I've ever dropped and f-bomb on Wikipedia; I try to avoid that. But the word just fit so well that it was just begging to be used. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pirate Party of Canada.png

Thank-you Mr. Redundant. 117Avenue (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it was two different deletion notices. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And you nominating it for deletion, after I already did, is also redundant. 117Avenue (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did you nominate it for deletion? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean after you nominated it for undeletion. Yeah, the npd was redundant, sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant the now commons, which is actually a higher quality different version. But non-the-less it has been deleted. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh right; yeah, if I had seen it was you that marked it, I would have just deleted it. I think the rules are a bit overkill with file formats, but as a user on commons, surely you know that people can get upset (a little too upset even) over the PNG/SVG wars. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I could have just left it be, and let it be deleted as an unused non-free, but I thought it was dishonest to not mention it is free. Image politics can get so complicated. 117Avenue (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

this newbie is confused!

I'm a noob I admit it. I read your article on coat racks and I compared it to my post on saddleback. I admit that the original was rough but I was more than willing to let other editors edit it to their liking which they did. It was entirely relevent to major political action the church took in 2008 which is why I included it and people agreed that a criticisms section was needed. in fact I discovered by looking at 2006 history logs that it had one but lyoncc chipped and chipped away at it till it was donefor. a major institution needs a criticism/controversy section especally when it finds itself criticized and controversied wouldn't you say? Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - The controversy/criticism sections of the Rick Warren and Saddleback Church articles were dealt with during the 2009 arbitration, trying to put any controversy/criticism (particularly in the Warren article) in the body of the article, rather than call it out separately. There are 7 archive pages of the arbitration linked in the most recent discussion section of the Saddleback article, if you want to wade through them.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Scott: thanks for bringing the discussion to my talk page. I want to first off state I'm only giving my opinion: it's not something that's written in gold anywhere, and good-faith users will probably disagree on it. That said, I feel pretty strongly in this case that the criticism section was overwrought, and I will list my reasons on the talk page, which I really should have done anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you for stepping in. I know that at least a controversy section is appropriate for an Orginization of this size. I was attempting to get the ball rolling. can you tell us in the saddleback talk page what we have to do to get it in? FYI FYI Lyoncc follows my every move to make sure nothing bad is ever said about any christian anywhere no matter what the sourcework says. thanks again for showing my noobishness the way! :) Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If after this discussion, things go well, but you feel like you're being stalked, let me know, and we can try to handle it further from there. Hopefully polite discussion can fix it before we have to go there though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

you seem cool man. thanks for all your help. maybe you can tell me what I'm doing wrong. I'm going crazy here. originally I posted that thing as opposed to talk about it cause I knew the people who wanted me to use the talk page wanted to talk it into oblivion so there would neve rbe a consensus and it would never go up. I never said it was perfect. It changed quite a bit... but I'm kinda lost. is the newest version of my thing relevent? I felt like the fact that the church eventually had to save their pastor's national bacon made it a big enough deal, regardless of how we define who's name the pastor made the original statement in. this whole first week i feel like I've stomped through some weird delicate ecosystem but I'm just editing the way I'd edit a term paper or a group assignment back in college. what are your thoughts dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty complicated situation; it will require working it out on both of your part, as well as competence on the part of all editors involved (something which sometimes we sadly lack). WP:RFC will give you a black and white answer; WP:M will help all parties come to an agreement, but it takes a really long time. My recommendation at this point is that you post at WP:NPOV/N and ask for help; if that doesn't work, then frankly you might want to move on to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where people are glad to help users who are new and/or need experience in consensus making. I hope that clarifies . Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work

[12] <- Good work. My plan is to move all files in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders to Commons because the files are reviewed so they should be ok. However, I skipped a few because they did not look ok but you found one more. If you have the time it would be nice with a second opinion on the files so you are most welcome to help with the files my bot reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh that does explain a few things! I couldn't figure out why all the images had such a similar format, lol. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It also explains why so many of these images of living people are of such good quality. Either that template is a spectacular success at making people upload images about their subjects (with a high percentage of people closely connected to the subjet), or it's a spectacular success at helping people to pretend they took a lot of photos they didn't take . I'm betting on the former. But hey if you want to advertise that placeholder template, I'd sure recommend it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! It is just hard to transfer to Commons if you do not use the right bot ;-) Anyway what do you think of File:Author Lauren Groff May 2008.jpg + File:Daniel Smith-Christopher in 2009.jpg + File:David Louis Edelman Author Photo.jpg + File:GIDDINGS-FRANKLIN-HENRY-2.JPG? --MGA73 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1 - I'd say take it to FFD, based only on the fact that the author given bears no resemblance to the username which is in fact a person's name.

2 -Tough call - the username of the local guy is Drfrogsplat, and the flickr username is Frogé. This user is still around; you might consider leaving a talk page message, and if not responded, FFD or just moving it to commons, based on your own subjective judgment.

3 - I hate these. When I see spouse uploads, I kind of pretend I didn't see them, if you know what I mean. Strictly speaking, we probably should get OTRS permission, but I really doubt it will be an issue. We can always just take it down with a DMCA notice; I know that sounds bad, but the uploader did say "I am the author", and we have no way of disproving that's her (e.g., she might have created a username under her husband's name, or they might have a joint account against our policy). Regardless, the onus lies on the uploader, not on us.

4 - Looks good to me; doesn't have the legalese about estates and the like; doubt we need it. See above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I moved all files that looked good. Once those are deleted the rest will be checked again. Are you sure File:CLÉSTON.JPG could/should be split? If yes we need a description. Anyway I tried to split up some files but it did not work. --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they're two different images; they clearly don't belong in the same file. BTW, the way to split an image is to delete it, and restore only the versions that aren't on commons. Then, if the image is covering up the commons version because they have the same filename, you can either move it to commons, or you can move the file itself so it doesn't block the underlying one. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I know how is should work but when I did it yesterday the new file showed up instead of the old one. Even if I deleted and only restored the old one. --MGA73 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a caching problem; clear your browser cache and purge the page, and it should appear correctly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Tried but id didn't work. I even moved the file to Commons and the wrong file was transfered :-o But I tried one today and it worked. So there is hope. --MGA73 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)