This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi- I extracted some vector images of Brazilian and Argentine road signs from official government sources for a little project of mine. Well, Brazilian warning signs at least. The PDF containing the regulatory signs only has raster images. Anyways, I was wondering if it would be ok with you if I overwrite the ones you've uploaded (the ones that are derivatives from other sources) with the official ones I extracted? And of course I'll add the ones that you missed.
And FYI I got the PDFs from Morón Municipality for Argentina and the DNIT (federal department) for Brazil.
No problem at all, feel free! Let me know if you want to rename them if there are any official sign numbers and I can do that for you as well. Fry1989eh?21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do, it's entirely ad hoc. And yeah, that was the basis for it - I felt like building a similar one out of personal curiosity. I know some are wrong and I haven't really done any sorting, so the categories aren't really very good either. Especially the mandatory signs...they don't really translate from Vienna Convention to MUTCD. --Amateria1121 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's true. What I would suggest is instead of getting super specific like the European table, just do the most common signs all countries share in common like "stop", "give way", "no parking", "speed limit", things like that which every country has. I'll play around on my sandbox some time in the next week or so and you can see how you like it. Fry1989eh?18:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I had to do a bit of that already, heh. Things like "Unprotected quayside" or "explosives prohibited" really don't have any MUTCD equivalent. And you can go ahead and edit my sandbox directly if you want. I usually use N++ to write code-y stuff anyways so I have a backup if I need it. --Amateria1121 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I also would like to change the yellow on your Brazilian warning signs if that's ok, based on the real ones that can be seen on google streetview. Fry1989eh?18:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. It's the colour I got from here, and yeah, I know the IRL ones look a bit more orange. I also wanted to include Mexico but I couldn't find any vectors of their signs, and I can't really sub any in because of the unique arrows they use. Actually the only place I've ever seen arrows like that is lane indicators in Ontario.--Amateria1121 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I wish all countries made their signs available in SVG but most don't even make the documents available at all, and those that do usually are very difficult to find and don't have them in SVG or charge for them. I wanted to upload British Columbia's signs but it costs about 5000 dollars to buy quality SVG files of the signs and the ones in their free PDFs are choppy junk. I don't have that kind of money I'm on a disability pension. South Africa has a PDF of all the signs but they're JPEG and too poor to upload here. Quebec's are free and I have to finish that up, I put it on hold for a while but I'll get back to it soon, luckily they make it free. Fry1989eh?18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I needed a nap. However, I have thought up a plan of attack, what I was thinking is together we can finish uploading all the Argentine signs, we're gonna have to do it under the naming scheme "Argentina road sign ..." because Courcelles screwed it up from the way I originally named them, but honestly it's probably better that way anyway rather than just the name of the country and the number. I'll rename the ones already uploaded, and the others can just follow in line. I'll also work on a new file information box for them all so they are the same. After Argentina, maybe we can work on Brazil and after that I will get my ass back on to finishing Quebec. How does that sound to you? Fry1989eh?22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I finished up with Argentina, there weren't too many left. The touristic info signs don't actually have numbers assigned to them, so I just named them what they were called in the PDF.--Amateria1121 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I renamed all the regulatory signs, but idk if it's worth the effort to do it to all the warning signs. I wish Courcelles could have left well enough alone. Fry1989eh?19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I corrected the yellow on the Brazilian warning signs, but eventually I will redo the diamond shape because it's a bit uneven. First though I really do need to finish up Quebec. I also just found documents for Brunei so that will have to be done in the future too. Looks like we both have a lot of work :) I'm glad you're here, it was tough being the only one. Fry1989eh?22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So I finally did more work on my sandbox - I added Japan and Mexico (it was a pain in the ass getting those let me tell you haha). I also have some signs from Uruguay and Peru, but I haven't done those yet. I wasn't sure about the rights from the Uruguyan signs, since government property doesn't appear to be public domain, and the stuff I got from Peru isn't complete. And I still need to get some real Brazilian regulatory signs. Also I was thinking about categorization or if there was anything else that should be included. I'd welcome any ideas. Anyways, just an update.--Amateria1121 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay well I think that's pretty much all I can do with it. Let me know what you think or if you have any suggestions. And thanks for the help with categorization!--Amateria1121 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
hi
Hi Fry, I've noticed you from spending time on looking at coat of arms on wikipedia. I'm not sure if I've left a comment before but I want to say that I admire your enthusiasm for coa's and that I regret that guinea flag svg I uploaded so long ago (now I've learned how to use vector programs and can draw...) Anyway, I noticed you uploaded a somaliland svg coa and thought that a tool might be helpful. I'm not sure if you know about this but there's a wiki tool called "Global replace" [1] which makes it so you can replace an image on wikipedia throughout all projects. It's a pretty powerful tool but maybe you can find a use for it. --Turn685 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that's exactly the kind of tool I've been looking for ever since Commons:Delinker has it's fault. If you ever need help with anything, all you have to do is ask :)Fry1989eh?23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
SVG
Hi Fry, I've some problem in a vector image. I've come to know that you can contribute with a basic level on vector graphics. In fact, I created a svg image. Font in this image is Eurostile LT Bold Extended 2. But it looks like Arial on Wikipedia or Commons. Please resolve this issue so that font will look like Eurostile LT Bold Extended 2. Thank you! -- Wárrãich šÁhißtalk • contribs15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi friend,
I'm involved in a controversy about an AC/DC album cover. It seems that the aboriginal flag of Australia has set a precedent so many users think that ALL the works originated in Australia should be under copyright.
Hey saw you did a version of the emblem the Irish air corps etc nice job! guess you must be part Chinese/Irish after all ;). Just on the naval emblem version the english writing has been replaced with gaelic despite appearing on the defense force pdf, human resource clerical error using an old incorrect seal I would venture as it law that Irish is the first language of the country and so they had to change it. Setanta Saki (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I suck at drawing images and suck even harder at text, so I'm not going to be able to change it. I have no objection to you doing so however. Fry1989eh?21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It might come off that way but I never would have been able to draw those images by myself. I've fiddled with text a bit, and I can build upon other people's work, but when it comes to creating something original, I really only feel safe with basic geometry. Fry1989eh?22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Turkmen military flags
I founded a article about the military flags from Turkmenistan.
Fry, the image has been totally redesigned by the Italian Graphic Lab. It is not the original version that you can find on the Vatican website. The version has been designed in accordance to Commons's policies regarding the coat of arms. If we followed what you say, every coat of arms similar to the original one should not be uploaded to Commons, and this is absurd! Look at the emblem of the Italian Republic: even if it has been redesigned in .svg format, nobody has ever objected that the file could be present on Commons! Or consider the coat of arms I Pope Francis: it's identical to the original, but no one has ever had doubts about its copyright! Furthermore, there's no copyright on the coat of arms of nations. Please have a look on other coat of arms status and reconsider your opinion, thanks. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
"There's no copyright on the coat of arms of nations"??? Yes, there is. I really wish there wasn't, because then we could have every country's coat of arms on Commons, but we can't because many of them are copyrighted. The new version was drawn based on a Vatican document and therefore the concern about copyright is very real. Fry1989eh?01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you didn't have any problem in Coat of arms of San Marino.svg to accept the new version when another user wrote: "it's public domain because it's an official emblem". And with Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg you do? The design age (85 years old) is proved in the official document. The official documents have presumption of truth and if you doubt it, you are insinuating that the document has falseness... and in that case, the responsibility to prove the incorrectness it's yours. --Echando una mano (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You have to find a proof to claim our file is copied; otherwise your personal concerns are just your own opinions. And believe me, you won't find anything, because that file has been designed by us.
This thing of reverting an upload, based only on personal concerns, is wrong an incorrect - if it wasn't, I could hypotetically revert any new upload simply based on my own opinions. --Gambo7 (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the find proof your file is copied, the proof is right there. You all freely admit you redrew the image based on the PDF. You have no clue what you are talking about. Fry1989eh?19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Turkmen air force flag
Have you got any idea about the arrangement of the rays in the Turkmenistan Air Force Flag? It's pretty hard to see in the photos, but it doesn't seem they are arranged at equal angles like in the webpage linked to two sections above this. Since you created the Ground and Naval Forces flags I assume you were about to make the Air Forces flag too. SiBr4 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a clue, it's too abstract in the photos. And actually I'm glad you made the flag because I couldn't, I was gonna borrow from the Russian Air Force flag but it's rays are different so it was a no-go for me. Fry1989eh?20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you can read the decree here. It also contains official drawings. The new crown is accurate in the sense of its proportions (1/10 taller, 6/10 wider than the cross), but it is not the exact design that would be used. I think the best thing to do would be for some experienced Wikimedia heraldist to design the flag of Greece so it can be used but I think that the updated crown on the new flag is far closer to the actual shape of the Greek crown than the previous one (the crown of Denmark). I did some poking around in the Greek government newspaper's archives, you can see a full list of laws regarding the flag which I found, here. Regards --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Australian road sign mistake
Hi,
I was gratifyingly surprised after realizing that Australian traffic signs uploaded by you were restored. But my real intention was to apologize because I voted "Delete" in an old DR related to a vectorized kangaroo traffic sign that you had uploaded.
I understand I commited a mistake so traffic signs (beyond their grade of complexity) are universal symbols with no status of copyright although they are in use in Australia or other countries with low ToO. I supposed that the legend "All contents copyright Government of Western Australia" at the bottom of Main Roads website caused some grade of confusion on me that influenced at the moment of leaving my feedback on the DR.
Further more, I also noted that in the Road signs and lane markings section of Queensland Gov website there is a {{Cc-by-3.0-au}} tag that would allow its contents (= road signs) to be hosted here. According to this, I will probably work on a copyright tag designed specifically for Austalian road signs to avoid unnecesary DR (and their subsecquent discussions) about this traffic signs.
Thank you very much, I didn't know those tags existed. If you ever find any Chinese state documents on the road signs, especially PDFs, I would really appreciate that too. Fry1989eh?00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome.I just searched "GB 5768" PDF site:.gov.cn and uploaded 3 parts of Chinese GB 5768-2009. Images may then be extracted and uploaded with PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs and PD-PRC-Road Traffic Markings.--Jusjih (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Please respect your interaction ban
I believe some of your recent posts at COM:ANV (e.g. [2]) violate the interaction ban between you and Perhelion. Please do not mention Perhelion again, especially in that discussion. Violating the ban may lead to you being blocked from editing. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You have to be joking! You are saying I can't even comment on the specifics of the interaction ban in a controlled AN setting or else I risk being blocked? That I can't even state the facts regarding why the IB was requested in the first place (I'm the one who asked for it!), which would require me to mention the actions of the user I wanted the IB with? Meanwhile there are others who are suggesting nobody should be blocked at all even for clear violations of the IB by interacting with someone they weren't supposed to. That is not what the IB was for, it was to stop edit warring and reverting and personal attacks, not to stop the discussion and pointing out of factual actions that a user has taken. Everything I've said is fact, and can be backed up with links, apparently under your interpretation of the IB (again which I requested and suggested terms for) that would not be ok, and I wouldn't even be able to go to AN and point out if a user I had an IB with had violated it. Fry1989eh?01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not joking. The post I linked to is a gratuitous comment on whether the other party to the ban deserves their block. It is not a report of a violation of the ban, nor a direct response to such a report (which might perhaps be exceptions). --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say they "deserved it", I said these are the past behaviours which caused me to demand an IB in the first place, these are the past behaviours I don't want to see again, and I am seeing signs of them which is why I will not be supporting an unblock. I have no obligation to support unblock, nor am I opposing unblock either (I haven't said I oppose it at all), but I made it clear if I were to see some good faith then I would. Now how many users do you know who are willing to even entertain the idea of supporting an unblock of a user with which they've had the problems I've had? I considered that rather generous and friendly. Fry1989eh?02:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether you were feeling generous and friendly is not the point. My point is that you should not have offered your judgement on whether they should currently be unblocked, as this is unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. (If you had instead simply proposed "If X agrees not to do A, B, and C, I agree they should be unblocked", without casting judgements or commenting on them showing good or bad faith, that would have been less objectionable - although focussing on resolving the underlying ban would have been even better.)
I know Commons is not enwiki, but w:WP:IBAN and w:WP:BANEX give some guidance on how interaction bans can work. In particular, while you should not "make reference to or comment on" the other editor, one exception is "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" [my emphasis]. --Avenue (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Fry, you violated now also interaction ban with Perhelion. I was really tempted to block you, but I thought, that you maybe did not know, that interaction ban is valid even if the other person is blocked. Now you know. Please be cautious. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hungarian road signs
Hi. Yes, yesterday I've begun to make Hungarian road signs...the source you've linked to me is the same mine! :) I've named new road signs so due to the old sings are so named...if you want to rename those you're free to do it! :9 Surely I won't make all Hungarian road sings...they're too much...buy surely I'll made the most important of them (if you want to help me making some of them you're welcome!). Bye! --Gigillo83 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok...I'll charge signs I can do...after I'll tell it to you and if you can, you'll made the other. I have already named news signs I've charged today with the correct name. Bye!! --Gigillo83 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Unluckyly I haven't a lot of time for making road signs of Hungary... I'll make still all signs of "E" category; if you want you can make signs of the categories "F", "H" and "I"... --Gigillo83 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the reason...if you want I can send to you my pdf file that permits to edit signs after charging it... let me know...--Gigillo83 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Unacceptable behaviour by Antemister involving censorship
User:Antemister appears to be clearly on a crusade to delete original artwork that he does not like on Wikimedia Commons. I've looked at his deletion requests. I find these actions to be acts of censorship motivated out of some obsessive deletionist tendency to delete everything that can be deleted to save space but without a care in the world about the users who contributed it. His language he used on the talk page of the fictional China flag I created, was condescending, snobbish, and clearly indicating that he is out canvassing for supporters to push the issue to eliminate original artwork from here. He keeps claiming that they are "out of scope". Does Wikimedia Commons have a scope that limits such original artwork? I was certainly not aware of any such scope. Also there are numerous examples of original artwork throughout Wikimedia Commons used on user pages on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Such efforts are a deliberate attemtp to move Wikimedia Commons towards censorship, and I for one will fight against that tooth and nail, he has no business requesting to delete original artwork that users have chosen to upload here that do not involve threatening behaviour or fraud.--74.12.195.24800:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, we do not have any such policy, Antemister is on a personal crusade against such images. You may comment on this unDR where I am attempting to overturn these deletions. Fry1989eh?00:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There is such a policy, see Commons:Project scope, 3.4.4 Examples, item 2 ("Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use"). Such flags are indeed private artwork, which you can upload at Flickr or other similar image hoster - Commons is not a webspace provider for private image collections. Yes I try to eliminate these files, and DRare successful as long they are not found by AnonMoos. Admins are often not amused if they see which files you find on Commons! To make things worse, it happens that such images are used in smaller language versions of the WP (for years), where the community is small and editors lack sufficient knowledge in english to understand the file descriptions properly. This is no censorship.--Antemister (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is you are not nominating files for deletion because they are out of scope, you nominate them because they are fictional and you seem to have the impression fictional content has no place on Commons. That's simply not true. Fry1989eh?22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Brazilian CoA
Hi friend, thanks for taking me into consideration for the debate about Brazilian coat of arms. I took a time to leave my opinion because your opponents argumented that the stroke version is based on the CoA existing at Brazilian Gov website (in fact, it is the "only" argument they showed to support their ideas). So I think that the best decision would be to keep both versions, based in the fact that your "no stroke" rendition also appears in many books (I added the sources so anyone could verify that that version is valid at all) and deserves to be placed here. Sorry if you're not happy with this proposal, but I think that this could avoid the file be deleted.
Best regards, - Fma12 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Still on it eh? Although I hadn't any bad feelings against you so far, the ignorance of your last sentence shows to me that you probably never were interested in resolving any disputes by accepting consensus but that your opinion really is "They should leave me alone (and let me do my work the way I think is right!)". If that's what you understand as "collaboration" I'm deeply disappointed by you. I actually hoped you were aiming to get along with others by respecting their opinion (and not just ignoring it as you suggest above). --Patrick87 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Your arguments are not based on any heraldic rules or facts, they mean nothing. I don't care what you think of that statement, reverting the file makes it 10 times worse for no needed reason. Fry1989eh?18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Interfase
Fuck em. He isn't going to change his mind. It must be a pride thing or typical political bull. The lack of admin action is rather annoying. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's possibly both stubbornness and a language barrier. I don't blame them, but that admins can't see what we can see is truly frustrating. I thank you for your assistance, friend. Fry1989eh?18:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I made the original flag so it's just as much my work as yours. Second, I said in my edit summary that this flag should match the presidential standard and national coat of arms. Third, I have issue with some of your newest changes. Fry1989eh?01:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Your only work was make a blue rectangle and use B1mbo's and my work about the coat of arms. Your reason are not valid at all: Where in Commons policies are they? --Echando una mano (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I could say the same thing about you. The last time I tried to explain to you that I worked on something, you laughed at me and said I couldn't have done it all by myself. Fry1989eh?02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It is you who says it is too simple, so it also should be you who adds a PD template. Otherwise it is NPD, which you removed without adapting the license. FDMS 4 20:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
More MUTCD signs
Hey, if you have a minute, can you take a look at/review/edit that MUTCD article I've been working on? I moved it here. There's still a bunch of signs I want to upload (but I'm too lazy) - I want to finish Jamaica, Brazil, Uruguay, etc. Thanks! --Amateria1121 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have been watching your article, there are a few errors but it is mostly correct. I'm not sure about calling them "MUTCD-inspired" however, the only commonality is that these countries all use the yellow diamond shaped warning sign instead of the red triangle shape. I can't think of a better name though. I'm also working on Jamaica, slowly, but it's difficult because the PDF files are all choppy so I've had to completely re-draw them as I upload them. Luckily Jamaica has "borrowed" most of it's symbols from Sweden, Finland and the United States, so that's why I've been working on Sweden right now. Once I have finished correcting the Swedish files, I will be getting back to work on Jamaica. Fry1989eh?17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that Jamaica seemed to borrow a lot of things. And I agree about the title, it's clumsy. There's no overarching theme other than "non-Vienna Convention", but I figured "MUTCD-inspired" was a bit easier, since I think the yellow diamond did originate with the MUTCD, and I couldn't use "Comparison of American signs" either. Maybe MUTCD-based? It's half-true, at least. The MUTCD kinda fails when it comes to specifying good regulatory signs. I also want to get Thailand on there (and maybe someday Indonesia), but that Thai PDF is kinda awful.--Amateria1121 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So many countries' signs are not very good quality and I'm unable to upload them. It's sad really, I have a document from Nigeria, the Philippines, the East African Community, South Africa, none of them I can upload and they have to be manually re-drawn. It's difficult. Fry1989eh?17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I just found some PNGs of signs in Panama. It looks about half-MUTCD, half-Mexico. I'll try to do those next (should be easier since you got most of the regulatory ones already).--Amateria1121 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey Fry hope you're well, thanks for reverting the Leinster and naval jack flags, I'm not sure what the user in question is at, his page seems to be awash with violations of every category. Setanta Saki (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Then the old ones should be uploaded separately. These two signs use the current sign number system which means they have to match the current signs. If you are willing to suggest what names they should be uploaded as, I will be willing to do that for you. Fry1989eh?18:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
[tps] Erm, that contradicts COM:Overwrite: Changes that reflect different data (eg updating a map), where the file has not been marked as updateable [are not acceptable]. I suppose such old versions could be renamed (per criterion #3). FDMS 4 18:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't care. The file is named Sweden road sign E9 and so it must match the current design of the sign named E9. I am willing to upload the old one separately, that should be an acceptable compromise. Fry1989eh?18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a contributor on nl.wikipedia. Actually I'm working on traffic signs and roads. I had some difficulties and my co-contributors told me you might have an answer. I can't find vector images for small signs that are placed by other signs like the lower one on this image.
Do you now a category on commons where I can find those?
Hi, It seems you don't understand you need to stay mellow, and apologize. So take some rest, think about this, and come back. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so users can say things about me that aren't true, and I get blocked for pointing out they are mistaken? Really? What kind of fucking admin are you that you block people for pointing out the truth? The only thing this block accomplishes is preventing me from doing my work. Fry1989eh?20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.
Request reason: "I don't need 3 days to "calm down", I have work to do."
Unblock reason: "Done, basically per Bidgee , but with caveats. It seems you're taxing the community's patience, and it'd be best if you stayed out of the limelight for the time being. Regards, FASTILY21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)"
@Bidgee: I don't see any of this in this policy. This block is very much justified, and really quite short. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Justified how? Natuur12 says things that aren't true, I prove links to the contrary and apparently I'm the one who should be punished. FDMS4 says things about me for which there is tonnes of evidence to the contrary, and I'm the one who needs to be punished. You insist on an apology, so you use the block as a psuedo-tool to milk one out of me. How is any of that in policy? I was working before you blocked me, I wasn't just responding on AN, I was uploading files and doing other work. That's what your "cool down" block is stopping. Fry1989eh?20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: In this way, blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; "cool-down" blocks are not condoned. Also this is an controversial block, one that should be discussed before hand, not after. Bidgee (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to see the I Hate Fry Club (Magog the Ogre, Natuur12, Geagea and Leyo) in near full effect. The only ones missing are LGA and Archmedus. Fry1989eh?22:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: The block reason is only a string of letters and as such not a reason for an unblock. This block's use will hopefully be to prevent the disruption already and to be expected to be caused by editwarring, which has been discussed at length on the AN/U. Fry1989's unblock request does not address any of the issues elaborated there. FDMS 4 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Your argument for my block as a preventative measure would be stronger if I had continued edit warring/doing the edits in questions (categorising Symbols of...) and there was a need to stop me. That didn't happen, as soon as you started your AN I stopped and whether you think I was polite or argumentative or dismissive the point is I haven't continued the edits in question since yesterday. This block is purely punitive because I wouldn't "calm down" and "apologize". Calm down blocks are not acceptable, and using a block as a weapon to milk out an apology is just as invalid. Nice try. Fry1989eh?23:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Erm … the reason you didn't "continue" to editwar simply is that there is/was nothing left to rollback because I have not yet reinstated the last stable versions. FDMS 4 23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Erm ... wrong again! There is actually about 30 countries that still should be recategorised under the country name master category (Kiribati, Kenya, Slovenia for example), but I ceased doing so while the AN was proceeding. I haven't done any recats since yesterday, there was nothing requiring immediate intervention and a preventative block. And once again, this entire issue could have been avoided if only you had assumed good faith and ASKED me why I was doing this or tried to discuss it with me instead of accusing me. I dare you to spend some time seeing how I work with users that are nice to me and ask me things, but I bet you won't because it doesn't fit your narrative that I am absolutely impossible to get along with and so it would have been a waste of your time to have even tried. Fry1989eh?00:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, but AN/U threads can't stay open forever. You editwarred until I stopped restoring the stable versions and brought it to the AN/U, where you called your actions unassailable, which makes it perfectly reasonable to assume that you'd have finished your (over)categorisation work in the same fashion as you were doing it before. FDMS 4 00:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You claim this block is preventative, but preventative blocks are meant for where there is an immediate requirement to intervene and prevent an action. I haven't done anything since yesterday, there was no immediate need for intervention under any definition. Not only is saying "it's reasonable to assume you would have finished your overcat" a hypothetical, it would require me to be permanently blocked instead of just for 3 days. But none of that even matters because that's not the reasoning Yann gave, they said I needed time to "cool down" because I wouldn't apologise. This is so obviously a punishment block that Yann really could loose their adminship over it, as stated by Bidgee. Fry1989eh?00:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting, there is ZERO grounds to block me at this time. I wasn't currently edit warring requiring intervention, I wasn't being disruptive (unless you call pointing out others' lies disruptive), calm down blocks are forbidden, punitive blocks are forbidden, and if you think I will cool down when you're abusing your block tools you're sorely mistaken Yann! Fry1989eh?03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989, I have proof that the block is incorrectly done. Yann possibly referred to COM:MELLOW, which is an essay and not an official Commons policy/guideline, for this case and that is considered invalid reason for blocking. It was not certain whether "take some rest and come back" means a calm down block. But, it is time for you to stop behaving disruptively (just like swearing, such as your "piss me off" comments that is mentioned on a thread on COM:AN/U, and edit warring) and keep civil here. FDMS4 is correct that you started an edit war with symbols and you are quite disruptive for this case.
Also, you shouldn't have abused the rollback right here. You quite used it disruptively and it was mentioned also on the thread on COM:AN/U talking about your disruptive rollbacks.
And I will take place of you on several diagrams of road signs (mostly Philippine road signs, and Indonesian road signs) while on your rest. I will keep an update on the thread about your issue on COM:AN/U as an interested party. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if there was a lesson to be learned, I'd ignore it just to spite Yann for violating the blocking policy. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and this block prevented nothing except me doing my work which makes this a punishment block an everyone can see it. Do this to ANY other user and Yann could face a de-adminship, but it's perfectly fine to be punitive to me and block me for no reason. I wasn't even being disruptive on the AN talk page, other users were saying things about me and I have a right to respond. Nobody said to close up the discussion and move on, I wasn't violating that, I was responding to lies and half-truths and for that I'm PUNISHED which IS NOT GROUND FOR BLOCKING! Fry1989eh?16:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This block is obviously just Magog having a massive hissy fit. They blocked me, Fastily, and then themselves. They say the reason for my block stands, but again nobody has been able to provide ANY reason for the original block other than Yann's (the blocking admin) comment that I needed time to "cool down". Multiple users have stated that time out blocks just so users can cool down are not under policy. I should also add that in their rage-quit, Magog extended the block from 3 days to a full week out of spite. Fry1989eh?01:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read the thread at AN/U carefully and without wearing rose-colored glasses, you will find reasons for the block. However, I would support reducing the block to the original length. --Leyo08:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read the AN/U carefully and without wearing rose-coloured glasses, you will find that Yann's reasoning was that I needed time to "cool down" and that at least 4 other editors called this out as inappropriate on policy grounds, while those in favour of my block simply tried to make excuses for how a cool down block might actually be ok instead of giving new grounds to support it and the most fervent supporter rage-quit after their attempt at extortion failed. So again I ask you, what was I blocked for? Yann made it clear their reasoning and that reasoning is invalid. Re-blocking me in a rage-quit most certainly is invalid. Fry1989eh?15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's be empirically clear here:
Yann's block reasoning "take some rest and come back", not edit warring, not intimidation, not personal attacks, not threats, not abuse, not legal issues, not vandalism, take some rest.
Andy Dingley, Bidgee, TagaSanPedroAko, Stefan4, AFBorchert and Fastily have ALL expressed their belief that this block reasoning is invalid under the policy.
Those in support (at the time of the second block before the Bad Blocks thread was initiated), namely yourself Leyo, Magog the Ogre and FDMS4 did not give any new grounds for the block other than an attempt to re-write Yann's wording into an attempt at "preventing further disruption" after the fact.
Magog complained that there was no consensus for Fastily to unblock me, but clearly there was consensus that the original block by Yann was questionable.
Magog tried to extort Fastily into using their admin tools in a certain manner under threat, and when Fastily refused we all can see what happened.
It is very unfortunate indeed, that now users are rallying behind Magog when they took such an aggressive approach over a simple 3-day block for which the reason is highly questionable. I didn't make them do that, Fastily didn't make them do that, they chose to do that after letting their hatred of me boil over. It's no secret Magog and I have hated each other for a long long time, all the more reason they should not have gotten so involved. It is especially unfortunate that Magog, Natuur12, FDMS4 and Fae all feel the need, as an expression of their dislike for me, to try and do a witch hunt against anyone they perceive as being of assistance to me. If any other admin had lifted my block, this response would not have happened. So I repeat my comment on the AN page: If it would have been ok for any other admin to do it, it's ok when Fastily did it. Period. Certainly to rage-quit, block me again and extend my block out of spite, block Fastily for not bowing to extortion and threats, and then blocking yourself shows highly questionable judgement, but that's not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay the price because Magog boiled over at Fastily not towing their line. Fry1989eh?17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: , it would be lovely if you would also explain why you extended my block from 3 days to 8 days with no new grounds. If you really felt that Yann's original block reason stood, you would have just returned the 1 1/2 days I hadn't served in jail, instead of increasing it out of spite in your little temper tantrum. I think you knew exactly what you were doing, and the reaction it would get. One big plot, this entire thing. I think you let your anger and dislike of me get the better of you even though I do not understand why you dislike me to such an extreme. Fry1989eh?03:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: , @Yann: , @Natuur12: , as well as @99of9: and @Steinsplitter: : The original block by Yann will have expired within 4 hours from now. Magog not only restored it in their rage-quit, they tripled it from 3 days to 9 without providing any new grounds for an extension and simply claiming the original block stands. So I expect one of you to restore it to its original length, or we all know exactly what this is and don't try to pretend for one moment it is a block grounded in policy to prevent anything. Fry1989eh?17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I can agree to remove the block right now if you agree that it was justified. In short, please discuss with calm without attacking others even if you disagree. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sell my soul to save my job? I've asked this many times, what was I blocked for???? You blocked me not for personal attacks, not for vandalism, not for threats, not for legal issues, not for (immediate and therefore requiring intervention) edit warring, not for harassment, not intimidation, not abuse. You blocked me because you felt I was too high-strung in the AN discussion as was everyone else. Are you going to ask Andy Dingley, Bidgee, TagaSanPedroAko, Stefan4, AFBorchert and Fastily to all change their minds and say it was justified too? Now you want me to sell out and say your block was grounded in policy and somehow justified when 6 users, most of which do not have any relationship with me that can be spun into "friends helping friends", called it out as questionable? No, you should restore the block to it's original time on principle and to not reward temper tantrums, not because I say your original blocking was justified just to get out of jail, which is exactly what it would be. Even if you think your block was justified and even if I said it was, there is zero justification for tripling it in a rage-quit against the two users you hate most. So tell me, are you principled, or are you just going to leave me in jail? I've served my time, anything beyond it is just a reward to Magog for letting their temper get the better of them. Am I willing to "discuss with calm without attacking others even if you disagree"? Of course I am. But am I willing to bend over and say "you were right Yann for blocking me" when 6 others said no just to have my original block restored instead of this farce at policy, absolutely not. Fry1989eh?18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well @Yann: ? Is this about what you want to hear, or what you want me to actually do when my block is up? I've told you what I will do, but I'm not going to say what you want to hear whether or not I meant it honestly and where 6 others users also disagree just to get out of jail. What matters more to you? Fry1989eh?18:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a new thread I have to create on AN regarding a bug with some images rendering so I can not promise I won't re-appear there as well as a user uploading the same file 10 times, but I will leave the thread regarding myself and Natuur12 and everyone else alone. Fry1989eh?18:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Fry. Confused about your partial reversion. COM:COA "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Commons contributors.
It is not a Commons policy or guideline" as far as I'm aware. I wasn't able to find anything stating that it has come into Official Policy. What is POV however, is the nutshell banner that I added as that is my unsupported point of view (which you seem to be fine with since you didn't revert it). As many users have identified, COM:COA is poorly written, confusing, and lacks sources regarding somewhat complicated copyright issues. I was hoping to be able to work with you and anyone else to improve it to a sufficient standard and level of depth (with backing sources) so as to make it an unambiguous and detailed policy. trackratte (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
While I do not have a problem with some of your re-arrangements of the various texts and points of the principle (without actually changing any of their meanings), I do have a problem with your change of the header from a shortcut to an essay, because this leaves a notice stating "It is not a Commons policy or guideline..." That set of words particularly concerns me because of your most recent comments regarding the principle of free heraldic blazon-based works. Changing that now, while a DR is currently open with COM:COA as one of it's main arguments appears to be a conflict of interest to me, as it may influence observers of that DR. For all our disagreements, I would like to be able to work with you, and whatever the outcome of those two DRs I'd even like to be able to shake your hand and say good debate. However surely you can understand my concern. Fry1989eh?23:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
My concern was that it is being portrayed in debates as official policy (ie concerns that references may 'blow such a policy out of the water'). I do not think this is true though, as worst case there would just have to be some caveats on arms made on behalf of the Crown (state), as I do not believe there generally is copyright protection afforded for private or corporate arms, and most certainly not Crown copyright which is really the only issue here. However, your point regarding any perceptions of a conflict of interest is certainly valid and I'll respect them. Regards. trackratte (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In speaking with a couple offices managing Crown copyright, along with the sources and laws dealing with copyright terms and what constitutes a derivative in Canadian and U.S. laws I think we have a lot less to worry about in terms of the impact on PD50. First of all, the only time the notwithstanding clause seems to be invoked is when the Royal Crown is depicted (since permission directly from Canada's monarch is required in these instances as a mark of state authority, and thus falls under personal prerogative within Canadian constitutional law). That being said, the notwithstanding clause is a positive clause, ie absent claim PD 50 applies. So, if the COA of the CSA were over 50 years old right now, for example, it would be PD. The only sets of image I see Crown prerogative copyright applying to are the Arms of Canada and Canadian Armed Services flags. Even then, this would be an easy fix in some cases, for example the RCAF flag. With this flag, all of the elements within it are PD save for the depiction of the maple leaf. If a user were to make a drawn copy with their own rendition of the maple leaf, then I do not see any logical line of argument against the image being hosted on Commons, since it would not be an exact copy of a copyrighted work, nor even a derivative since it could be shown to be based upon nothing but the blazon and PD works. Certain renditions of the Arms of Canada could be problematic however, since for example the Coat of Arms of Canada rendition.svg where the mantle is essentially a copy and paste of the original (the mantle being of maple leaves is not even mentioned in the blazon) and the helm is depicted in the same style and colour with the same style maple leaf upon the gorge and a green interior (nothing more than "royal helmet" mentioned in blazon). In this case, it is clearly not based solely on the words "And upon a royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent and gules". In this case, this depiction is clearly based upon (and thus a derivative of) the original depiction. However, this same version could be redrawn based solely on the blazon to be completely PD (or more specifically, be eligible for copyright in and of itself, where the user can then release the image as their own non-derivative work). The compartment in this case is an excellent example of a rendition based solely on the blazon. If the same approach to the compartment were used to the rest of the rendition, I think we would have a good looking COA based solely on a PD blazon hosted on Commons.
I understand your concern where in your view, some unknown user comes in bandying about a relatively obscure and unknown area of copyright (Crown prerogative copyright), along with a packet of references regarding derivatives and their threshold thereof which may run counter to the consensus around COA on commons. However, I think we do no one a service in letting users put time and effort into taking copyrighted COAs and simply redrawing them (copy) or making a rendition of them (rendition of the original) and telling them that these are theirs to release when they are actually derivatives under the law. I appreciate that drawing COAs from a blazon takes a great deal of time, effort, and skill, even when using an original as their point of reference. However, the only way that any such drawings are not derivative works is if the PD blazon is used in and of itself, or if the original is used as a point of reference, but the new depiction does not incorporate any of its unique elements that are not part of the blazon.
Like I've mentioned in our previous discussions, I do not approach this as a 'right or wrong' or competitive 'me vs you' mentality. If I see third-party reliable sources showing something to exist which I wasn't aware of or thought was wrong, I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn. In this case, a great deal of research has been conducted to improve this particular area to ensure that we are operating within the law. I know everyone here is trying to do what is best for the project, and I hope to be able to work with someone so interested and passionate within the subject as you (albeit I am mostly limited to only Canadian COA). trackratte (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding whether the Crown only extends it's rights in instances where the royal crown is displayed, that makes sense but I still have a problem with it. There are many different ways of drawing crowns, even when we are talking about the same one. For example File:Crown of Saint Edward (Heraldry).svg and File:Crown of Saint Edward Heraldry.svg both display the same crown but they are very different drawings. In principle, COM:COA would apply the crowns just as much as any other heraldic element. I understand that the drawing we use can not be an exact copy or an obvious derivative, but as I stated in the DR for the Canadian Space Agency's coat of arms, I believe your interpretation of "derivative work" is far too broad and overreaching. I don't wish to make this a "you v. me" thing but unless you have some sort of set of standard examples of what Canada considers a derivative violation that we all have to live by (along the lines of Commons:Threshold of originality), then what is considered a derivative is open to interpretation, and in my eyes the two look nothing alike and therefore one can not be a derivative of the other. As I hinted to in that DR, I have worked in other similar derivative work DRs and it has always been a clearcut case of "this part was clearly drawn based on that part" but we don't have that here. It's not a simple yes or no, no matter which side you are in favour of. As a furtherance of the crown issue, File:Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg does not even use the same crown as the crest was granted. The public registry shows a Tudor crown, while our file uses the Crown of St. Edward. There is then also the issue of the fact these crowns are all older than Canada itself and remain the property of the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, so Canada claiming copyright is a little questionable. Fry1989eh?18:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
How do you evaluate Xasartha's uploads? If you find copyright issues or duplicates, then please nominate them. Best regards and thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Fry, in reference to your above comments regarding the flag and the use of the crown, you can see a briefing not prepared by the College's museum here: Notes prepared by the RMC Museum staff. Besides noting that the King at the time himself overrided the College of Arms conventions, it discusses the Crowns as you mentioned:
"Despite the change in the form of the Crown introduced with the reign of Queen Elizabeth II -the College persisted (incorrectly) in displaying its Coat-of Arms with the older version of the Crown. Although the depiction of the Crown on the College cap badge was changed, the fact that the cap badge was derived from the
Coat-of-Arms, and not a separate entity unto itself, didn't seem to register. In 2004, at the request of the Commandant, I checked this practice with the Chief Herald of Canada. He confirmed that in accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II all current depictions of the Imperial (or Royal) Crown
should follow the form with depressed arches. Any new rendition of the RMC Coat-of-Arms should therefore use the current version of the Crown, i.e the version with the depressed arches -the one sometimes called the Queen's Crown or St. Edwards Crown)."
This is also in line with all Regimental badges. When the Sovereign chooses a Crown different than that of their predecessor, all depictions are consequently changed without the need for new blazons to be registered. And as you can see, this normal practice has been confirmed with the Chief Herald of Canada.
With regards to your assertion that copyright over the Crown is held by the U.K., that could be an interesting point since essentially the same image could theoretically be held under crown copyright in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc by the Queen of each of those countries. But then again, the rendering of what the blazon refers to as an 'Imperial Crown' is more or less standardised in-line with the wishes of the sovereign across all heraldic organisations within their respective realms. I'm not familiar with those countries' copyright laws, but I imagine section 12 in Canada would be used to avoid any hypothetical litigation between let's say, the British Crown against the Canadian Crown on the Sovereigns own Crown (I think the ridiculousness of the sentence reflects the ridiculousness of the hypothesis but I digress...). trackratte (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the two crowns, I am aware of The Queen's request that all crowns be changed to St. Edward's Crown. Quebec's coat of arms is the only instance I know of where this directive was not followed, though there may be other examples out there if we looked hard enough. Also I did see the crest of the RMCC with the Tudor crown last week on a government website, but haven't been able to find it again and I failed to bookmarked it. So I guess we would agree that is an open question. My claim regarding the crowns (all of them) legally being the property of the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom probably wouldn't stand up to snuff in a court as an argument, but I still felt it was important to mention, considering the crown jewels are not allowed to leave Britain. Now in the case of the flag, if The Queen's request was followed through, that would mean there are actually two flags of the RMCC and the old one wouldn't be copyrighted, if we are to agree to the Canadian Forces' claim that "all current flags are copyrighted". All we would have to do is change the crown. Fry1989eh?01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure. There are a few Regiments that maintain different crowns, I've see three or four different ones, for reasons of historical or commemorative purposes. As any heraldic depiction of Crowns is strictly controlled by the sovereign him or herself, the blazon, as being issued by the sovereign, cannot supersede its own authority, if that makes sense. Probably poorly worded, the idea being that the sovereign cannot overrule themselves, so whatever the latest direction is, that is the legal direction to be followed regardless of what was originally written.
In regards to changing the crown of the RMC flag so that it would no longer be under copyright, in reading the case-law, this wouldn't work (in court at least, one never knows on Commons since I think we all know it would probably never be tested). One, DND claims copyright on all military flags pre-1968. Two, according to Canadian Intellectual Property Law and Strategy (Oxford University Press), the copyright holder in an artistic work holds "the sole right to: a) produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part of the work in any material form". And as we've seen from King Features Syndicate Inc. v. O.M. Kleemann Ltd, creating original 3-D works based off a 2-D artwork creates copyright infringement, so incorporating any substantial part in any media would be enough to constitute a copyvio. In our case, creating an image with a different crown into an SVG would be exactly that, taking a substantial part of an artistic work into a different media, creating a copyvio. And once again, according to Section 101 of the United States Copyright Law, a derivative work must "as a whole, represent an original work of authorship", or else it is simply considered a copy. That being said, any original aspects within a derivative are copyrightable in themselves (and thus releasable on Commons). The trick here is to create an entirely original work based on nothing but the idea (blazon). So if we could track down the blazon of the flag, get a user (Sodacan?) to look at it (and not look at the actual official rendition at all) and create an SVG in that manner, there would be no way anyone could make an argument towards copright. trackratte (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sodacan is unwilling to make any Canadian (or Australian for that matter) coats of arms because they are worried their works will be nominated as possible violations by over-zealous users such as yourself. Their words, not mine. Fry1989eh?19:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to stop reverting trademark templates, as in here for example? The trademark template is clearly sourced to the relevant trademark entries within the government database, so it can't be a problem with the existence of the trademark itself.
I see no reason to remove such information, as it has nothing to do with copyright, Commons restrictions policy, nor anything to do with Commons deletions policies. However, Commons provides a Trademark template for a reason, to "occasionally add disclaimers such as {{Trademarked}} and {{Personality rights}} as a general public service" (COM:NCR).
I'm not quite sure what the nature of your issue is, as it wasn't explained in any of your reverts. Since you haven't been reverting or deleting trademark templates throughout the rest of Commons, I can only assume that your issue with trademark is only in respect to this particular page. Perhaps I'm missing something here, and if I have, I was wondering if you'd kindly care to explain your take on what exactly that is. trackratte (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not the only one who has reverted you for doing this to files, an admin has also reverted you in the past. So maybe you should take the hint, stop being pointy, and stop doing this. Fry1989eh?00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, which admin reverted my additions of trademark templates? I don't recall that ever having happened.
How is adding a trademark tag (with the appropriate sourced links) in line with Commons official policy as a "general public service", 'disrupting Commons', 'discrediting a rule', or 'turning consensus against a policy'? Unless you mean "being pointy" in a different way?. trackratte (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Both Magog the Ogre and Denniss have reverted or cleaned up your various machinations with the file templates, I'm not the only one who takes issue with it. Fry1989eh?02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're trying to be malicious or not. To what supposed admin revert of my adding trademark templates are you referring? Because I can't think of any.
What is your issue with trademark at this particular file? If I don't know, I can't suitably address it. And simply saying that you 'take issue with it' doesn't exactly add anything by way of explanation. I know you take issue with it as you reverted it twice. I'm not asking you if if you have an issue with it, I'm asking you why. trackratte (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Malicious for asking you to stop messing around with file description pages and adding unnecessary information as a furtherance of your POV that these are controlled images and if you can't get you way and have them deleted you can at least be pointy and let everyone know you disapprove of the outcome? Because that's what it looks like to me. Wow I'm the malicious one it turns out. We have two templates for images that may have a trademark, both {{insignia}} and {{Trademark}}. But you are deliberately adding very specific information for each image regarding trademarks and other regulations which are irrelevant to Commons and I refuse to believe you're doing it just to be thorough. You have made such a point of doing it. Fry1989eh?18:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you never asked, just reverted. Malicious in saying that admins have been reverting my addition of Trademark templates, which as far as I'm aware, is simply untrue. Using a fabrication (and if I'm wrong about that, please let me know!) to suggest that Trademark templates are against Commons policy would seem to me to be somewhat malicious. I fail to see how trademark information lets 'everyone know that I disprove of the image', the DR discussion lets everyone know that I disprove of its copyright status, but copyright and trademark are two independent concepts. The 'very specific information' that you allude to are the links to the trademark file numbers, ie proof of trademark, since the template itself only says that the file may be trademarked. So, if the image is trademarked, Commons encourages adding such information as a "public good", and it helps out the reuser, then why do you keep on reverting it? And why are you reverting it on this specific file and not others with trademark templates? From what I understand from your responses above, you're against such an addition here simply because it comes from me. trackratte (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi - you added the Category:Diagrams of road signs of Germany here. In this category only road sign that are part of the "Straßenverkehrsordung StVO" (Road traffic code) are grouped. This sign here does not belong to this regulation. It is part of a European environment protection regulation. That means you wont find this alongside roads but in the wilderness. Most of them will be fixed to trees or rocks, only very few will have sign posts. I strongly recommend to revert your categorization. --Maxxl2 - talk20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Requests for uploading more Danish road signs
Dear Fry1989,
I would like to see your uploads of more Danish road signs. These Danish road signs uploaded by you on the page "Diagrams of road signs of Denmark" are found incomplete since the series L. And that's why we want to see your uploads of more Danish signs continued with Series M onwards. And also, don't forget to upload the series N,O,P,U into the page "Diagrams of road signs of Denmark". And as well as the incomplete Danish road signs from series E. And also as well, don't forget to refer to http://www.daluiso.dk/pdf/tavleoversigt.pdf So, don't forget to upload it!
--ALF-MY (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)ALF-MY
Greetings again, friend! A file that I uploaded yesterday has been nominated for deletion. Now, since you seem to be much more knowledgeable in affairs of copyright laws than I, I would greatly appreciate your insight into this matter. Please do make haste, for time is of the essence! Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
National coa
Dear Fry,
First thanks again for having my back and being in my corner on so many issues, even if in some of those fights I didn't even bother to show up ;) I will explain to you why. National symbols are a delicate, irrational and bewildering issue. As someone in their twenties, who grew up across two continents, nationalism is an absurd emotion. Let us not fight with gate keepers, not with the Australians or the Dutch, nothing will ever be good enough. Lets just be glad that we have a vector alternative that is accurate and will be useful to the public. These images are not replacements but alternatives, the public might find them useful years from now (that's good enough for me). The Dutch users did not have a problem with the old image that was a composite, that image was neither accurate nor beautiful (they were in the article for ages). They only began complaining and retiring on wikis when I uploaded mine, that tells you a lot about them. Don't waste you time over these issues, especially not on my behalf! I don't want you to get into a conflict because of me, I will feel very bad if you get blocked :( Sodacan (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Do not worry my friend, I won't push it into a blocking situation, and yes people do seem irrationally over-invested when it comes to their home country. Your work is beautiful and much appreciated by so many here, I only hope you are not discouraged by them. Fry1989eh?04:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and not at all, I plan to upload many more works in the future. Comments positive or negative will only spur me on to improve. I am here for the long run, not planning to retire anywhere yet. Plus this is really is an enjoyable hobby for me, I work in finance with a lot of numbers, so this is completely different from that. Thanks again, don't worry it about it too much! Sodacan (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
(Is it ok to barge in here, Fry?) Not all Dutch users are dismissive of your work Sodacan. I absolutyly admire your style, and the general accuracy of your work. Sometimes there are minor issues, but those can be corrected. Greetings, Sir Iain (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course your comment is welcome. The group of users on the Dutch Wikipedia have been so abusive that I was forced to request my account be blocked there, you may have noticed. I understand not all Dutch users are like that, but these 4 or 5 have made it impossible for me to edit there because of their perpetual bad faith and lies. I hope some day that will change. Fry1989eh?15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
A question to your road sign drawings
Fry1989, thanks you for this great work. I would like to ask, how you are creating all that drawings. I am using Inkscape and I am missing the special arrows used in raod sings. How are you solving this issue? --Hans Haase (talk,express talk)07:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I download the drawings, as I don't have the skill to draw them myself. If you have a copy of a country's road signs in PDF form like this you can download the PDF, open it in inkscape and copy the signs. Not all PDFs have the signs drawn in SVG, but many do. Fry1989eh?17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
i just noticed that! there must be something wrong with the cache, and can you also update this file version on the english wikipedia? Enbionycaar (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It was just a misunderstanding because of a delay in the cache. Also English Wikipedia hosts a local copy which is why the changes here are not reflected there, so I have to request that one be changed as well. Yes, you can protect the file now, thank you Steinsplitter. Fry1989eh?18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Portuguese road signs
Hi Fry, will you please help me by improving the Portuguese road signs I am uploading at the moment? Thanks very much! Regards --Fer1997 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Portuguese road signs, Fry1989! I hope that you will upload more Portuguese road signs to Commons, either tomorrow, today or even next Monday!
Please, upload more Portuguese road signs to Commons immediately!
I am very nearly done Slovenia's signs, and I am assisting Fer1997 with Portugal. I have several more countries to do, so I'll be busy for a few months to come. Thank you. Fry1989eh?02:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Canadian Flags
I have a rather old Canadian Flag, I am not sure of the date but I believe it is pre 1900. I think it was made in England as the beaver looks more like a rat. Do Canadian Flag collectors exist and if so, what would the value of this be?
I would have no idea how to value such an item, but I'm sure you can find collectors on ebay or flag websites. Fry1989eh?00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
New Spanish Royal Standard
Hello. Thanks for your interest, the proportions of the new royal standard are different. The royal guindon has the same as Juan Carlos's ones. The problem is the older versions of the Royal Standard are wrong because in past the coat of arms was bigger. All of historic coats of the former standards are wrong they were bigger like this. Regards --Heralder (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your support the attributed coat of arms and standard. This is the link to the official regulation of the Standard [3] it is in Spanish at the guindon (military flag) the background has 800 x 800 millimeters and the coat of arms 440 millimeters (height) according to Rule 1.3 "Medidas". The drawing of the standard and the coat is not correct according to the description. The coat of arms of the standard has the same proportions but it has different versions so there isn't a fixed size for the coat of arms but the proportions are equivalent to the guindon ones. Rule 2.1 and 2.3 "Tipos"
Number 1-a: 1,600 millimeters.
Number 2-a: 1,200 millimeters.
Number 3-a: 1,000 millimeters.
Number 4-a: 800 millimeters.
Number 5-a: 400 millimeters.
According to the previous reform (the flags of Felipe as Crown Prince) the size of the coat of arms of the guindon and therefore, the proportions of the standard are equivalent to the adopted at the guindon and standard of the heir) [4] Rule 3.3 "Medidas" guindon (military flag) the background has 800 x 800 millimeters and the coat of arms 440 millimeters (height) according to Rule. The coat of arms of the standard has the same proportions but it has different versions equivalent to the new ensigns Rule 4.1 and 4.3
Important, the standard and guindon of King Juan Carlos are still in use (with their different proportions, smaller)
Disposición transitoria única: Guión y estandarte de Don Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón.
Su Majestad, Don Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón seguirá usando el guión y el estandarte que venía utilizando hasta su abdicación como rey, tal y como aparecen descritos en las reglas 1 y 2 del título II del Reglamento de Banderas y Estandartes, Guiones, Insignias y Distintivos, antes de su modificación por medio de este real decreto.
Single Transitional Provision. Guindon and Standard of Don Juan Carlos of Bourbon and Bourbon.
HM, Don Juan Carlos of Bourbon and Bourbon will continue using the guindon and the standard that was coming using up to his abdication as king, as 1 and 2 of the title turn out to be described in the rules of the 2nd Tittle of the Regulation of Flags and Ensigns, Standards, Emblems and Badges, before his modification by means of this royal decree.
The coat of arms is regulated as an element of the royal ensigns so there aren't special rules.
Carlos Navarro is the designer of the official version of the new standard, the coat of arms at ensigns is more simplified than an heraldic emblem HERE you can see the new official design of the King Felipe's new coat [5] done by Mr Navarro (Mr Navarro's facebook), his standard and non-adopted coats of ams of his daughters (infanta Sofia's ams without charge because it's not officially adopted only the heir can use a plain label). In my opinion the coat of arms of the princess should be the same than the used by her father because she is titular (is the same case of Elizabeth II in UK,Canada and other Realms she doesn't use a female shape of her arms of dominion). The Queen as Princess used a logenze shield but she was never proclamed Princess of Wales.
Hello. I've seen that you have reverted the changes in file:Estandarte Real de España.svg when they were according the royal standard proportions and colour, as they can be seen in the official source (Real Decreto 527/2014), where these things are perfectly determined. Can you explain your reasons? Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk)
Hi Fry - concerning the since 4 years ongoing discussion and editwar about the tincture of this coat of arms, I would like to ask you to read this Luxembourg-Nassau family book On page 104/105 the armouries are described and displayed. If you read the blason and inspect the 3 images carefully you will see that the bearer shows or as gold and argent as grey. I would like to recommend to accept 2 versions from now on, one which follows the House of Luxembourg-Nassau rule and another one that follows the FIAV colour rule. Let the reusers choose what image they prefer. Is this an acceptable compromise for your? -- Maxxl² - talk09:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe I missed this discussion? Did you ever consider that? Silence, voluntary or not, is not an admission of anything. Fry1989eh?18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete" in an old DR related to a vectorized kangaroo traffic sign that you had uploaded.
.svg){kind=link}
_Coat_of_Arms.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Illegitimate Barrister 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
![[6]](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2014/06/07/2d/1e/446a0cf5878440df8bcebeb46ba04ea0-dca7d704f481400d9331081ea187f933-12.jpg){kind=link}
