User talk:Fry1989

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks of manually replacing hundreds of images across all the Wikiprojects (so I didn't have to), and for your tireless contribution to the field of heraldry and vexillology on Commons. Thank you! Sodacan (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
SVG Barnstar Hires.png The SVG Barnstar
For obvious reasons. INeverCry 20:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
SVG Barnstar Hires.png The SVG Barnstar
Thanks for making a vector version of this flag on such short notice! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
SVG Barnstar Hires.png The SVG Barnstar
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to make SVG flags of all these U.S. federal agencies! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussions ↓↓↓[edit]


The images for the Federal Shariat Court have been uploaded. Please make any adjustments necessary. User talk:Prez001

SVG road signs for Brazil and Argentina.[edit]

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.

--Amateria1121 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Btw I noticed your sandbox comparison table, it's much like the European, although you do have some errors. Would you mind if I work on it with you? Fry1989 eh? 22:23, 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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, BC has some weird road engineering practices...--Amateria1121 (talk) 19:36, 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? Fry1989 eh? 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good--Amateria1121 (talk) 22:51, 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)
Righto, and we have all the sign numbers at Senal AR so I'll do the renames and the infoboxes tonight. Fry1989 eh? 03:30, 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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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)
I noticed last night, it's great we have more signs :) Keep up the good work. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 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 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 :) Fry1989 eh? 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


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 šÁhiß talkcontribs 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I am not good with fonts. I would probably make it worse than better. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've resolved issue. Thanks! -- Wárrãich šÁhiß talkcontribs 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem, sorry I couldn't have been more help. Fry1989 eh? 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your reversion![edit]

I don't understand why you have power to stop other people changing that file. The color I edit is according to fact, not my personal opinion.--Jitcji (User talk:Jitcji) 06:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The files of flag, you recently reverted to the earlier version uploaded by me, are adjusted by Jitcji coordinating with me. Actually, he is asked by me to help to correct the colors of the military flags of the Republic of China (Taiwan.) Moreover, all the colors should be identical to the national flag if they are originated from it. That is, you might kindly cancel all reversion to all the files uploaded by me. Thanks. --Akira123 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Discussion[edit]

Dear Fry1989, I guess there is some misunderstanding among us. I believe that all we are enthusiastic about flags and coats. That is, all we pay much attention to any change of these files. If you felt bad or attacked by me before, I feel sorry to you. I sincerely invite you to discuss the colors of File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg since there are two sources you don't object to. Thank you. --Akira123 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Consensus"[edit]

Sure. I have dictionaries.--Jitcji (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mimic anyone. I just follow the reason that you protect the ROC National Emblem.--Jitcji (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Australian cover album[edit]

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.

If you want to take a look and leave your opinion, here is the debate about the cover. Regards, - Fma12 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Defense Force Emblems[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Think your being harsh on yourself there, in my humble opinion thought they were great. Sound might give it go bit later so Setanta Saki (talk) 21:32, 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. Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ROC's Military Flags[edit]

According to Enforcement Rules for Act of Ensign of the Armed Forces of the Republic of China, the fringe is not a decoration but part of the flag. If you read all the Appendixes, you'll realize that all the flags don't have the tassel except the standard of the President and the flags of the "Military Units." In other words, and in fact, if a flag is designed without tassel in the Appendixes, can't anyone "decorate" it with fringe. At least, the ROC's armed forces follow the rule strictly.--Akira123 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of flags on Commons which officially include a fringe but we do not, because a fringe is a decoration and not a physical part of the flag itself. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Fry1989 eh? 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope. In ROC's troops, any flag designed with the tassel in the Appendix must fly with its tassel. That is, the tassel is not a decoration but a physical part of the flag itself. Moreover, according to your opinion on the talk page of ROC's emblem, the Appendix is superior to what we do or not do on Wiki. Thus, you should help all the flags which officially include a fringe added it on Common in stead of reversion what Jitcji revises accroding to the Enforcement Rules.--Akira123 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you can provide the source says that the ringe is a decoration and not a physical part of the ROC's military flag itself, such as the standard of the President, can't you?--Akira123 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkmen military flags[edit]

I founded a article about the military flags from Turkmenistan.

Pictures of the military flags

Link to the picture 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the photo, I will make these soon. Fry1989 eh? 01:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Vatican City[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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)
I'm not wasting my time responding to a troll. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 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. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkmen air force flag[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:State flag of Greece (1863–1924;1935–73).svg[edit]

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)

Finland greater coat of arms[edit]

Hi, look at (again) the situation concerning the file: Finland Greater Coat of Arms.svg, please. --CoArms (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian road sign mistake[edit]


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 "Symbol delete vote.svg 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.

Regards, - Fma12 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's wonderful! Now we will have a concrete license to protect these signs from future DRs. Fry1989 eh? 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Emblem of the holy see[edit]

Are you crazy? Or blind?

That was designed by me and derived from free images of commons!! --Gambo7 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Only you are crazy to re-upload something immediately after it was deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You are so blinded by your fooliness you can't even see that this is completely different from this --Gambo7 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And you are a waste of time. Fry1989 eh? 17:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not asking you to intervene. I just think you would be interested in having a look at this discussion. 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

please comment[edit]

Commons_talk:Deletion_requests#responsibility. thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Finland greater coat of arms[edit]

Would You again look at the situation concerning the file: Finland Greater Coat of Arms.svg, please. -- 17:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Road traffic signs and markings of P R of China[edit]

Thanks for uploading some road traffic signs and markings of the People's Republic of China, but Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs and Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Markings would be much more proper tags.--Jusjih (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Fry1989 eh? 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome.I just searched "GB 5768" PDF 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[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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)

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg KY[edit]

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg is inconsistent with the World, US, and Homosexuality map in regards to Kentucky. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Then fix the map. Or if you are unable, ask someone else to fix the map. It really is that simple. Fry1989 eh? 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Umm... I did. And I took it to the talk. Nothing. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC) In fact, if it isn't updated by March 20 (when the law goes into effect) then the map outta be removed from all the wikipedia pages. It's inaccurate.--Prcc27 (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I will change the map on the 20th to reflect the law. Fry1989 eh? 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The ruling is under stay so I see no reason to change the map quite yet. Fry1989 eh? 18:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian road signs[edit]

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 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)
Yes, I've the full document... lat me know how can I do to give to you it...--Gigillo83 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by Antemister involving censorship[edit]

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.-- 00:21, 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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian CoA[edit]

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)

If they change the file, I will upload the non-stroke version separately. Their arguments mean nothing. Fry1989 eh? 18:05, 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. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

about deleting test files with title "File:Test-1395125760.033059..."[edit]


There are a number of messages from you at the user page of Selenium_user . Selenium_user is the test account we use in order to monitor the availability of the upload API in Commons.

It is our intention that these files be deleted automatically by normal Commons processes, and I was told that putting Category:Test Images on each of them would accomplish that.

If there are any other changes we can make to these files to make them more easily managed, please let me (or User:Selenium_user) know.

Thanks, Cmcmahon(WMF) (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


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. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Minister of Defence of Chile.svg[edit]

Why are you censoring and reverting my work? You don't have valid reasons to do it. --Echando una mano (talk) 01:20, 29 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. Fry1989 eh? 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 didn't realize we were ranking each other's efforts. Fry1989 eh? 02:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a pity that you always prefer the confrontation instead the collaboration. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:21, 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. Fry1989 eh? 02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Where did I laugh at you? --Echando una mano (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Either this logo does not require permission or it is not in the PD, both at the same time is not possible ...    FDMS  4    19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's too simple, it doesn't need permission. Fry1989 eh? 19:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
But if it is too simple, it is not CC BY-SA 2.0 ...    FDMS  4    19:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then change the license to PD-textlogo! Is it that hard? Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 30 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)

File:The Bar.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:The Bar.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LGA talkedits 07:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

More MUTCD signs[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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)
I wish I could draw images with my mind instead of a mouse and keyboard, I could do such a better job. Fry1989 eh? 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, drawing tablets don't help much. And feel free to edit any mistakes you see in the article.--Amateria1121 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2014 (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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 18:15, 13 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)

No problem. Fry1989 eh? 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Hey Fry1989 check out my gallery i've vectorized some of the military insignia of the albanian army and soon i will finish the other ones. Regards, AceDouble (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed yesterday. I'm so happy to see them, thank you. Fry1989 eh? 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Files by User:Xasartha[edit]

Hello Fry!

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)

I've nominated some of the more obvious ones, I'll keep going slowly. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fry, hope you're well. A user has contested my closure of this DR on my talk page. When you have a moment, could you please comment there? Thanks, FASTILY 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag of RMC (COM:COA sidebar)[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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)