User talk:Fry1989

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

Contents


Acknowledgements[edit]

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]

COM:COA[edit]

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)

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)

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)
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. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nearly finished those seals[edit]

It's only taken me 11 months... I could do with a bit of help on the Wisconsin one, though. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 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)

File:Naturdenkmal Schild.svg[edit]

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 - talk 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests for uploading more Danish road signs[edit]

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

I have to finish Slovenia and part of Sweden, but I will complete Denmark afterwards. Fry1989 eh? 17:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request assistance[edit]

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, Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

National coa[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 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. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements[edit]

Before we start an edit war, tell me please, where do you want to discuss about the changes ... *confused* since today I fought File talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg would be the right place? *SGR* (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A question to your road sign drawings[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

URGENT! help fix problem with swedish flag file[edit]

colours per http://riksarkivet.se/sveriges-flagga and http://riksarkivet.se/sveriges-flaggas-farger (this flag the correct colours but has some erors)

i think i made an error while updating the flag of sweden file, there are a shade left of the old colour and my upload did not change anything let alone on the english wikipedia and please use these exact same colours without interpretation since you agreed on these colours like in User talk:Steinsplitter http://riksarkivet.se/sveriges-flagga and http://riksarkivet.se/sveriges-flaggas-farger Enbionycaar (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

why did re upload old version, i thought you agreed on the colours?[edit]

please anwer here Enbionycaar (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I did agree to the colours from here, they're the exact same. Isn't that what you asked me to do? Fry1989 eh? 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
no the colours i uploaded on your talkpage
cache test
Enbionycaar (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
They are the same. I do not understand your complaint. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 25 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)
I will request the file on English Wikipedia to be updated as well. Fry1989 eh? 18:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Enbionycaar: I don't understand what is wrong with this flag. @Fry: Should i protect the flag now? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:47, 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. Fry1989 eh? 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese road signs[edit]

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)

File:Coat of Arms of Nigeria.png[edit]

Is it really Self-published work? And is CC-BY-3.0 licency correct? What about Nigerian copyright and this request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Nigeria.png? Aotearoa (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not consider the status of the image, I was merely categorising it. It may not be free. Fry1989 eh? 02:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese road signs (continued)[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Flags[edit]

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. Fry1989 eh? 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New Spanish Royal Standard[edit]

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)

I have looked at the source and the proportions do not appear to be discussed, and the source also shows wrong proportions for the old flags. I do not think it is correct. Fry1989 eh? 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I found another source with bigger arms, so I will change the flag back. Fry1989 eh? 21:15, 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 [1] 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) [2] 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 [3] 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.
Regards--Heralder (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg[edit]

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 - talk 09:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your silence as a YES and will act accordingly.-- Maxxl² - talk 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe I missed this discussion? Did you ever consider that? Silence, voluntary or not, is not an admission of anything. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Finnish Navy emblem[edit]

Hi, you have reverted the Finnish Navy Emblem to a unofficial version (as explained in the comments) is there a reason for this? --84.248.9.43 11:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Штандарт Президента Республики Беларусь.svg[edit]

Can you change this file: Presidential Standard of Belarus.svg

to match the current design: Flag of Belarus.svg

174.91.72.116 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I will fix the image later today. Fry1989 eh? 16:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Variant of the Ukrainian presidential flag[edit]

There is a variant of the Ukrainian presidential flag.

Штандарт Президента Украины.svg

Variant: [4]

File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg[edit]

I think the sword handles need to be gules. See en:coat of arms of Tonga. Would you be able to fix it? NYC JD (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late delay, I will see what I can do to fix it. Fry1989 eh? 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg[edit]

Hi Fry1989,

I left a message about the happening around this file here. I am looking forward to your input. Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if any other users have asked you to stop being their shadow. Fry1989 eh? 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

EPS versions of UK traffic signs[edit]

The images I uploaded came directly from the original UK Traffic signs image database. Most the images were in EPS and I converted them. The images look identical to the ones you are uploading. What are you trying to accomplish? --Svgalbertian (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

While that is true, there are inherent errors in the actual EPS files provided. The signs are not all symmetrical. For example, with the basic warning triangle I found that opening in it inkscape and flipping it around, points would move when they aren't supposed to. The same problem would happen with simple shapes like the uneven road symbol in File:UK traffic sign 556.svg. Also, they were not all the same size. File:UK traffic sign 543.svg was provided at a size nearly double that of File:UK traffic sign 512.1.svg. I know that in the long run it's a very minor nick, but I prefer when things are perfectly symmetrical and uniform where they are supposed to be. So I am taking the EPS files and re-drawing them where needed using the originals so that when I'm done they will be uniform in every aspect. Fry1989 eh? 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:EAA.png[edit]

Estimated Fry1989:

You are a powerful man.

2kb File:EAA.png erased, even without consensus.

Congratulations.

Girardelli G.Escucho 16:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You were told why File:EAA.png was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roundel of Argentina.svg, because SVG is the preferred format for these types of images and that your file was a tiny duplicate of File:Roundel of Argentina.svg. You can still use the SVG in your signature if you want. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but no fits, [[File:Roundel of Argentina.svg|25px]] is longer that [[File:EAA.png]], signature only allows 250 characters. Regards: Girardelli G.Escucho 23:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, it was not a personal decision, we just usually delete images that are small and have a SVG. If you want to upload your file again, I will not nominate it for deletion and I will explain why to everyone else so that it may stay. Fry1989 eh? 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You're a good person. Thank you! Girardelli G.Escucho 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

SVG request[edit]

Howdy, howdy! I was wondering if you could make an SVG of this flag here. There's an SVG you can use to help make it, here. Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister 00:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure can, I'll have that done later tonight. Fry1989 eh? 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! [:-)] Illegitimate Barrister 01:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbia road signs[edit]

Hello, Fry, Can you make road signs in Serbia, withouth graffiti? https://www.flickr.com/photos/109686737@N06/sets/72157644304142875 http://www.kbs.rs/userfiles/files/news/p%20sign%20kbs%202011.pdf http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1359819

I am sorry, I can not convert any of those images. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:FIFA-U17-WORLD-CUP-LOGO-03-Final.png[edit]

Dear Sir,

This is in reference to your deletion of the file : "File:FIFA-U17-WORLD-CUP-LOGO-03-Final.png" from Wikimedia commons.

The image was created from a template used by FIFA. They use this template for the U-17 World Cup, Main World Cup event and U-17 Women's world cup events.

With regards, --Souwrit.ray (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not address it's copyright status. Copyrighted materials can not be hosted on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto flag color[edit]

Hello. As a follow up to our discussion about the proper green color of the Esperanto flag, I have managed to receive an answer from the World Esperanto Association (UEA), in which they state two colors they use in actual recent publications linked to the World Congresses of Esperanto and general Esperanto symbolism. Because I think this puts an end to the discussion, I have posted the information once again at the Esperanto Wikipedia talk page. I hope you appreciate the bilinguality that I have tried to preserve. Also thank you for not changing the color until the dispute is settled. If you want to, although the distance is not that high, I agree that you now change the color in accordance with my own conclusion derived from the UEA's answer, i.e. to PANTONE 3415 (C 98, M 23, Y 82, K 11) = #05AF29 (UEA's recommendation for flag colors – I hope I have all the calculations right). --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have talked further to people from the UEA and we concluded that if you change the color of the flag to Pantone 3415C as you have suggested, therefore making it R 0, G 122, B 77 in the file (like on the Flag of South Africa.svg), that would be an acceptable color for all of us. The person to whom I have talked has expressed concerns in particular about the first proposal being too bluish, which the Esperanto flag was never meant to be, while there is probably some tollerance as long as the color is more or less "green". If you agree, please perform the necessary changes, and thank you for your help. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Ensign of the Falkland Islands (1948-1999).svg[edit]

I'm wondering whether you could clarify your reversion here. As far as I can see, the only difference between your version of the file and 5b6v's is the position of the white disc: 5b6v's is centered in the fly half of the flag, while yours is offset slightly to the top-right. Would you mind explaining why you feel 5b6v's changes constitute vandalism? Alkari (?), 9 August 2014, 03:12 UTC

The problem rather concerns File:Civil Air Ensign of Fiji.svg. I believe that 5b6v may be a sockpuppet of JSYR or Suzuki Auto, who were not confirmed as sockpuppets because they ceased editing before warranting a checkuser. If they are a sock, all of their uploads are under scrutiny. Fry1989 eh? 03:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy reply. "Scrutiny" shouldn't mean "automatic reversion", though. At File:Civil Air Ensign of Fiji.svg, 5b6v seems to have added 53 kB to the file size with no change in the image's appearance, so I definitely support your reversion there. But that dispute has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands ensign, where 5b6v's version is an improvement for both geometric accuracy and file size. I'd like to ask that you not continue to revert the changes to the Falklands ensign. Much appreciated! Alkari (?), 9 August 2014, 04:23 UTC

Finland Greater Coat of Arms[edit]

Would You update the file:Finland Greater Coat of Arms.svg, with the fir trunk, please? --85.76.100.14 13:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No I will not, I don't want anything more to do with those arrogant users. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Slovenia road sign III-75.svg[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you uploaded Slovenia road sign III-75.svg. Could you, please, modify it so that speed limit for expressways is 110 (not 100) km/h? Thus states the article 46 of 2010 Act Amending the Road Traffic Safety Act (Uradni list RS, #109/2010 from 30th December 2010), so this is so for the last few years. --romanm (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it. However, if you could elaborate on the source, it would be great. Did you find the image somewhere on the SI government's web page and converted it to SVG yourself? If so, please add the address and your contribution to the field "source". Thanks, — Yerpo Eh? 18:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I found two road company PDFs which contain the road signs and I extracted them. I can not link them in the source and so I attributed it to the Slovenian Highway Code. Fry1989 eh? 19:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Russia and Ukraine maps[edit]

Hi, there was a mistake made on a few files. I know you're not the one who made them but you seem to be very knowledgeable of how to edit SVG files. The northern part of Arabat Spit was a part of the Russian SFSR before 1954 just like all of Crimea, it was only transferred to Kherson Oblast after Crimea was given to Ukraine. Can you remove the Northern Arabat Spit from flag maps of the Ukrainian SSR and add it to the RSFSR. The following maps are the ones that need to be fixed, Flag-map of Ukrainian SSR (1945-1949).svg, Flag-map of Ukrainian SSR (1949–1954).svg, Flag-map of Russian SFSR (1945-1954).svg and Flag-map of Russian SFSR (1954).svg. Thank you! --KronosLine (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Fry1989 eh? 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Request, could you please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eduemoni?[edit]

Hello there, I've uploaded two SVG files which I edited based upon w:Dogecoin official logo, Dogecoin is a cryptcurrency open-source project released under MIT license[5], its cofounder ummjackson released the original files under Creative Commons Attribution license[6][7], however a user nominated them claiming copyright violation. Could you please comment on this deletion request? Eduemoni (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please use sub-categories[edit]

dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | русский | svenska | +/−


Over-categorization.svg
Start hand.svg
When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

––Apalsola tc 17:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am working rather hard on making a standard set of categories for "Road signs in" which you are screwing up by reverting me, the least you could do it talk to me about it first regarding your concerns instead of hitting the revert button. Try that, and maybe I'll change my mind. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So, you think you "own" the "Road signs in" categories and other users need your permission to modify them?
Definitely "Road signs in" categories do not belong directly under the country category. In addition "Roads in" categories are child categories of "Road transport infrastructure in" categories, so "Road signs in" categories should be placed only in one of these categories. ––Apalsola tc 08:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
And since "Category:Road signs in..." < "Category:Signs in..." < "Category:Symbols of...", "Road signs in" categories must not be placed directly under "Symbols of" categories, either. ––Apalsola tc 13:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say I own anything? Or that others require my permission to alter categories? You're making an incredible amount of assumption here and I have no obligation to explain anything to such and arrogant rude person who is obviously too foolish to ever consider that there was maybe a deliberate reasoning behind why I chose these 6 specific categories. The least you could have done, even if you think I am wrong, would have been to assume good faith in my efforts, which you did not and instead hit the revert button and accused me of overcategorization like I'm some virgin user who doesn't have a clue about subcats even existing. So as long as you address me with this attitude like you are better than me instead of realizing that maybe there was a systematic reasoning behind why I did it this way which you did not consider at all, piss off! Fry1989 eh? 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse you a kindly asked you to avoid placing categories into several categories within the same tree. In contrary, you say I am "screwing up", you call me "foolish" and "[an] arrogant rude person", and tell me to "piss off". So much for assuming good faith...
Anyway, I am still interested to hear what is the systematic reasoning behind your efforts. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Diamond warning sign (orange).svg[edit]

Hi - you reverted my code cleaning on this bloated file and added as edit summary "Don't". What does that mean? -- Maxxl² - talk 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It means that I work very hard on my files to make sure they have perfect symmetry and construction and I don't care about their file size anywhere near as much as I do that they be properly constructed, that often when users like yourself use tools to reduce their file size it usually messes something up with the file, and I don't like you touching them. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that you don't own the files you uploaded. I fail to notice a visual difference between old and new file so the code cleaning is OK. The validator just shows a warning about "No Character encoding declared at document level". On Frys file there are two notices about no checks for inkscape or RDF errors. --Denniss (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I never claimed ownership, I have described an issue with the code reduction methods used by various users which deform the files from my original construction of them. When a code reduction tool is used, it can alter the file's construction and points of reference may no longer be exact. It's not something that is readily visible unless you inspect the file, so most users wouldn't even notice a difference, but I do and it's something I take pride in when I construct images.
On top of that, I do not like Maxxl2 and would prefer them to not touch my works. They are not my friend, they called me a thief and created a sub-page to further that accusation, I never received any sort of apology for it, and I am not interested in their sudden desires to be collegial. Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hearts of Broken Love.ogg[edit]

Angel Sessions just sent permission for me to use "Hearts of Broken Love.ogg" on her Wikipedia page using the form. Thank you, Demetrius Guidry Author 2602:306:CFB6:CB00:A01C:1BAE:5C50:3BE6 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Um...what? Who? Where? Fry1989 eh? 02:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollbacker[edit]

I've added this right to your account. Perhaps you'll have a chance to roll back some Jermboy edits sometime soon... Here's another interesting rollback tool I've used with JB27 and Wikinger:

importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

This script gives you a "rollback all" option in the dropdown list on contribs pages, and rolls back about 35/40 edits per minute (unfortunately it creats a new window for each rollback, so a browser crash can be a danger). Just remember to rollback responsibly... Face-tongue.svg INeverCry 02:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't seen any recently but I'm always keeping my eye out for socks. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Source for flags and arms of Mexico[edit]

FAIL
OK
OK
OK
OK
And So OK
And so OK

My sources for shields and flags are:

http://www.desarrollopolitico.gob.mx/es/Desarrollo_Politico/La_version_oficial_del_Escudo_y_la_Bandera_nacionales

http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/servicios/venta-de-monedas-medallas-billetes-y-otros-product/monedas-y-medallas-de-oro/familia-del-centenario-/familia-del-centenario-.html

http://www.semar.gob.mx/unhicun/Libros_UNHICUN/assets/escudos-sellos-y-emblemas-oficiales-de-la-marina-de-guerra-mexicana.pdf

Pages and books from the Mexican government.

http://hubert-herald.nl/INHOUD.htm

ad from someone who has done a good job on the shield even has its very reliable and verifiable sources, most even via internet. and even this in English.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coins_of_Mexico

In this page I can not say much more. Faulty shields and flags, replaced only give you an example:

Shields were replaced by exhibiting significant errors, the simplest is to see this shield odviamente shield use the current version of the Mexican coat with aggregate that do not correspond with the version that was used between 1934 and 1968.

I hope your sources:


En español: Mis fuentes para escudos y banderas son:

http://www.desarrollopolitico.gob.mx/es/Desarrollo_Politico/La_version_oficial_del_Escudo_y_la_Bandera_nacionales

http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/servicios/venta-de-monedas-medallas-billetes-y-otros-product/monedas-y-medallas-de-oro/familia-del-centenario-/familia-del-centenario-.html

http://www.semar.gob.mx/unhicun/Libros_UNHICUN/assets/escudos-sellos-y-emblemas-oficiales-de-la-marina-de-guerra-mexicana.pdf

Paginas y libros del gobierno mexicano.

http://hubert-herald.nl/INHOUD.htm

pagina de alguien que ha hecho un buen trabajo sobre el escudo, incluso tiene sus fuentes muy fiables y verificables, la mayoria incluso via internet. e incluso esta en ingles.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coins_of_Mexico

De esta pagina no puedo decir mucho más.

De los errores en loa escudos y banderas sustituidos solo pongo un ejemplo:

Se sustituyeron los escudos por que presentan errores notable, el mas simple de ver es este escudo el escudo odviamente uso la versión actual del escudo mexicano con agregados que no se corresponden con la versión que se usaba entre 1934 y 1968.

Espero sus fuentes

Saludos--Sarumo74 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)