User talk:Fry1989

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Finland road sign 189.svg
I am taking image requests but may be slow in responding to or fulfilling such requests.



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)
Choco chip cookie.png Thanks for keeping the image category up to par. Enjoy! - FOX 52 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Erdbeerteller01.jpg The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.

For all the .svg (and flags) work you do here. Your edits are appreciated. :) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussions ↓↓↓[edit]


Hello, I just uploaded a recent image of the Pakistan elections commision logo at File:Emblem of the Election Commission of Pakistan.svg. Please take a look at it and make the necessary changes if needed. Image per

Thanks User talk:Prez001


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)


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 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 and (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 and 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)
Hello. I've seen that you have reverted the changes in file:Estandarte Real de España.svg when they were according the royal standard proportions and colour, as they can be seen in the official source (Real Decreto 527/2014), where these things are perfectly determined. Can you explain your reasons? Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk)

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? -- 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 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.

Flag of the President of Ukraine.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)


Estimated Fry1989:

You are a powerful man.

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


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?

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


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)
Sir, I would request you to please have a look at the logo in this page - <> and compare that with mine. You will be able to see that the wordmarks in both the logos "FIFA" and "U17 WORLD CUP" are in a stylized curvy blue background, and that "stylized curvy blue background" IS the "template" that I mentioned in my reply.

With regards : --Souwrit.ray (talk) 13:12, 15 October 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? -- 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 | +/−

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)


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('// 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]


My sources for shields and flags are:

Pages and books from the Mexican government.

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.

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:

09/28/14 Excuse me, but I have doubts, have you analisastes my references? and if so, if possible, already have the reference for your modifications ?. Oh and sorry for the bad editing on Commons --Sarumo74 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

10/15/14 Excuse me, but I have doubts, have you analisastes my references? and if so, if possible, already have the reference for your modifications ?. Oh and sorry for the bad editing on Commons, Saludos, --Sarumo74 (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

En español: Mis fuentes para escudos y banderas son:

Paginas y libros del gobierno mexicano.

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.

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

28-Sep-14 disculpeme, Pero tengo la duda, ¿ya analisastes mis referencias? y en su caso, de ser posible, ¿ya tienes la referencia para tus modificaciones?. Ah y disculpa por la mala edición en Commons.--Sarumo74 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

15-Oct-14 disculpeme, Pero tengo la duda, ¿ya analisastes mis referencias? y en su caso, de ser posible, ¿ya tienes la referencia para tus modificaciones?. Ah y disculpa por la mala edición en Commons.--Sarumo74 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I have no objection to you uploading your images separately, but please do not violate COM:OVERWRITE. Fry1989 eh? 17:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, but how do I correct the shield? in the file, Since this shield is not correct !, according to my references. including page of the Mexican government. Saludos --Sarumo74 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Flag Map of Chile[edit]

Hi!, i was wondering if you could make a flag map of chile, there is one right now but it is incomplete, (the islands are not represented as you can see in the map to the left). Well i hope you have the time, thank you and bye!!--Alexxxos (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to make a new map, but am having some difficulty. I will see what I can do though. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you for try it, take care.--Alexxxos (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Logo Guild[edit]

Hi Friend, ¿Could you please take a look and give a feedback on this issue? I think I did the right thing when uploading this logo but the nominator did not share my opinion.... So I hope you can clarify some points on this discussion (Of course I'd appreciate your assistance if I was wrong). Thanks in advance. Fma12 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Fry1989. You have new messages at Category talk:Road signs in Singapore#Parent categories.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Maps regarding Crimea[edit]

  • Hello, sir! I honestly do that what you are doing - putting the template "Inaccurate map" on the images showing Crimea as a part of Russia - is wrong. Here are my reasons: 1) The description of maps clearly stipulates that they show the opinion of one particular side of the conflict. 2) Maps showing Crimea simply as a part of Ukraine would violate NPOV as well, because they do not reflect the de-facto situation (Crimea is controlled by Russia and therefore Russian laws apply there). 3) There are lots of non-neutral images, including flag maps (Flag map of Korea (South Korea).png, for example) and no one puts any templates on them, since they do not violate rules and regulations of Wikimedia Commons 4) Different Wikipedias may use images for different purposes and you try to intimidate the editors with a label "using this image would a be violation of rules" 5) Template "Inaccurate map" is used for inaccurate maps, not for those someone considers non-neutral. If you still disagree, shall we ask admins to settle our dispute? Elmor (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I highly suggest you stop acting like you own these maps. Nothing stops anybody from using them if they wish to do so, but the notices should remain to warn users that these maps violate NPOV where that policy applies, such as articles. The maps with Crimea being a part of Ukraine do not violate NPOV because that is the internationally recognised border by every single country except for Russia which is a instigator of the dispute. I am not here to discuss other non-neutral maps that have nothing to do with the Crimea issue. If you feel there is some level of hypocrisy, you may add the templates to them yourself. If you remove these notices again, I will take this to a higher review. Please stop removing them. Fry1989 eh? 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you will not change your opinion, so please do take this to a higher review (and, please, inform me when you do), since it seems the only way to settle the dispute. Elmor (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The discussion did not end with administrators ruling in you favour, yet you restored the templates once again. Please revert your edits, otherwise I'll have to report your actions to the adminboard. Elmor (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It didn't go in your favour either, so you're in no position to dictate anything. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it did not go in your favour either Elmor, and there was certainly no agreement by other users or admins that the template is wrong. You have yet to provide any reason why the template is wrong, so no I will not remove them. Should you do so, I will re-open the AN and this time demand a resolution. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. You are the one making an action (adding the template), so it is actually you who should justify it, not the other way. Shall we go back to the "User problems" page and ask for a resolution together? Elmor (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not need to justify anything, YOU need to explain why a map which displays a territorial situation that is obviously under international dispute should not be clearly labelled as such. So far, you have failed to give any reason. I will not remove the templates, and I will continue to add them back until there is community consensus for their removal. Fry1989 eh? 02:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Fry already has justified the template, the recognition of Crimea being part of Russia isn't recognised internationally. I support Fry adding the template to images relating to the disputed territory. Bidgee (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well. this is not how it works (at least usually). When you make an edit and someone reverts it, you go to the talk page and try to form a consensus, instead of pushing your edit through. Meanwhile, the file or an article remains as is was until the consensus us being reached. If you interlocutor clearly sabotages the discussion or tries to violate the rules of the project, you address the administration. In any case, I created a new topic at the noticeboard page, so let us continue our discussion there. Elmor (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps should not show Crimea as being part of Russia, since the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of the world's countries do not recognize it as such. Illegitimate Barrister 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Please note that I have raised a matter than concerns you at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Long_term_pattern_of_image_overwrites_of_others_by_Fry1989. Thanks -- (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You know as I said, if it weren't for a few different things, we probably could have been friends. I don't understand your hunt against me, especially since my edits are starting to wind down. I have a backlog of probably 3000 images to upload and catalogue but I'm loosing my drive, in part because of people like you. Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As an interested party.[edit]

As an interested party I thought you should know that Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis exists. And so I can't be accused of canvassing I'm only informing yourself and Fastily. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Kind of on your side this time[edit]

I don't understand what half the stuff they're discussing on AN/U is supposed to be, or why it should be considered important. Don't feel like directly intervening in the mud-wrestling... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Argentina and Mandatory signs around the world.svg[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that you updated Mandatory signs around the world.svg and changed Argentina's color. So in order to update my MUTCD signs page accordingly, I looked around, and it seems that your update is wrong - it should stay orange. Argentina still uses both type-A and type-B mandatory signs; type-A indicate permitted actions and type-B indicate mandatory actions. For your reference: Source 1 Source 2

Just wanted to let you know.--Amateria1121 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Argentina also uses a third type of mandatory sign, blue with a red circle where other countries use Type A or Type B. That is why I have made Argentina purple. Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought that was an optical illusion. Perhaps update the description then? You might have to invent a "proceed straight" sign in the third color scheme for consistency's sake though.--Amateria1121 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide how to change the description to reflect Argentina, it's difficult but I'll figure it out soon. Fry1989 eh? 00:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


About your revert war with user:YLSS, the very reason your version isn't suitable on Commons which requires every file to be copyright-free technically because the "deer" is not "simple geometry" and is eligible for copyright. If you want to have the deer version, you should upload it to the local (e.g. Russian) Wikipedia under the fair use license. But in any case the usage of any fair use file is very limited. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that the deer was taken from another Commons file and therefore is already copyright-free? Your concern, while well-intended, does not apply. Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, part of the argument was that it was the wrong deer. So if it's the wrong deer, and one that is copyright-free then the whole drama becomes moot. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the President of Paraguay (1957-2013)[edit]

Can you make a historical presidential flag of Paraguay: Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg with this emblem: Coat of arms of Paraguay (1957-2013).svg 22:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I will upload it soon. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


you have a lot of favorite flags

Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about Dutch Wikipedia issues[edit]

About this issue, I have a question: Did you document this and make a post on Meta? If not, that may be something you may consider WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is documented on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I would have to go back through several months of data to find everything again before I could present it to Meta. I chose to request my account be blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia to just avoid having to do anything with them. They don't want me there, they can have their way. Fry1989 eh? 18:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Anguilla Flag[edit]

Hi, I have a little question, why some users like the non official version of the flag from anguilla, for me doesn't matter but I don´t like so much the shape of the coat of arms, I saw in the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony that the flag is with the shape that you don't accept, in that case please fix the shape of the coat of arms, thank you, greetings from Chile. --Crisolympic16 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fry! Last November I went to Turkey, so I can saw how was Turkish road signs made... After I've searched for them on the web and I've found some pages from the Turkish government, like this...I hope you'll can to open this. Bye!! --Gigillo83 (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Flag request?[edit]

Hey, I love your version of the United States 51 Star Flag:

And I was wondering if I might request a couple of other rare flags be made up, with the 2000x rendering option? That is the personal flag of George Washington from 1775. That is a different, and rather unusual 51 star United States flag proposition, notably rendering the stars as Pac-Man. And this is a proposed version of the Union Jack without Scotland.

Thank you!

Seals of Ohio state agencies[edit]

Hi, would you mind updating File:Seal of the Ohio Senate.svg to use File:Coat of arms of Ohio.svg instead of File:Seal of Ohio.svg? Here are some examples of the seal in use: [8][9][10] Also, File:Seal of the City of Youngstown (Ohio).svg has a typo. Thanks for your help! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Fry1989 eh? 17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert input[edit]

Howdy, partner! I was thinking of reverting the File:Seal of Detroit, Michigan.svg to the 25 July 2013 version, and would like to hear your thoughts on it. The reason for reverting is that I think it might be covered under Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Files_with_current_data, as the current rendition appears to be outdated. If not, I'll just upload the 25 July 2013 version under File:Seal of Detroit.svg. Likewise, I uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Utah.svg under this rationale, as the previous version was factually inaccurate; I'm sure that is covered under the overwrite guidlines. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the seal was updated or if the version on the flag is just a simplification. I would suggest uploading it separately. The flag of Utah is a different situation, the flag was redesigned so it was right to overwrite. Fry1989 eh? 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the advice! I'll upload the seal seperately under a new name. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister 00:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Still with the Austro Hungarian fake flag[edit]

Hi Fry! Happy new year! Sorry to boring you again always with the same issue but it seems that the fake flag [11] is going to be widespread used again in several wikis instead of this [12] wich is *png

Can you kindly provide please to create a new svg version of this [13] using i.e. this one as basis: [14]] with the same red colour of this: [15]?

Thank you in advance! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I will look into it. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Türkmenistanyň baýdagy[edit]

Hello! Turkmenistan has a different flag. Please redo with a new flag if not difficult. Thanks. Stasyan117 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems is NOT Requests for Adminship. There is no justification for you or anybody else to be stating whether a user, especially one totally unconnected with the discussion at hand should be an administrator or what you feel about them. That should be left for an RfA. If you make a further attack about Fae, I will block you, simple as. You presumably saw my earlier comment and chose to ignore it, determined to cause trouble. Well that is not happening. You can restore whatever parts of your comment you desire without any further comment on Fae or RfA. Nick (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do not stop removing my completely unrelated response to Geogene because you are so upset I don't think another user should be an admin (I notice you did not remove Tuvalkin's comment regarding that, only mine), I am going to be very very angry. And don't even bother threaten me with a block, you may not have noticed but I've barely been active the last few weeks and a block for stating my mind would nether teach me a lesson or look proportionate. "Quite frankly Ma'am, I don't give a damn." Fry1989 eh? 00:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've asked Tuvalkin to strike their comment, it was made 40 minutes before I was aware of it. I've removed your comment because you left it after I left a message asking Tuvalkin and by association, everybody else, to avoid making comments which could cause trouble. For what little it's worth, I'd do exactly the same if someone said the same about you. Nick (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Road Warning signs around the World.svg[edit]


The title of the document is still about homosexuality laws.

This should be changed.


Vargenau (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. My map was derived from the Homosexuality Laws map and that is why it is sourced in the file description. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I do not think I am mistaken.

If you read the source code of

you see:

    id="title8197">World homosexuality laws</title>
          rdf:resource="" />
       <dc:title>World homosexuality laws</dc:title>


Vargenau (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I understand now. I have corrected the META date. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Chile approves same-sex civil unions.[edit]

Can you change the color of Chile in this file File:State_recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_(South_America).svg, please?. I think Light blue is the right color. Chile approves same-sex civil unions. Thank you!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Haikou.svg[edit]

I responded to your arguments. I await your response. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Instead of reverting me/if you're going to revert me- please discuss at the respective talk pages. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela Roundel[edit]

Sorry Fry, I don't speak English, but I try.

The Roudel of Venezuela (Escarapela) was changed in 2012 according to the directives of painting directive issued by CEO-DIR-119 (31/08/2012) and CEO-DIR-120 (4/9/2012). Unfortunately it is not online official information and that the guidelines were printed on paper.

However, here's a tweet issued by the Venezuelan Air Force confirming that is guided by the guidelines issued by the CEO-DIR-119.

These links more information. Include infographics Bolivarian Military Aviation. [16] [17] [18]. The information was written by Adolfo Alfonzo, Subdirector of the magazine "Revista Ámbito Cívico Militar" and Editor of the virtual magazine "CAMUFLAJE, ARTE E ILUSTRACIÓN".

In Spanish:

Las Directivas fueron elaboradas en plena facultad por el Grupo de Dirección de la Tarea Halcón con amplia participación decisoria operativa y logística de los 4 Componentes (EB, AB; AMB y GNB) y aprobado por el Grupo de Dirección de la Tarea Libertad en el marco del Plan Sucre con soporte en el CRBV, LOSN, LOFANB dentro de los proyectos y planes vigentes para el desarrollo nacional que adelanta el Comando Estratégico Operacional;y el Ministerio Popular para la Defensa.

La Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana establece mediante estas Directivas las modificaciones necesarias en sus insignias y marcas, respondiendo a las nuevas situaciones tácticas y de seguridad como se establece en la Quinta Disposición Transitoria de la Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley de Bandera, Escudo e Himno Nacional (2006). Las Insignias y marcas modificadas de uso en aeronaves administrativas de La Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana cumplen con los requisitos de identificación visual como se establece en Convenio sobre Aviación Civil Internacional de 1944, Capítulo III Sobre la Nacionalidad de Aeronaves, artículos 17 al 21.

La Directiva CEO-DIR-119 deroga: EJÉRCITO: Instructivo Nº EJ CAVEJB 05 11; ARMADA: Directiva DIR-OR-CGA-0003-C; AVIACIÓN: Directiva FAV/D 60-18 del 16 de Junio de 1988, Ordenes Técnicas 1-1-4, 1-1-8, 35-1-3, 36-1-3, 42A-1-1 y 42A2-1-4 y GUARDIA NACIONAL: Directiva de identificación de las aeronaves de la Guardia Nacional Nº 587 del 16 de Abril de 1994; RAV 43 (Mantenimiento); RAV 91 (Operación General de aeronaves y reglas de vuelo).

Las Directivas entraron en vigencia a partir de la fecha de su publicación. Emisión: 31-08-12; Aprobación 17-11-12; Publicación 05-12-12.

Regards. --Vinotinto1000 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fry. I do not know if this will serve you as a reference, but I leave a link ( to the official website of Strategic Operational Command of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces of Venezuela. As you may notice, the magazine "Ámbito Cívico Militar" it is edited and published by this institution. Unfortunately only be seen online the latest publication of the magazine. As I said before, the changes of the roundel were published in the edition No. 37 of the magazine.
Given that the image I uploaded was reversed, I do not know what steps to take, because the roundel (File:Roundel of Venezuela.svg) going for three years outdated.
Do not be surprised if much echo information is ignored. In fact many Venezuelans do not even know what a roundel, let alone use. Since 1999 the government of Venezuela is determined to change the symbols of the institutions and the nation, hence the reason that many changes go unnoticed.--Vinotinto1000 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1977 Romanian stop sign[edit]

Please refrain from adding the black border on the 1977 Romanian stop sign. It needs to remain EXACTLY as Romania intended it. There is no sign in Romania that has that black border. Let's keep it that way. Dude00007 (talk)

It is EXACTLY as Romania intended it, but a black border is necessary or you can not see the white part. Fry1989 eh? 20:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And you called me 'hypocritical' when the border I used was for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY. This is about Romania, you were referring to an edit I was doing to a GERMAN road sign. So don't call people hypocrites when their edits aren't, OK? Dude00007 (talk)
Ah yes, different country so that makes it ok. The Romanian stop sign does not have a black border, but the German speed limit sign does not have one either does it? The reason those files have a border is because without one, the external white area is invisible, it is needed. Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not "invisible", it's just hard to see. But if you absolutely need to have a border, let's end this. Revert the current one to the borderless, and upload your own bordered version. There. Problem solved. Dude00007 (talk)
No. Fry1989 eh? 13:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then let's leave the bordered, and I upload the borderless. Dude00007 (talk)

Flag of Morocco[edit]


Could you please take a look on File talk:Flag of Morocco.svg#Bigger star before reverting my edit? The official portal of the Government of Morocco shows an unbordered star with a radius of 1/2, and that prevails over a 1915 decree that only deals with merchant/maritime flags.


--Omar-toons (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not. The portal does not contain an official construction sheet or rules on the proportions, which the 1915 decree did. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The 1915 decree only talk about the naval ensign, not the national flag. It does not prevail over Gov's website.
--Omar-toons (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Naval Ensign and the National Flag should share the same proportions, wouldn't that make sense???? Either provide a construction sheet, or the 1915 decree is supreme. Fry1989 eh? 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous deletion request[edit]

What's the haps, Fry-Fry? This D.R. may be of your interest, or amusement. Who knows? Maybe even both! In any event, it's got to be one of the most colossally ridiculous deletion requests I've yet to come across in my years on the Commons. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 12:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg[edit]

Please explain what edits I made on that map that you consider to be incorrect. Because every single edit I made on that map is up today and accurate. If I made an error and you could point that out to me that would be great. Just undoing my edit for no reason kinda pisses me off to great deal. Thank you and have a nice day. AHC300 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests for logos[edit]

Hi, thanks for noticing a few logo uploads today! For the future, please use {{duplicate}} when a higher-quality version (e.g. SVG) is available and {{copyvio}} when the copyright violation is obvious (such as logos consisting of more than basic shapes). This makes dealing with those cases more straightforward. Thanks again for helping to make Commons a better place! Wuzur 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Sweden[edit]

On 26 May 2014 you uploaded a new version of File:Flag_of_Sweden.svg citing "Per user talk and source". What is your source for those colors? The blue in the new version is much too pale. Kolbasz (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I see now: this talk section? Best I can figure, said user simply copied the colors from the GIFs at . The actual official specification is NCS 4055-R95B, clarified as CIE xyY (0.189, 0.192, 8.3) - everything else is a conversion (and color space conversions are tricky!). And it seems someone failed with those GIFs (but with them being GIFs of all things, this is not entirely surprising).
Anyway. Plugging (0.189, 0.192, 8.3) into [19], which tends to be good enough (see: color space conversions being tricky), yields (12, 84, 142) or #c548eff - a much better result. Kolbasz (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I will not be changing the colours. I have to agree with the current ones at this time. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Why? They are quite simply wrong. Kolbasz (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice, Please[edit]

Can you advise as to how the deletion request and the reason for it, for the Dual Cypher of Prince Charles-Phillippe and Princess Diana d'Orleans on my talk page should be handled? Thanks--Glasshouse (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, the cypher is obviously ancient and too old to be copyrighted. Cheers. Fry1989 eh? 03:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.--Glasshouse (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Governor-General of Belgian Congo.svg[edit]

You should really pay attention before increasing the size of the file by about 47,000% ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I will ignore my first instinct to tell you where to stick it, but I don't need to be talked down to because of my SVG skills over a few hundred KB. Fry1989 eh? 15:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As I told you before, I'm by no means as much of an SVG file-size fetishist as several other users on Wikimedia Commons. However, increasing a file's size in bytes by about 470 times (without a very specific valid reason) should raise a red flag, and could be avoided by exercising an ordinary degree of care. P.S. As was discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/06 , you have good practical Inkscape skills, but that's not the same thing as having true SVG skills (i.e. being able to deal with SVG code directly). AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If it matters so much, how about you teach me instead of criticising me? If you're not such a fetishist, it shouldn't matter for you any more than it matters for me. Either way just telling me to "really pay attention" isn't helpful, especially when I am re-constructing the flag (which I have no idea how to do in code) as opposed to simply altering the colours (which I do know how to do in code). Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
When I say "exercise an ordinary degree of care", I don't mean within Inkscape, but so that the size of the file version you upload is not grossly discrepant with the size of the existing file version on Commons (unless you have legitimately introduced a lot of new complexity into your file version). The size of a file should be reported in the "Upload a new version of this file" screen of your browser (before you actually upload the file). There's supposedly a command in some versions of Inkscape to delete unused definitions from an SVG file, but since I only use an (obsolete version of) Inkscape to view and convert SVG files (not actually to edit SVG files), I can't help you with the details. In the case of this particular file, deleting everything between "<defs>" and "</defs>" in a text editor would have eliminated 99% of the bloat without doing any harm to the file, but that's not true in general, and a full tutorial on how to edit raw SVG code would be lengthy... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem with you?[edit]

You have been invited many time to explain your editions. In spite of that, you've consistently refused to do so as if you thought this is a game or a question of having it bigger. Given your track, I'd prefer not to report you, but it seems as if you're actively looking for it. --Discasto talk 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

TRY ME! Asqueladd made a bad faith accusation against me, and you just made a personal attack against me. See what happens. Fry1989 eh? 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that this is a game? :-( --Discasto talk 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, but you appear to. Bringing up my past block log, accusing me of pretending this is about who has it bigger, Asqueladd accusing me of having an agenda for a 5-year old edit. The two of you seem to enjoy making a game out of this. Fry1989 eh? 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My grasp of the english language is not that good. Maybe 'agenda' was not the more precise word. I simply saw no reason aside from the purely personal taste standpoint for that edition. I saw no "bad faith" (whatever that is?? :-O) in you, but a chain of edits by the same user producing a disruptive effect across the projects, as you were reverted here (the place where I came across the commons file) for similar reasons by a trusted user in the spanish wikipedia. I am truly sorry for personalising the issue, but well, now I've explained myself, don't let a trivial beef to drive us away from bringing the real arguments and having a proper and healthy discussion. Best wishes, mate.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) PS: For sure I am not enjoying this, I dunno why you said that!! :(

Assistance with svg[edit]

Hi Fry, I was wondering if you could see where I've gone wrong with File:Adelaide Airport logo.svg? I have worked on logos that have gradient in the past, all of them needed some work to get them to work (image server had issues rendering to png) but I'm quite busy. Most likely did something that is impossible for the image server to render, even though it displays fine in my browser and image editor. Bidgee (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on there, but I don't really have much experience with gradient SVGs. My guess is something bugging it up, I tried to convert to paths but it still isn't rendering. Sorry. Fry1989 eh? 01:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for looking at it though. :) Bidgee (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Worked it out. :) Issue was that it was made up of "path"s and not "compound path"s, illustrator can be a pain in creating svg files for Wikipedia/Commons. Bidgee (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg[edit]

Dear Fry, Permjak tries to delete the file: Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg But, this is proposal to become the flag of Pskov Oblast. It should not be deleted because the Governor of that Oblast said that Pskov Oblast needs a flag. 18:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for creating SVG files of Wikimedia projects. Also, thank you for contributing countless SVG road sign diagrams. TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 13:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional Philippine road sign diagrams[edit]

Dear Fry1989.

I am from the Philippines. Already, there are only 38 files on the category about Philippine road signs. Accordingly, most of the Philippine road sign are mostly based on the Vienna Convention (such as the red and white triangle on warning road signs, excluding the crossbuck on railroad crossings, the red and white circle with a red oblique line on prohibitory road signs, excluding the no entry/do not enter sign, the blue circle with white pictogram on mandatory signs, the blue rectangle for information signs, etc.), as a signatory since 1968, but present signage are influenced by US MUTCD signs (such as the fluorescent yellow-green signs, used as more retro-reflective variants for pedestrian crossing, school zone, bicycle crossing and handicapped crossing signs on heavily used national highways or arterial thoroughfares, the "verbose" green guide signs, sign typeface (Highway Gothic), and, also, pictograms on signs, based on the Standard Highway Signs drawings) and Australian road signs (such as standard expressway signage (group GE-Guide signs for expressways), mostly seen in the South Luzon Expressway, the no entry sign, turn restriction signs (with some differences), and the kind of English, such as "No Entry" in place for "Do Not Enter" and "No Overtaking" (Filipino:Bawal lumusot) in place of "Do Not Pass" or "No Passing". The common typeface on road signs in the Philippines is Highway Gothic, but Helvetica, Arial and Clearview(Used on guide signs, especially expressway signage, to replace Highway Gothic, subject to haloing that affect sign visibility at night) signs also appears on signage.

I have SVG's of Philippine road signs, but I am unclear of the configuration number, which can be found in the Road Sign and Markings Manual, that can be downloaded as ZIP files. I will help add more signs based on the standard signs and categorize them as "Regulatory road signs", "Special regulation signs", "Warning road signs", "Guide road signs", and "Hazard road signs", but I have trouble downloading the ZIP files from the Department of Public Works and Highways' official website. Can you help me add more Philippine road sign diagrams?

--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Road Sign and Markings Manual with the sign numbers in it in PDF format. I can email that to you, if you would like. Fry1989 eh? 21:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Fry1989. It seems that downloading that manual is difficult, since my computer stops working, especially when it is overheating. I can help, although the download of the ZIP file may take a half hour. I will reply in case downloading is difficult, so, I will obtain the PDF instead by e-mail.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 00:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989, I have a copy of those Road Signs and Markings Manual (2 PDF's). I will work on the configuration of the signs. You may work on improving the signs after I upload them with the PD-PhilippinesGov or other public domain license template. Hope that you add more Philippine road signs on this collaboration. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I look forward to working with you on these road signs :) Fry1989 eh? 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded new Philippine road sign diagrams with words, but the letters does not match the real typeface (Philippine road signs mostly uses a font similar to the FHWA font used in American and Australian road signs, but, some signs uses Arial, Clearview (common on new guide signs because of high legibility at night compared to Highway Gothic, which is subject to haloing by headlights), Helvetica, and even Franklin Gothic).

Philippines road sign R5-10.svgPhilippines road sign R5-8.svg
Does the letters needed to be converted into paths in order for the letters to render properly?--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not very good with text unfortunately, so I don't know how to fix that. I would suggest a Graphic Lab request for the problems with the text rendering. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Fry1989
I have been adding more road signs of the Philippines, along with Photo07 now works with SVG road signs of the Philippines. Two warning sign shapes are used in the Philippines, the red and white triangle (Vienna Convention standard) and the fluorescent yellow-green and black pentagon (taken from the school zone sign on the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and adopted in the 2012 version of the Road Signs and Pavement Markings Manual to replace the red and white triangle for pedestrian and school zone signs. Grandfathered pedestrian and school road signs using the red and white rectangle still appear after the 2012 amendments to the manual.). Fry1989, you can use the red triangle from a copy of this file by Photo07 (talk)with rounded corners to create more of those warning road signs using that warning sign shape. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I will see if I can improve the triangle and make more signs soon. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a note, the triangle was made using the new live corners tool of Illustrator (pretty neat feature!) using the angle measurements in the manual (600X600) so it should be quite accurate with nothing much to change. :) --Photo07 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's one thing I struggle with along with text. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989, don't forget to create subcategories for all of the road signs of the Philippines. Philippine road signs are grouped as Regulatory, Warning, Guide (including signs for expressways/controlled access highway), and Traffic Instruction signs.

Also, some signs will be only used in the future, such as route number signs for national highways, so, place a note on the description of those files that states that they will be used in the future.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 07:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Georgia.svg[edit]

Fry, back in 2013, an editor changed this file, both the color and the geometry, with no explanation. The color had been explained in this 2009 edit/upload by Zscout. The editor reverted back to Zscout's version just before that; but Zscout and others had corrected the geometry and color. You uploaded a new version with rose but same math as previous.

There the color sat, incorrect, until Lzhl corrected it April 9. However, this user did not explain the change, so I don't wonder that you reverted it.

On April 12, the user again changed the file, this time with much more explanation, suggested discussion on Talk, and placed an explanation there. You reverted and made no explanation or attempt to discuss. Because this is a highly-used image, that eventually brought attention and the page has been protected. In fact, the document Lzh1 pointed to was enough, carefully reviewed, to suggest that he was right, but a quick review of the file history made this completely obvious. You compounded an old error of your own, back in 2013, by blind-reverting Lzh1 when he tried to fix it.

I have explained to him that how he handled this led to a problem, but you also did not handle this well. You reverted him, twice, and made no attempt to discuss. You did not respond on the Talk page. It will now waste administrator time to fix the image.

Please be more careful before reverting more than once. I could see an argument for your going ahead and making that second revert, but you were then derelict in not making any effort to understand and seek consensus.

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Road signs in Sri Lanka[edit]

I requesting you, if you can please create Sri Lanka Road sign svg images. Below is the the link of The Motor Traffic Act of Sri Lanka. There are all road signs in that.
Thanks - User talk:Chamath456 20 April 2015

Thank you, I will upload those signs in the future, though it will probably be a few weeks from now. Fry1989 eh? 16:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

SVG road signs of Indonesia[edit]

Hi, Fry1989

I am still busy working on Philippine road sign SVG, but, I want you to help upload SVG road signs of Indonesia, because they are mostly PNG. Indonesian road signs incorporate European and American sign elements (The yellow diamond warning road signs in Indonesia is permitted as a warning sign shape (Type B) by the Vienna Convention. All the other signs incorporate European elements. Indonesian new road sign ideograms are mostly taken from the Standard Highway Signs drawings for the US MUTCD, with a few exceptions.).Also, I will provide you a source, so, you will know the official diagrams for the SVG road signs of Indonesia.

Permenhub 13/2014 (PDF) by the Ministry of Transportation (Indonesia)

You may save a copy of the PDF file, so, you can copy the images as PNG files to be converted to SVG by bitmap tracing (via Inkscape) before uploading.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I will upload the Indonesian road signs, but it will be a while. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I will keep a log for those signs that you will upload soon. I hope that you will convert all of those Indonesian road sign PNG diagrams on Category:Diagrams of road signs of Indonesia to SVG's, that you may categorize by type (Warning, Prohibitory, Mandatory, Information, and Temporary). I tagged that category for cleanup (PNG to SVG). You may now work on retracing those PNGs or recreating those bitmap road sign diagrams (especially all prohibitory signs (excluding prohibitory signs 2a1-Road closed and 2a2-No entry, and all height, width, length, and weight restriction signs (Prohibitory signs 2d1-2d12), that uses the red circle with a red slash, that appears at most prohibitory road signs in most countries) out of components of other SVG road sign diagrams in the Commons or create them by yourself, and saving them as SVG.

I can help clean up all of those PNG Indonesian road sign diagrams and recreate some out of the official diagrams shown at the Permenhub 13/2014 (PDF) by the Ministry of Transportation of Indonesia , while I create more Philippine road sign diagrams by myself out of the signs on the current Road Signs and Pavement Markings Manual by the Department of Public Works and Highways. I look forward that you will clean up all of those Indonesian road sign diagrams and convert all of them as high-quality SVG's.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I will start work on the Philippine signs later today. When I am done with them, I'll start on Indonesia next. How does that sound? Fry1989 eh? 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems all right. And I hope you will clean up all of those PNG Indonesian road sign diagrams, and create more Sri Lankan road signs, as per the request above this topic.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 09:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am working on the regulatory signs in the Philippines for now. Then I will get to the warning signs and so forth. When I am done with the Philippines, I will do Indonesia and then Sri Lanka. Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, but I started uploading Indonesian road signs diagrams, with 4 being uploaded. I am starting it slowly, as there is still a backlog involving Philippine road signs.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 11:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
TagaSanPedroAko, I am sorry but I haven't had much energy or focus lately. I still want to do these signs, I just have been very very slow. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989 We are both slow on working with this. We are on the same boat as you.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 04:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mandatory signs around the world.svg[edit]

Can you help fix the SVG metadata of this file? Mandatory signs around the world.svg

It shows the same issue as on a previous post related to this.

Metadata details.

          rdf:resource="" />
       <dc:title>World homosexuality laws</dc:title>

--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 16:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, fixed now. Fry1989 eh? 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Rounded equilateral triangle[edit]

Yes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's now at File:W series triangle.svg (sorry for delay, but I was semi-offline on Thursday and Friday). By the way, 600 is the length of a side of the enclosing triangle, not the width of the rounded (red) triangle... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
File:W series triangle.svg doesn't have any layers at all, in the specific sense. There's one path outline which is filled as #ffffff and stroked as #ff0000 with width 28. The native coordinates of this path are centered around (0,0), so there's also a translate command to pull it into the image frame -- and that's it.
It's not too clear to me that the 9x9 (or 450x450) grid in has a consistent alignment with the triangle, so I'm not sure that there would be much point for me to add it into the SVG file. Anyway, you can set up a non-rendering drawing grid within Inkscape, right? AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
8vWyqmI.png makes it clear that 600 is not the width of the red rounded triangle, but of an unrounded (pointy) triangle outside of (enclosing) the red rounded triangle. The width=600 height=520 measurements on mGvVVQY.png indicate the same thing: the height of a pointy equilateral triangle with sides of 600 is 519.615242 by basic geometry (300*√3), but if the red rounded triangle had width=600, then its height would be 528.91586... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Manitoba coat-of-arm[edit]

Ne pas changer: le votre est faux. Voir l'officiel :
(pas de bord jaune, bison roux, pas Or)
Si celui que j'ai dessiné ne vous plait pas, créez en un autre, ne modifier pas le mien. Ssire (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Road signs Montenegro and Bosnia[edit]

Hi Fry! How are you? I'd like to ask to you a thing: I've made quite all European Countries's road signs, but I can't find a source to find Montenegro and Bosnia-Hercegovina's road signs...can you kindly look at internet if you can find a source which with I can sraw those road signs? Thank you a lot. --Gigillo83 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gigillo83:, I have a copy of the road signs in Bosnia that I can send you in email. It is in PDF format but the signs are not in SVG so they will have to be created. I have not seen one for Montenegro, but I will look again. Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thank you if can send to me that list...I'll chack, with that file, if I'll find something more accurate or, otherwise, I'll draw signs. Please send it to my mail...thank you! You can find address on my Italian discussion page... Thanks!!--Gigillo83 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I need your help, I have seen that you have made many flags and coats of various countries, please , I'm going to see if you help me please with Coat of Arms of Guatemala, before 1871. Between they are these :

I do not know if you can give best format and deinición . Thanks in advance . --ElisonSeg (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ElisonSeg:, I am sorry but I won't be able to create those images. They are too complicated for my abilities. I would recommend the graphic lab either here on Commons or on Wikipedia. There is also a Spanish graphic lab that may be able to work on it too. Fry1989 eh? 05:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --ElisonSeg (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong road sign 105.svg[edit]

Hello. There is a mistake on Hong Kong road sign 105.svg, the bottom right character of that sign should be the same as the bottom right character of Hong Kong road sign 110,that is "崗". Regards.--Hang9417 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I will see if I can fix it. Fry1989 eh? 16:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I can not fix the character. Fry1989 eh? 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reason for deletion of some logos[edit]

Fry, please read COM:TOO, which shows the threshold of originality of logos by country. Some logos are public domain in the United States, but not in their source country, so you must upload the logo in a local wiki. Uploading logos that are only in the US public domain are all copyright violations, and must be speedily deleted. Repeated uploading of copyright violations will result in a block.

Hope this helps.
--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 09:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of COM:TOO, I've been working on the threshold of originality on DRs for years. I know what I'm doing. Fry1989 eh? 19:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

UK Road signs[edit]

I'm motivated to withdraw the recent DR, if you (or the original uploader) is willing to do some legwork, in getting some kind of response from the Department of Transport filed with OTRS.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I will not do so. OGL applies to all signs under the DfT. Fry1989 eh? 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If you say so :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Checking in[edit]

I've finished with university for the summer, so I'm just wondering if I've promised you anything that I never followed through with that you'd still like doing? If not, I'll just take a crack at some of the requests in the GL. Hope you're keeping well.  :) NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 19:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@NikNaks:, not that I remember. I'm kinda going through a slump of my own so I'm not up to much. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and RCAF roundels/insignia[edit]

Hello there. Thank you for your efforts in refreshing the RCAF insignia. Sorry to be a bee in a bonnet, but I have reverted your recent changes since the refreshed shape of the maple leaf does not resemble what appears in available literature, including documents about the recent changes to rank insignia (from Sep.); also here and here. The leaf is in essence the same as in the national flag (really only described as 'a maple leaf of the first', and the prior one is a closer match; visual evidence can be inconsistent but this is validated if you observe the VIP Airbus (also here, for example). The leaf shape can be extracted from the Wikipedia version of the flag or vector editions from Government of Canada materials. I would appreciate you providing indication of the documents you mentioned to justify the recent changes; otherwise, based on the above, the prior images should stand. Thanks. Craftwerker (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you. Not only are you changing the maple leaf when you revert the file, you are changing the proportions of the rings and the colours. What you SHOULD have done is ask me for my source on the leaf and asked me to change it to be the same as on the national flag if you disagreed with my source, instead of creating an edit war and changing several other aspects of the image. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. You should have thought of that when updating the images in the first place with minimal commentary, e.g., by updating the image description. Did you not think someone would notice? As you have not provided any source to justify the changes - since you appear to have not created any of the originals, only copies of them - I will restore the prior versions and/or fix them on my own. Thanks. Craftwerker (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't "excuse me" anything! You are the one causing trouble here, reverting and inadvertently altering other parts of the image, and I DO have sources I just don't like you causing problems which is exactly what you're doing and am therefore giving you a rough ride. You could have asked instead of edit warring, you chose not to. I altered the proportions, colours, and the maple leaf as according to the RCAF Decals that are downloadable in PDF format. Now if you don't like that, you can ASK me to change the maple leaf to be the same as on the national flag, but if you keep reverting and changing the colours and proportions I will not allow that. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. The differences in widths and colours, particularly for images in place for several years, does not visually compare to a back-ass leaf in the centre. You only mention a decal sheet, which could have been done at the onset, while other links above indicate something different. Don't bother: I will not and needn't ask; I will do myself. Thanks. Craftwerker (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can't even ask a simple "would you change the leaf to be like the national flag?", I certainly don't trust you to fix it yourself. I will upload a corrected version with the same maple leaf as the national flag within the hour. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Logical fallacies aside, if you were attentive and responsive enough at the onset, this would not be needed. We will see if it passes muster, since your work in this regard hasn't yet. Thanks. Craftwerker (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
My work, unlike your attitude, is impeccable. Fry1989 eh? 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Early Stop sign from Italy (1929-1959)[edit]

Would you fix this picture like you did before the first one was deleted? -- 23:14, 29 June 2015 Jeremyquann[edit]

That's not fully specified (how wide horizontally are each of the arrowheads?), and I'm not sure I fully understand all the measurements that are there (what exactly does the "32" vertical measurement align with?). AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spanish royal standard[edit]

Excuseme but, could you explain why are you reverting the correct proportions and colour in File:Estandarte Real de España.svg and in File:Guión del Rey de España.svg and which is your source? Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk)

In the official (and only) source the flag colour is crimson (not red, and the tone was copied directly from there) and the measurements (or their proportions) are (as it's written in the description): 800x800 / 440 (coat of arms height) / 180 (distance to up & down borders). --Echando una mano (talk)
Only for curiosity: why did you revert my modifications? Thank you for your answer. --Echando una mano (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of wallonia.svg[edit]

Fry1989, why did you remove the "No license tag" from File:Flag of wallonia.svg? The file does not have a copyright license tag. —RP88 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the point is moot — someone else has re-added the "no license tag" warning. —RP88 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed it because I considered it a copy of File:Flag of Wallonia.svg. I now see they are two different images. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Road signs in Yugoslavia[edit]

Hello Fry, Can you make road signs in old Yugoslavia? This is road signs: OK. I make road signs, so you only fix it:

I will look at making the Yugoslav road signs soon. Fry1989 eh? 04:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

double-headed arrow[edit]

Sorry I didn't notice your August 2 comment (it kind of got lost amid the deletion nominations on my user talk page), but "XLzVX99.jpg" doesn't provide any new information on the arrow beyond what was in "U8YKVUY.jpg" -- still nothing on the horizontal width of the main part of each arrowhead... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, with the missing number I'll probably take a stab at making an SVG in the next day or two. Not sure why the Australians are less geometrically informative than the Philippinos... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get around to this before (it was partly because my glasses broke on Tuesday), but now I'm looking at U8YKVUY.jpg and realizing that I really don't know what "r.3" means. If it means "radius of curve equals 0.3", then the curve would be barely visible at that resolution and the arrowhead corner would not look like what's shown on the diagram (much thinner and sharper). If it means "radius of curve equals 3.0" then I don't think it would look like what's shown either, and in fact it could well be geometrically impossible. Maybe it means that the "diameter of curve equals 3.0", but that's a pure guess on my part. I don't go reading sign specification manuals for fun, and my only exposure to the Philippines manual was when I did File:W series triangle.svg, but that was a masterpiece of clarity compared to the Australian thing. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Military emblems of Ukraine[edit]

Hi! I've noticed that you fixed air branch emblem. Can you do the same for others?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Emblem of the Ukrainian Air Force.svgEmblem of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.svgEmblem of the Ukrainian Ground Forces.svgEmblem of the Ukrainian Navy.svg

And maybe vectorization of - Standard of Ukrainian NG Commander.pngShtandard MOD UA.pngStandard of Ukrainian GStuff Chief.pngStandard of Ukrainian GF Commander.pngStandard of Ukrainian AF Commander.pngStandard of Ukrainian Navy Commander.png ? --PsichoPuzo (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

NZ flag[edit]

you stole my idea and put it under your name 1st you comment and question my input then you steal it and put it under your name

you dam well know i made the black and green alt from Kyle Lockwood's flag, and is still Kyle Lockwood's flag rights, but i made the two colour alt (March 2014) left corner black and green versions

because you have full wiki rights you moved it all to claim it for yourself

what do you have to say about this?? im interested to know

this constitutes serious misconduct


The flag is Kyle Lockwood's design, all I did was upload the alternative colour choices that have been available and popular on the web for several years now as derivatives of Kyle's flag. You hold no rights to it, and your accusation that I "stole it" from you is absolutely ridiculous. Fry1989 eh? 16:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the reason to your reverts[edit]

Hello! It looks that the user Echando una mano is having problems to interact with you. He would like to update 2 images (file:Estandarte Real de España.svg and file:Guión del Rey de España.svg) following the indications of the BOE (Spain's Official State Bulletin, which I rank as a very reliable source) but you don't seem to agree with those changes as you keep reverting them. He left me a message to mediate in this topic after you haven't answer to this request above. His request in the admins' noticeboard got your attention and Steinsplitter limited to protect the files. Can you please explain me what is the problem with that changes? do you have a more accurate source? Thank you! Best, Poco2 17:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been around here for a while and I think that it is the first time that somebody so flagrantly ignores my message. I do understand that people have a "real life" and cannot promptly react on whatever happens here, but after one week time and 250 edits it doesn't like to me like that's the case. I tried it, but I couldn't mediate in this topic and communicate with you. As it has been at least 2 users, that you have reverted and the references speak for themselves I am restoring the versions aligned with the BOE. Please, don't revert, as I don't want to take more drastic measures to close this topic. Best, Poco2 19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Echando una mano has uploaded their version as alternative files, therefore is no need to either discuss the matter or overwrite the originals. That is all I have to say at this time. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand you, but I warned you. You don't talk, shoot and then give such an excuse?. I have applied a block of 1 week. Looking at your block history I guess that you know the procedure. Poco2 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user has asked to be unblocked.
Request reason: "I don't know under what reasoning Poco a poco believes that blocking me for an entire week is acceptable, but as I stated above Echando una mano uploaded their preferred versions of the Royal Standard and Guidon of Spain as alternative files on File:Estandarte de Felipe VI de España.svg & File:Guión de Felipe VI de España Escusón Redondo.svg, therefore Poco a poco reverting the original SVG files is inappropriate and violates both Commons policies regarding duplication and overwriting. Secondly, File:Estandarte Real de España.svg and File:Guión del Rey de España.svg would not be unprotected (from their original state) except for the fact that I had requested their unprotection on Steinsplitter's talk page, which I requested specifically because Echando una mano did upload their versions as separate files and I felt it was now safe that they be unprotected. Poco a poco involving themselves in this way, threatening me with a block while reverting this files in clear violation of COM:Overwrite and COM:Duplicate, is obviously improper. Both versions should have been allowed to co-exist, which they were doing fine until Poco a poco started reverting things. Fry1989 eh? 22:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)"
Blocked editor

Please note that trolling or otherwise abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked.

  • If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock declined|1=reason for request|2=decline reason ~~~~}}
  • If this request is granted, it should be replaced with: {{unblock granted|1=reason for request|2=grant reason ~~~~}}
  • Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases. Blocks marked as {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a CheckUser.
(Block log)
(Change local status for a global block)

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | magyar | Plattdüütsch | português | русский | +/−

Related link (which the unblock template does not allow) to show I'm telling the truth.
  • My request on Steinsplitter's talk page for unprotection where I specifically mention that I asked this since Echando una mano uploaded their versions alternatively. Fry1989 eh? 22:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You shall not do any reverts of file versions as you did in the cases mentioned above (multiple time) without giving a reason. Also Poco a poco could do a better job in this sense. --Leyo 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and apologise for not doing so previously. Fry1989 eh? 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Unblock immediately. A block seems wholly uncalled for in this case. Blocking somebody because of a simple disagreement in editing is an error and an egregious overstep of authority. Block history also has nothing to do with the quarrel at hand and is just discriminatory. Pretty despicable action by the admin. Unblock immediately. Illegitimate Barrister 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let me elaborate the reasons for the block, rolling out what happened before it. The conflict is focused on 2 files (file:Estandarte Real de España.svg and file:Guión del Rey de España.svg), that are widely used in the Wikimedia projects and for which there is since June 2014 a very reliable source (per law!) stating what they should look like. Following this reference the users Echando una mano and Heralder updated the pictures (the information about how they should look like is precise in terms of size and colours). Here is where Fry1989 shows up and reverts one file 5 times and the other one 6 times. To be honest, that is not the behaviour, that I expect from someone with so much experience like Fry1989. I wouldn't actually revert without first providing arguments and second convincing the other editors. He didn't show any civism and just kept reverting. So, it was the other user, Echando una mano, who looked for dialogue (far from being agressive or impolate) as you can see here, and not once, but 3 times!. No answer from Fry1989. He also looked for help in the admins noticeboard and gets, in my eyes, [Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_53#File:Estandarte_Real_de_Espa.C3.B1a.svg_.26_File:Gui.C3.B3n_del_Rey_de_Espa.C3.B1a.svg this unfortunate answer] from Steinsplitter. How do you look for consensus with someone who doesn't respond?. So, at that point I was asked by Echando una mano to mediate in this topic (in Spanish) and wrote the above message to Fry1989. Again after one week and after he performed 250 edits in the meanwhile, I got no answer. What do you expect then me to do? I recovered the versions aligned with the valid source and warned him not to revert. What did Fry1989?he reverted first and left a message here saying that there is no issue as there are alternative versions. He finds no time to communicate and discuss but is always quickly reverting.
I'd like to add 2 things, I don't remember to have dealt with user Echando una mano so far neither here nor in the Spanish Wikipedia nor somewhere else (therefore, please, don't think of any conflict of interests) and I was kind of surprised for the calm that Echando una mano showed in his messages, although he was reverted several times and has solid arguments for this edits.
So, did I miss something here? Btw, Echando una mano, creating duplicates of files due to the fact that a conflict cannot be solved is a very bad solution. The original file was not accurate anymore since June 2014 and should be fixed for all Wikimedia projects, creating a fork of it for the Spanish Wikipedia and leaving all others using the other file is far from a solution. I expect people in the community to be civic and communicate to each other, and Fry1989 didn't behave like that. This block is more than well-founded and I have to say after seeing the block history of Fry1989 (15 blocks so far since september 2011), if I had applied this block in the Spanish Wikipedia it wouldn't have been only one week. Disruptive behaviours do damage the project in the long run. Poco2 09:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: Please elaborate why the file uploaded by Echando una mano is the correct one. Pursuant to which legal standard? If there is a dispute, two separate files should be uploaded - then local wikis can decide. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, the source field in the desciption pages of the 2 disputed files and also the link that I provided in my message to Fry1989 is the key. Isn't that enough? what else do you expect? can someone here provide a more solide source?. If you have concrete questions, please, let Echando una mano answer them, my task here was to try to mediate, I'm not into this topic (but as Spaniard can confirm the reliability of that source). Poco2 12:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Poco a poco, this block isn't founded at all! You come contacting me trying to act as an intermediary, and then have a hissy fit suspecting I'm deliberately ignoring you, (which I'm wasn't, I forget things easily, but even if I was it is not an excuse to)then take the side of Echando una mano and revert to their images and threaten me with a block. First of all, as an intermediary you should not be taking any sides. Second, as an admin you should be well aware of COM:Duplicate. As I told you, Echando una mano uploaded their versions as separate files, and therefore there is no need to revert, both files should be able to co-exist. You said you didn't understand, well that's not my fault, it's your fault if you're an admin and don't know policy. Third, if you really want to play this game with me, you have zero grounds to block me on the Spanish Wikipedia and you are only mentioning so to be mean-spirited, just the same as mentioning my previous block log in your official block reasoning comment which is completely irrelevant to this. Fry1989 eh? 16:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Aha, you have forgotten to answer my message as you have forgotten to answer all 3 messages from Echando una mano. But you reacted on all others. That is a lot of AGF that you are expecting from us. What would have been your reaction if you had read my message? you neither look for dialogue nor want to solve a conflict interacting with the other party, so why would a message influence your behaviour? Your edits speak for themselves, you don't ask before reverting but expect at the same time, that other users respect your decisions without arguments and you even ignore their attempts to interact with you. And yes, your block history does count a bunch to me, and as long as you keep working on getting it longer, the more it will count in the future. Btw, I know the project policies, both as user and admin, you don't need to drop any acronyms here. It was a bad idea to create forks for those files and will remove them and redirect them to the original ones. Poco2 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You're playing this game, and it's not humourous at all. You claim that you don't want to be involved and were just trying to be an intermediary, yet you involve yourself in every possible way. You threaten me, block me, revert files, make retorts that include you laughing at me, accusing me of things that are not true, bringing up things that are irrelevant to be a dick, it is really pathetic that you think others can't see your bullshit. My block log is indeed completely irrelevant to this issue, but if you MUST KNOW, several of my blocks were nearly immediately lifted as invalid, and my most recent one was part of an admin rage-quit. But you would't know that by doing a simple count, which is what you're attempting to do here. I don't have to explain myself to you, I have told you why I did not respond and you can take it or leave it. Btw, I didn't create any forked images, I simply maintained the files in their original state per policy, which if you are so well-versed in, than your claim you didn't understand me is a patent lie. You knew exactly what I meant and were just looking for a reason to escalate this because you felt I was ignoring you. It looks like Echando una mano has found a new admin friend to pull strings more than a valid attempt at acting towards mediation. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Leyo, are you going to unblock me or not? I have agreed to your request. Same question for Steinsplitter. It is clear that Poco_a_poco isn't a real mediator. Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Will not continue arguing here, keep on with your storytelling, and your attempts to discredit my person. I already made my point and described things with diffs the way they were. Now you are trying to deviate attention instead of getting to the bottomline.
Leyo, Steinsplitter ich überlasse es euch. Macht was ihr wollt damit. In meinen Augen ist die Sachlage hier klar, dieser Benutzer findet keine Zeit zu argumentieren und stattdessen fehlt ihm Zeit die Edits von anderen Anwendern rückgängig zu machen. Ich habe jeden einzelnen Block nicht untersucht aber die Liste ist, egal was er behauptet, lang und für mich ein Indiz, dass wir hier mit einem Einstellungsproblem zu tun haben. Poco2 19:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is trying to discredit who?? You're the one bringing up my past block blog (multiple times) as if it is relevant to this issue, which it isn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. NOTHING! You're the one accusing me of lying in my answer of why I had not responded to your "attempts" at mediation. A real mediator would not try and force a user into discussion by reverting files and threatening the user in question, which is what you did. A real admin who is familiar with COM:Duplicate would not try and say they don't understand what I meant when I said that Echando una mano uploaded their images separately and therefore there is no need to make any reverts. You're the trouble maker. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't call you liar, but said that you were expecting a lot of AGF from us.
A real mediator usually have two parties willing to solve a conflict, in this case one was like a wall.
Echando una mano has not uploaded any duplicate files, although you have affirmed this several times.
You started the reverts and so tried to kept a version which is not valid since June 2014, and, btw, I am still waiting for an explanation why you reverted 11 times without spending a word. That is the bottomline. Poco2 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You asked why I hadn't responded and insinuated that I was deliberately ignoring you. I gave my answer and you laughed at me. You may not have called me a liar outright, but it's obvious what you really think.
A real mediator does not do what you have done, which is threaten me, taunt me, and block me under the guise of "I don't understand" when I gave you an explanation grounded in policy.
Echando una mano decided, with the consent of Heralder, to upload their redesigns of the Royal Standard over Heralder's files, and has made various subsequent alterations.
The bottom line is completely irrelevant to any of my previous blocks, the reasons behind them, the number of them, whether or not you think I have an attitude problem, whether you like me or not, or anything else except for the Royal Standard of Spain.
Wherever you get this number of 11 reverts, I do not know. I count 4 on File:Estandarte Real de España.svg, and the ones on the guidon should be grouped together as these are essentially the same files except for a fringe. 4, not 11. Fry1989 eh? 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fry, I've opened a complaint here. Few times have I been as outraged here as this. Illegitimate Barrister 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister, I am thankful for your support. For the record, I have had no communication with Illegitimate Barrister of any sort about this matter and their support is of their own will, please do not react negatively to them for expressing their opinion/frustrations. Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, best of luck. Illegitimate Barrister 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a shame I have to sit at the kids table thanks to some inactives when I have more and more work to do building up every hour. I have about 50 things to do here, that's the real damage to the project that Poco a poco is referring to and inciting. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I will NEVER agree to anything proposed or initiated by Fæ. They have made their little witch hunt against me very clear over the past year, spying on me like like this, harassing me and constantly pushing for punishments. If I am ever asked to agree to any editing limits that originate from Fae in any way my answer will be NO. Specifically, a 1-revert rule I WILL NOT agree to when only days ago I had to revert File:Drapeau du royaume de France.png against the repeated vandalism by LiXuanze. Such a restriction removes my ability to prevent vandalism and there is no reason for it. I have already agreed to Leyo's demand to edit summaries on all reverts, I already have 2 (if not 3) admins that disagree with this block, it is time to lift it, I have things to do! Fry1989 eh? 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington:, bash your head into the wall all you want, I DID ANSWER, Poco a poco just tried to pull the "I don't understand, but I'm gonna block you for it anyway in punishment for taking so long". I explained what took me so long to respond and I will not apologise for it. Fry1989 eh? 03:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye. No need to apologize, add a smidgen of niceness once in a while. ;-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
What would be nice is this block be lifted so I can get to work, instead of (as usual) various admins stating their disagreement with it but not going as far as to lift it and instead making me sit through it like some ASBO experiment to see if just maybe I'll have learnt something. Fry1989 eh? 04:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The longer I'm forced to wait with the hundreds of things I have to do, the more I hold you all in contempt. Fry1989 eh? 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I had a conversation with Poco about this. But you are holding me in contempt as well. Therefore I'm not willing to stick my head out of the window anymore. Not good, not good at all how you alienate people. This is all I have to say. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington:, I have sat here for 4 days waiting for an unblock review, not to make amends with the admin that blocked me but to have their block reviewed. I have a lot of work to do here that is getting backlogged, that is extremely frustrating, can you not understand that? You can take it as alienating that I am rightfully frustrated about nobody actually reviewing my block, but I'm not interested in making amends with Poco a poco. Reviewing a block should be a simple yes or no procedure. If you want to say no, just say it instead of trying to get me and Poco a poco to be friends. Fry1989 eh? 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly Fry: I would have unblocked you becaue entring an edit war and start blocking afterwards is a huge nono to me. But now? You used some pretty big bricks to throw in your own Windows. All I can do for now is advising you to grab a good beer and enjoy the time that you don't worry about Commons. It is only the digital world after all, unless you are a Digimon of course. Natuur12 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that a user sitting through a block for four days, that you yourself admit you think should be lifted, doesn't have a right to be angry at the situation? That I don't have a right to be extremely frustrated? And that if I express my frustration, I now deserve it? That's what it looks like you're trying to say, and I whole-heartedly reject such a philosophy. If a block should be lifted, it should be lifted, the user shouldn't have to sit in purgatory because they have feelings. Fry1989 eh? 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)