User talk:Zscout370/Archive 2

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

Contents

Order of Canada images[edit]

Hi,

Thought I would drop you a line and let you know that the National Archives of Canada has finally gotten around to scaning some of their images of the Order of Canada and putting them online with no restrictions to their reproduction. These are the same images that used by be available online before the archives started to switch to their new database, and the same ones used on medals.org.uk. Evidently that member's badge being used under fair use in wikipedia is essentailly public domain. Dowew 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats good news then. Once you, or others, get them up, then we can replace the copies we have on EN and take it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question ?[edit]

I am wondering if you can help me out regarding copyright of this image [1]. The image was created more than 100 years ago, but the Victoria and Albert Museum claims copyright. Dowew 04:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would email them and figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

flag of Italy[edit]

Did you ever get any input from government-types? ¦ Reisio 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I sent the messages, got either half-assed responses or I got the same Pantone colors from the websites we got from before. I could ask my flag buddies from Italy if they could help, but the last time I tried to message them, I got no replies. Not sure what to say about this Reisio. I think there is an Consulate an hour away from my home, so I could stop by there, if I am lucky. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice, but don't bother on my account. ¦ Reisio 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to fix this problem as much as you do, but I am being driven in circles by the Italians. >.< User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll drive down to Miami next year and harass some Italians. :p ¦ Reisio 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will look again. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Commons. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Серп и молот[edit]

Прошу Вас не портить флаги союзных республик СССР такими уродливыми (увы, но так оно есть) изображениями серпа и молота, как на этом файле здесь. Реальные серп и молот на флагах были более корректными, чем в той книге, на которую Вы ссылаетесь. Я эти флаги видел и некоторые из них у меня ещё имеются. - Urmas 08:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

не вижу проблема. Пожалуйста объясните. ¦ Reisio 13:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a flag book from Riga, Latvia SSR from 1989, so when I see what the shape the hammer and sickle is, I try to match it as much as possible. As for the Transnistria flag, I found the best hammer and sickle I could find and used it for the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Drini/Mexican_copyright_law[edit]

Take a look at User:Drini/Mexican_copyright_law, it may interest you. Do you think it's worht to link at COmmons:Licensing on the mexico section? -- Drini 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there any other law for which a similar guide could be useful? -- Drini 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issue - OfficialPhoto.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you protected the page from further modification. However, you protected the page after the original copyright dispute tag had been modified. I believe the image qualifies for speedy deletion because there is a disputing web page on a parliament of Canada web site that clearly attributes the copyright to Herman Chung. Further, no email has been received by the project confirming that any party has released the image. Please consider reverting the page to this revision [2]. Thank you. Alan.ca 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still a dispute going on, because of that, I went and protected the version that explains both sides of the issue and pointing to the talk page about the discussion. I will not revert to the version where it has the speedy delete tag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it not meet the criteria as clearly there is a copyright on the image? Alan.ca 13:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you please show me where the image is listed for deletion? Alan.ca 13:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What I was thinking last night is this: is the image under public domain or crown copyright? If it is under crown copyright, then it will have to be deleted anyways, since images under Canada's Crown Copyright forbids the commercial use of their images. If that is the case, I would probably list it under Commons:Deletion request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about crown copyright, but it is copyright The House of Commons, Herman Chung and the Prime Minister's Office, depending on where you look. We have an alternative to this image, several e-mails have been sent by me and others since the 14th of December. I personally, have not received a response yet. I even called the current photographer for the prime minister and was advised that he couldn't clearly give me an answer. If I do receive an appropriate release, I would be more than happy to contact the uploader and encourage them to re-upload the image. Alan.ca 05:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with the photo of Haprer from the G8 summit in the Russian Federation. It is a free photo, which shows Harper in a positive tone. I am going to rename it though, if that is fine with you. As for Crown Copyright, it doesn't mention it here at the PMO, but at the House of Commons, they said ask the third parties involved. The PMO gives an address we can use for commercial uses of Harper's photo, so unless the other user went that route, I am not sure what I, as an American, can do here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of FIAV.svg[edit]

there is a request for deletion about your Image:Flag of FIAV.svg. Could you give your comment and participate to the debat ? Thx--Patricia.fidi 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave my comments. To sum it up, FIAV gave it the stamp of approvial and no complaints about it yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Very happy to read your comments ;-). Thank you again. --Patricia.fidi 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. FIAV, in my view, is pretty much happy that I am at Wikipedia. Vexillology is a field not many know about, and this could be a great way to introduce it to everyone. I also honestly believe that FIAV, with regard to their symbols, are not concerned as much as IP as maybe some organizations are. But, I will wait and see what happens. If it gets close to deletion, I can get a release from FIAV and sent to the Permissions OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Croatian arms[edit]

Hi, did you get any reply on your email? The topic has been archived to here now. Siebrand 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I got no reply to the emails. Sorry. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Burundi[edit]

Hi there, could you give your opinion here? Thanks!!! --Tonyjeff 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong colonial COA[edit]

It appears to me that the recent uploads of Image:Flag of Hong Kong 1959.svg, Image:Flag of Hong Kong (1959).png and Image:Flag of Hong Kong 1959 (unofficial Red Ensign).svg, and probably all versions of Image:Hk coatofarm b4 1997.gif (also at en:Image:250px-Colonialhongkongarms.png) and Image:Hong kong official.png are copyvio. I presume of course the the versions you uploaded you drew yourself or got from a good source, but the others seem likely to have been taken from random third-party sources, and think that would include xrmap, since that's a map program and the programmer probably didn't give much thought to flag and COA copyrights. I trust that you can probably resolve this mess better than I could. Thanks.--Pharos 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I am admin on EN, I went ahead and deleted the photo. As for the versions of the other flags, flags have been emailed from xmap before and deleted out of copyright concerns. I would try to have the PNG images deleted, then try and get the SVG arms uploaded once the situation is clear. BTW, I think I did a crap job with the 1959 SVG flag, so I assume why people got the files from xmap. I will see what I can do. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

VoIP[edit]

User:Gmaxwell/voip see.

Standard[edit]

Hi, thanks for help on the Standard of the President of the National Assembly of Serbia.svg, but your version is not quite correct - the coat of arms is smaller than in one I tried to upload. I give up trying to find a workaround for this bug though I believe that it is certainly possible - I think that viewBox is creating the problem - compare with Standard of the President of Serbia.svg which renders perfectly with its original viewBox, much larger than the flag, but breaks up when it is narrowed down to the size of the flag. I will upload high-resolution PNGs instead. Nikola Smolenski 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can fix the flag, just give me some time. I also need to fix around the crown area so the spaces that are white should be turned into red. I am not sure what caused the viewing problems. You can upload PNG's if you want, since that can give me a basis to make the SVG drawings. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Bulgaria (1967-1971).png[edit]

Hi, thanks for checking this image, but Bulgarian rules (BG Copyright Act etc.) do not seem to apply, as Wikimedia Commons is an org-Domain and not a bg-Domain. I suggest to check the source (Russian?) and to ask the uploading user. I think we agree, that commons images should fulfil requirements for all Wikimedia project domains. Many Thanks --Calvin Ballantine 06:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless that we are not in Bulgaria, the Commons serves the Bulgarian Wikipedia, so we need to follow Bulgarian copyright law on Bulgarian images. The problem I have with this image is that it was originally tagged as PD-RU-exempt, which is used for national symbols of Russia/former Soviet Union. Bulgaria, while part of the Warsaw Pact, wasn't a part of the Soviet Union, so Bulgarian law only applies here. I let the uploader a notice that the license chosen was not a correct one. (I found other images fasly tagged with pd-ru-exempt, so I am going to deal with others soon). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Xzanthia[edit]

Hi, the page Xzanthia has been protected by you some time last year because of linkspamming. Could you add in a category, ie "protected pages" or something, as it is on the "uncategorized pages" list. Thanks. Deadstar 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead an unprotected and deleted it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for COAs[edit]

Why do you disregard encyclopedical sources for COA images? Do you suggest, that images placed on personal websites, converted from unspecified low-res files found on the web may be considered to be "based on reliable sources"? And why the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Soviet, not Russian) is a bad,bad,bad source for such images? Because "they falsify everything"? I'm still "under impression" from your one-sided edits to Image:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Mongolia (1960-1991 version).png see talk page there for my revert explanation.

JFYI, Vector-Images.com is a Russian website, should we replace all images uploaded here from there by any "non-Russian" file found on the web? Cmapm 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thw two that I removed from PD-RU-exempt license since it just applys to symbols of the Russian Federation. It doesn't apply to symbols outside of the Russian Federation, and because it appears in a Russian book, it doesn't make them so. If the book is old enough for it to be applied under Public domain, then use {{PD-Russia}} instead. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Spain.svg[edit]

Hi Zach,
Just to let you know I've marked the above as a {{duplicate}} of Image:Roundel of the Spanish Air Force.svg and copied the details of your contribution to the latter. Hope you're happy with this evolution!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I admit the first drawing had a very generic name (I replaced another image that had watermarks on it). But thanks for letting me know. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Your name could be transliterated as Захар/Захары/Захарый. I think Захары is more close to original, but Захар is more Belarusian :-) (same as Яўген/Евгений/Eugene).

Surname could be transliterated Гардэн/Хардэн.

I think it's valid transliteration in both spellings.

EugeneZelenko 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Arab[edit]

I think, this request can be closed. Alex Spade 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I voted on it, I do not think I can close it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation.svg[edit]

Dear, Zscout370, it is written on description page of this image, that you are author of image. Can you remake it with more appropriate color scheme? I know, that current colors were taken from official site of Russian Gov. [3], but I suggest, that they are incorrect. I see another colors in my passpopt , in some other my official docs, at Rus.President Site [4], at Constitution Site, which is supported one of the largest base of legal acts [5] and it same that Image:Russia coa.svg (after your remake it can be deleted as copyvio) and Image:Russia coa.png Alex Spade 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I see your point. I have a few copies of the arms myself, on a Putin card and a copy of the Russian Constitution and the eagle should be yellow, not dark gold. Changing now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some other errors I made and I am fixing those too. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-RU-exempt[edit]

I invite you for disccusion of new version for this year and draft for next year. Alex Spade 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, after spelling correction of User:Lensovet, there are not obstacles to replace Template:PD-RU-exempt by new version Template:PD-RU-exempt/proposal. I should replace it myself, but it's protected. Alex Spade 08:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Change made. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You changed template by 2008-version ;-). It will be actual since Jan.1 2008 only. The 2007-version is Template:PD-RU-exempt/proposal. Alex Spade 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, changed again. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

north korean coat of arms[edit]

Here's what i added to the talk page: "Here is the line from the constitution about the copyright for state designed objects: Article 24. The property rights to a copyrighted work or a copyrighted visual art work whose author is an institution, enterprise or organization shall be protected for up to 50 years from the moment of its publication.

The coat of arms was declared in the 1948 Constitution under Chapter VII, Arcticle 168: The national emblem of the DPRK bears the design of a grand hydroelectric power station under Mt. Paektu, the sacred mountain of the revolution, and the beaming light of a five-pointed red star, with ears of rice forming an oval frame, bound with a red ribbon bearing the inscription "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."[26] As 50 years has past, the coat of arms legally is in the public domain (as is the case with any other country who's emblems are used on wikipedia after the period of copyright expires). Unless people still have valid objections i hope you can make an SVG for us to use! Icactus 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)" Icactus 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the other issue, even if the arms drawing is in the public domain, people can draw it and have some copyright applied to it. Honestly, I could see if I could do the arms, but that is going to be very hard. Plus, I got finals this week. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well assuming your finals end at some future date wikipedia would be forever in your debt if you could finish off the coat of arms... Icactus 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The finals have ended, so I will try and get more elements done. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian flag is not a bright red, as you have corrected it[edit]

According to the website of the Department of Heritage of the Canadian government at http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df11_e.cfm the shade of red on the Canadian flag officially can be the Pantone colour PMS 485 or PMS 032, but it is not officially bright red.

Unofficial variants of the flag or simplifications of the flag, which are common, are bright red, but as it stands officially, the Canadian flag which flies is not bright red.

The thing is, that, we have debated about the colors for several years now and the users decided to just stick with the following: "When printing in four colour process, the proper mixture is 100% yellow and 100% magenta." Since we are reproducing for computer screens, we will use that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Does it follow the standards of the colours described for other flags on Wikipedia, like the US flag, the red and blue on it are extremely dark, I don't think it is created for printed reproduction, is it?
Each flag is reproduced differently; so what we do is we first search for the Government pages of the flags. In the case of the US flag, we used the US Embassy in London. That is where we got the RGB colors. If we do not find the official colors, we use what we can. We have debated the Canadian colors for many years and this is what we have decided to use. Please discuss this with the others before you do this change again. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That's okay, there's no real errors with the flag, I thought that the flag colours on wikipedia were just based on Pantone, but since changing it makes problems with printing, then yes, I agree with you, it should be left the same.
We can still mention the Pantone colors, but I just do not want years of discussion and resolution to be started again. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kazakhstan hymn 2006.ogg[edit]

Hey, I was wondering about this - the template doesn't mention the anthem (at least not from what I could see) and the recording is probably copyrighted as specific performances are copyrighted even if the song itself is in the public domain. Yonatan talk 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The anthem is covered under "other State symbols and official signs." This is the same recording is at the website of the Kazakh President. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. ;) Yonatan talk 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04)[edit]

I have undeleted Image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg you have deleted. I have read the material you linked too as well and I feel that there is no reason to speedy delete it (or delete it for that matter). It appears there may be a GFDL-vio case which can be easily fixed with relicensing/retagging and proper crediting. I have COM:DEL'ed it to discuss weather it should be considered an original work or a derivative. -- Cat chi? 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stephen Haprer 32nd G8 Summmit.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Stephen Haprer 32nd G8 Summmit.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

William Avery 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Rank insignia reversions[edit]

I had not been paying attention and did not realize I was signed in as an IP address. I'm curious on if you reverted my edits to the following pages solely because I was logged in as an IP address or if you feel I chose the wrong tag for the images. The existing tag being used on all of these pages is deprecated and have been proposed for deletion. Hence I updated the pages with what I feel is the correct tag. My immediate interest is to prevent the images from just being deleted simply because they are not tagged or that someone can't figure out the source in 48 hours. These images are of U.S. Military insignia. See Shoulder Marks as shown in http://www.army.mil/symbols/Downloads/r670_1.pdf (page 204) which are nearly identical to these images and thus should qualify as {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}. I don't think these particular images are shoulder marks (which seem have black background and not green) but am looking around to see what these are called. Regardless of what they are called I'm pretty comfortable with that they are US Army Officer insignia and thus PD as they are works of the U.S. government. (BTW - if you want to move what I wrote from your talk page to some other place such as Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Military_Insignia, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:US_Army_OF11.gif#Move_image_to_Wikipedia_Commons.3F then that's fine with me.

Marc Kupper 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Marc, I am looking at the PDF file now. While I do know it is US military insignia, the problem is that the website source of the information isn't listed at all. So, unless we know the website where the images came from, we cannot just claim PD on the image. There will be someone from en.wikipedia that will upload the drawings from DefenseLink.mil soon, so just leave these images to be deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm looking at one of the .mil PDFs trying to figure out just what the images on Wikipedia were supposed to be and am getting the impression they may well be complete fiction. The insignia itself is correct but not how it's presented in the image and so I'd agree with you your conclusion that we can't claim PD on these. Marc Kupper 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the major problem is the website I know where the insignia came from, I think it is dead. So, we have a lot of insignia images from a possible dead website. However, someone will be uploading images from the defenselink.mil website soon (but if that proves to be hard, I maybe can give it a shot with a few). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What web site do you think they came from? I found http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=65&sid=1271 which has the files as GIFs (and calls them Officers Class A shoulder rank insignia) but it's not clear who took the images from who though the uniforminsignia files are dated Oct. 24, 2004 and they showed up on Wikipedia in 2005. They are the same images as Wikipedia as both sets have the same out-of registration issues (Image:US-Army-OF1b.gif is tilted a little to the left compared to the other images for example and they all shift around from one to the next) The uniforminsignia site also has shoulder marks.
I woke up with a couple of thoughts in mind. 1) The images are very nice and one would have thought that since they are nice that they would be commonly used within the .mil sites. 2) These images seem to be scanned from printed material because if you pull them up within their own windows or tabs and shift from one to another the images shift around implying they were scanned and then cropped. Had this been a photoshop job the images would be perfectly registered and would not shift around from one to the next. Marc Kupper 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now we know where the images comes from, and I thank you for bringing the site to my attention (I thought it was gone forever). However, here is the problem: "Copyright © 2000-2006 WORLD INSIGNIA COLLECTORS UNION. The information on this page may not be reproduced, republished or mirrored on another webpage or website without written permission from the editors." That means we cannot use their images until we get their permission. If the permission comes after the images are deleted, we can always restore them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm now fully in agreement with that the images should be deleted. Even if we got permission from www.uniforminsignia.net I'd still not be comfortable with using them as I have not seen a citation back to a dot mil/gov or something in National Archives that supports that these particular "shoulder insignia" are in use.
FWIW - I also downloaded the set of images from both Commons and uniforminsignia, compared them, and they are byte-for-byte identical files except the ones on Wikimedia Commons each have two extra bytes added. It's not clear if the extra bytes are something added during the upload (they looked like a counter/serial # as they are in sequence) or that someone loaded the images up in an editor that appends the stuff before then uploading to Wikipedia. Anyway, delete them or replace the files with known PD such as from DefenseLink.mil. You had indicated someone else will be doing the upload from DefenseLink.mil and so I'll just wait for that to happen rather than adding myself as yet-another-cook. Marc Kupper 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If the person doesn't get started, I will let you know. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead with fixing these last night by downloading the PD images and adding backgrounds to them to match the usage of the original copyvio images. Marc Kupper 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fine by me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Lewis Scotland.png[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Flag of Lewis Scotland.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

-- Sorry, should have included this here at the same time as the flag page in the English Wikipedia. MRM 06:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought you may be interested in voting- there are now deletion requests for 4 other Hebridean islands here.MRM 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I am good. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Civil Ensign of Italy.svg[edit]

The civil ensign has the lion of Venice holding an open book that reads "pax tibi marce evangelista meus". Only the naval ensign has the sword and the closed book. See [6]. -- Denelson83 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Crap, sorry about that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Mexico[edit]

The SVG version of the Flag of Mexico which you recently uploaded doesn't display as a 120px thumbnail... AnonMoos 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


The last version of "Flag of México" can't display at 20px, please fix it. Regards-----Limbo@MX C 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It displays fine at Mexico, even thumbnailed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What happened seemed to be the previous SVG image was created in illustrator and left a lot of crap code in the file. I will spend some time to do major cleanup, but it should be fine now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

dumbledore.jpg[edit]

the search function for the image dumbledore.jpg suggests you deleted it at 06.29 on 24 July. Can you point out the debate over this, or why it was deleted. The only debate over this which I have been able to find concluded with a keep. There are now hordes of tags on wikipedia with a missing image. Sandpiper 09:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (I found this debate: This deletion request)

Then the deletion request is a lie. I mentioned in the deletion summary last night that we cannot have derivative works of copyrighted characters, this included fanart. Even with with the OTRS ticket, we still and will delete items that were approved by OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hardly a lie, a matter of record. It is extremely inconvenient that people can't make up their minds what is and is not permissable. Sandpiper 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just discovered what an OTRS ticket is, which I didn't know before, following your post on wikipedia/HP. Out of interest, is there more information on that anywhere? Sandpiper 08:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I use OTRS myself, so that is how I was able to see the ticket. It pretty much gave the OK from the author to use the image, but I highly doubt that the person who reviewed the ticket knew of our policy on derivative images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign of the Deathly Hallows[edit]

Hi Zscout370,

I feel that you didn't allow enough time for discussion at Image talk:Sign of the Deathly Hallows.svg. I and another user both felt that the symbol was not original enough to be copyrighted, but you deleted the image before the discussion could resolve itself. Could you undelete the image and let the discussion continue for another week or so? And then file a proper deletion request? Cheers, bdesham  14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


re edit [7] - obviously you must see that the debate is in progress right now and quite heated? Please don't use force instead of words. // tsca [re] 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks and insignia[edit]

"this is a derivative work, which is forbidden on the Commons"? Derivative works are allowed on commons unless the source is copyrighted. The gallery itself is no derivative work. -- Cat ちぃ? 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zodiacal light.jpg[edit]

Hi I saw that you deleted the above iamge with a reference to it's OTRS number in the image description. I was just wandering which the problem was and wheter the iamge was the same as en:Image:Zodiacal light2.jpg in which case this image should probably also be tagged for deletion with the same motivation. /Lokal_Profil 11:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lokal, can you email me privately please about the image. I also deleted the second image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't really se the need, only wanted to know so that I could file a deletion request on en.wiki. Since you did it for me it's all fine =) /Lokal_Profil 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I admin there too; anyways, I used the OTRS ticket number as a reference (I also use that too). Pretty much, the author said he didn't grant permission at all. That is the crux of the message. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Since you seem to use OTRS a lot could you possibly take a look at Image:MichaelShermer1.jpg. Currently the image description contains three e-mails which should (for privacy reasons if nothing else) probably be in the OTRS database instead. /Lokal_Profil 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible at all, but no email address were revealed and the person who uploaded the image also agreed to use his name on the page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

problems with svg.renderer[edit]

Flag of the Netherlands.svg
There are also problems at the french wikipedia, see the representation of models at fr:Projet Pays-Bas and fr:Utilisateur:Havang. The problem is even on commons: see left Havang 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We are having problems at en.wikipedia, but this is an issue that I cannot solve. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag of FOTW[edit]

Hello. I am currently remaking Image:Flag of FOTW.svg by hand, and ran into some doubts, and as you made the current revision of it, I thought you could help.

  • I found the construction sheet at [8], and I'm not sure if the measure 0.5 on the stars is the height of the stars or the diameter of the circunscribing circle.
  • It's the center of the circunscribed cincle or the middle point of the height of the stars that is supposed to be 0.4 units from the top of the flag?
  • Is there any reason for you not following the color recomendations on that page or I should use them?

Thanks in advance for your attention. --TigerTjäder 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was an oversight of me to not use their colors, so go ahead and use their suggestion. The .5 suggestion is that if the stars are put together in that formation, it should be 1/2 of the hoist of the flag. The center star must be placed at the .4 mark. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an image to better explain my questions: [9]. What I'm not sure about is if it's h1 or h2 that is supposed to be 0.5, and if it's P1 or P2 that is meant to be 0.4 points below the edge. By looking at the constuction sheet, it looks like it should be h2 and P1, but I thought it should be better ask someone else to be sure, so here I am, annoying you :). --TigerTjäder 04:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not being annoyed at all. Anyways, make the flag to the best of your ability and I will try my hand at fixing the stars (if needed). The colors, as I said before, you are right on those, so you are welcome to fix that instantly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll upload it using h2 and P1. So that you don't have to redo tha calculations I did, here are a few helpful values: To change from h2 to h1 you have to change the scaling factor of the stars to 0.095491502812526287948853291408590470569923, and to use P2 as the anchor point, put translate(0,0.25) after the scale on the stars group. --TigerTjäder 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good here; I don't plan on making changes to the image at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Italy.svg[edit]

Please, Zscout370, can you leave alone flag of my Country? Thanks... Moreover, there are many other flags of Italy using same colours. This modifications must be discussed before making a chanange. Thanks again. PS: for the central colour, in Pantone codes there is not a #FFFFF white, so it can't be affordable for video colours but just for textile. --F l a n k e r 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know for just plain white, the only Pantone shade I even see mentioned is "safe." Anyways, we agreed in July to change the green and the red, but the leave the white the way it is. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i see the discussion. But I still prefer the actual colours, are more accurate for my point of view, you can see this image of the flag: bandiera240x180.jpg. Regards, F l a n k e r 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I seen that image before. I think what happened is we used the same color code for green and red, but just went to a different site. The first time around, I believe we used a Czech site. The second time around, I believe we used the Pantone USA site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also think so. As I write before, I think the Czech site is more like the actual flag. I can be wrong, but I think the green have too much... "yellow" hue (sorry, I hope to be correct in english). --F l a n k e r 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked![edit]

Hope you got out of it whatever you needed it for. Personally, I figure if you're testing something, you'd want a bit longer block to work with, but s'up to you. Ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

it works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag of France[edit]

Hi Zscout, I left a comment at Image talk:Flag of France.svg about the Pantone. Essentially I wrote that CorelDraw might give better mileage than Adobe for web/sRGB-space applications. 202.89.152.154 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know which program is better for Pantone, but I do not have corel draw. I use Photoshop for all of my Pantone needs so at least I try to stay consistent with my images. If a switch to Corel is needed, I have no objections there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, as long as some kind of consistency is the aim, there really is no problem which way it goes. 202.89.152.154 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Image:Flag_of_Western_Sahara.svg[edit]

Western Sahara is an area under dispute with Morocco and SADR, The currently flag is SADR flag, WS don't have flag.

  • This has been with purpose and presents a clear abuse of Wikipedia for pro-polisario activits propaganda.
  • However, further to a neutral point of view, both, Western Sahra and "SADR" are two diferent things
  • The "SADR" is an exiled republic or government which is based in Algeria and which claims Western Sahara
  • Western Sahra is the disputed territory.
  • The flag, coat of arms etc apply to the first one, the "SADR". Western Sahara as disputed territory has no flag and such things.
  • It is mostly administrated by Morocco. In this sense the flag that is effectively and mostly used for Western Sahara would be rather the Moroccan one.
  • But this would not be neutral as a neutral point of view does not recognise the sovereignty of Morocco nor the so called "SADR" (position of the UN or the European Union for instance).
  • Morocco is however recognised as the administrating power in the territory.
  • Sadly this is not the case in Wikipedia. Western Sahara is widely presented as a country, a state etc..

The Flag of SADR must be here: (Image:Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg)

Please read the article in Wikipedia Flag of Western Sahara. The flag should be the UN flag. Thanks ; Rekaf 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I been involved in some of the editing in that article. I personally agree that the SADR flags should be at the image you linked, however, I do not agree that the UN flag should be used at Image:Flag_of_Western_Sahara.svg. We have no sources that the UN flag is used in the entire region. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stop this clear propaganda!! the territory still in dispute, so why some people are trying to put Polisario/SADR flag on it and always put the duplicate template on the right name to be deleted? I tried to upload white flag as a neutral one, The subject is already discussed in Wikipedia, SADR flag should not be considered as a flag of the territory! where's the admins anyway? Xiquet 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the Commons community decided differently. I am an administrator here and on en.wikipedia, and on here, they decided to just use one image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take care[edit]

Hey Zscout370. When deleting larger sets of files (like these Star Trek insignia) please take care at every single file. I have now added a proper image description to the restored trivial files in order to avoid any future confusion with them, see e.g. [10]. Greetings, Arnomane 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgia US flag - Thanks[edit]

Hey again,

Thanks for fixing the Georgia state flag. The gap between the arch and the upper part of the circle of stars had annoyed me. I also failed to notice the army guy's jacket was wrong. Also Havelock is getting a new Wal-Mart soon. It's taken forever to build because of land issues. Thanks as always, my friend. Hoshie 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The new file was emailed to me by the State, but I am glad you are liking it. I never Havelock has not changed much at all, I just wish the Rams got better at football. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg vs SR Croatia[edit]

The shades are not a bit simillar. WIPO protects symbols of past states and the shade of blue on SR Croatia has never been the same as SFRY nor shades of Montenegro or Serbia. Croatia and Slovenia had shades lighter than those, and Croatia had lighter shade than Slovenia. I know the work of Zeljko Heimer, but every one can make mistakes, even him.

Those flags at WIPO were the same ones that we in Yugoslavia had once waived all together, in every republics children and mature people were expected to waive the flags of all republics and the Alliance of Communists flag on the Day of the youth (Birthday of Tito).

Rainman 23:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what to use. While WIPO is a good source for the images, I just feel weird using the colors from them. I know the current Croatian flag is lightly colored, so should use the colors of the Croat flag in this image? I just feel the WIPO colors are too dark. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In some other cases WIPO colours are to dark (like Armenia), but if such cases exist then the SR Croatia must be even lighter than on WIPO. I am trying to use the standards of WIPO to the best of my abbility, and I think that I'm on the good road to do just that. Some like Suradnik13 are insisting of usage of the same shade of dark blue that was on the SFRY flag. This was just not the standard. SR Croatia and SR Slovenia had lighter shades than SFRY, and SR Montenegro and SR Serbia had darker. -- One might even tell the difference between SR Serbia and SR Montenegro (based on WIPO and their respective Constitutions).
You have mentioned flag of Croatia (outside the SFRY). I am trying to finish the dependent images of the Flag of Croatia that is Naval Flag and Naval Jack. When I finish those images will have the same shade of blue as the SR Croatia Flag.
You should not feel weird using WIPO standards when dealing with former Yugoslavia because everyone will tend to use some of their own pictures rather than standards. It is sad to see that even encyclopaedias are not spared from this. I have the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia and Youth Encyclopaedia where all republics have the same shade of blue, respectively dark blue and another even darker blue. It was easier in former USSR where all of the republics used simmilar colouring of flags.
Rainman 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not from Yugoslavia, so a lot of these materials are out of my hands. Anyways, I still like to see the discussion civil (like it is between you and I) to be offered to all users. About the Armenia case, we do not know what Pantone colors to use. In a lot of cases, we just had to make a guess either from WIPO and from French books. (Since you use WIPO a lot, I wonder if they have anything on Japan?) Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will try harder to be cooperative with all users alike. -- Rainman 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is what WIPO says about JP, hope it helps. -- Rainman 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
But WIPO information is from 1967-02-01, and JP has made changes in 1999. when the red disc is no longer shifted 1% to the hoist side, now it is at the perfect middle. -- Rainman 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that; I am doing a Japanese language presentation on the flag and I just wanted to see what it was like. Thanks for the search. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What new links are you talking about? Someone can find dozen of links suporting either claim on this beauty we call the Internet. When we have a deceased country (such as former Yugoslavia) we cannot ask someone at a Parliament what was the standard. We can go either way, deciding upon the usage of the people (and hear some of "them" 4.5 million Croats) or we can go with the proscribed way (WIPO, other sources like those flags that chilidren and adulds waived with that were made of paper - thus much more produced and known in Yugoslavia). I admit that in lots of places the colours were very close, but SR Montenegro and SR Serbia always had a darkened dark blue as "their" blue. Then some forces (rigid centralist from Belgrade) decided to once more try the formula of one Yugoslavian nation, then this equallization of the blue colour begun. But the colour of those paper flags - the same ones that are at WIPO - never changed. SR Croatia had a light blue, SR Slovenia somewhat but very little darker blue, SFRY (The main Yugoslav flag was blue) and the SR Montenegro and SR Serbia were darkened dark blue. The SR Bosnia and Herzegovina had in its flag a Yugoslav flag with blue-white-red. I do not know why somebody (like R-41) has something against this. -- Rainman 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone gave me a link to all laws from Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro and Srpska, www.navodi.com. These contain some laws about flags, but I personally never did a search. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read all of the constitutions of the constituent republics of SFRY that existed up to 1991/1992 (varies between the republics, althou one might say that SFRY ceased to exist when Slovenia and Croatia left the union of freely joined republics). In all of those documents there is written that the color (where applies) is blue. Honouring the FOTW rule it should be at most #0000FF (not darker). I will check out the www.navodi.com but must say in advance that it seems like those documents are from the period after 1992 and do not include anything but Serbia, Montenegro and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that rebeled against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. -- Rainman 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have a password [11] is a better source of official information about former SFRY (Union of 6 socialist republics and 2 autonomous provinces), there is also a search engine, quite of a quality for the Sluzbeni list SFRY and Sluzbeni glasnik SRS and latter Sluzbeni list FRY, Sluzbeni list SCG and Sluzbeni glasnik RS. -- Rainman 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Locking of the Image:Flag of SR Croatia.svg seems to be necessary but R-41 is a user that has proven (by my account) to be satisfied with very few proofs (when it serves his views). The lattest of his dubious colour decisions was Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (state).svg which he coloured with the previous Image:Flag of Serbia.svg colours. Also his colouring of Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (civil).svg where he has also used colours of Serbia. It is most clear what is his agenda. By pressing for the former Yugoslavian flags looking alike he is confirming his agenda. -- Rainman 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If compromise colours for Image:Flag of SR Croatia.svg are to be set - then those should not be dark red and dark blue. -- Rainman 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please unlock the file. Namely R-41 has proven nothing. He has not got a document (written facts) to support his pictures. You know, as well as I that even most official usage is not enough. But it is still a path, few soldiers holding some flags do not mean a thing. If you are not willing to unlock please join the discussion without preconcepcions and help R-41 to realise his contraproductivity and leave SR Croatia flag alone. Have I touched his SR Serbia and SR Montenegro files (even with proof I will not touch those) but SR Croatia and SR Slovenia should be left alone. Even if he wants to synchronize SR Bosnia and Herzegovina flag to that of SFRY it is fine with me (but border of the SFRY flag and the red star and the overall design should be left as it is now). Your oppinon please, it is very welcome, but please on the talk page of the Image talk:Flag of SR Croatia.svg. -- Rainman 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Vexilla Mundi[edit]

Hi. I'd like to ask you if Vexilla Mundi is generally considered a reliable source for flag data. I found that the RGB colors they give for the Romanian flag are very accurate (to my eyes) and close to the best flags I've seen. Actually their colors are identical to those of a previous version of our file. If VM is reliable, then we finally have verifiable data, more verifiable and more accurate than the average I calculated from photos. AdiJapan 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In some of my cases, no. I noticed the colors they give for Pantone are different from what prescribed laws has set. Mexico and Canada are the cases I can pull from memory. However, give it a try with Romania and it could work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will. AdiJapan 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion Insignia.png[edit]

Hi Zscout, you deleted this image because "the original en.wikipedia.org image claimed fair use" That's true, but also it was incorrect of course. Nothing that NASA creates is subject to Copyright, and as such nothing requires a fair use statement. I believe the original was taken from a newssite, which was the cause for the confusion I guess, but there is NO copyright on that image. TheDJ 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem at en.wikipedia and it was brought to my attention. Plus, if I read the data correctly, there was a problem with the upload too from en.wikipedia. What I would suggest is to try and find a NASA source for the image and upload that one, using the NASA PD claim. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reisio[edit]

Would you please check Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Reisio? He uploaded his vesion of the flag and inserted it among the flags of Italy. --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding the flag image into the category. However, I pointed out that image is redundant to Image:Printable Flag of Italy.svg, so some merging needs to be done. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It was decided the central stripe was white, right? So why are you endorsing this version, when consensus is that no firm conversion from Pantone to RGB was provided? --TcfkaPanairjdde 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hear me out, please. Yes, I have endorsed the #ffffff version of the Italian flag that is presently on the Flag of Italy.svg image. I have no plans on changing that ever. However, if I am reading your statement rights, he is trying to "insert it among the flags of Italy." When I saw that, I thought he was trying to put the category "Flags of Italy" on the image. If he is adding the category, then there is nothing wrong with adding the category. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I am listening to you. The problem is that inserting it among the gflags of Italy (either in a page or in category, what is the difference), is claiming it is a flag of Italy, which is not. Both you and me and other came to the conclusion that the best "translation" in RGB of the Pantone code for the white stripe is actually #ffffff, so why should we accept any other version? Even the "printable" should go away, in my opinion (and I do not understand why you claim that the best code is pure white but allow a diffeferent version). Pleas, bear with me and explain the matter: Reisio is too egocentric and into mockery (did you read his answers in the image talk?) to provide a good reason, but if you agree with him then there could be a good reason. TcfkaPanairjdde 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw his responses and I wasn't a big fan of them. What I am trying to get at is if there is a need to display the "Pantone" version of the Italian flag, at least we have it so people can do a comparison. I even remember on our side, at the English Wikipedia, we have a small section about the colors and the changes in the past few years. I know for the Polish flag article, they display the legal, Pantone, flag while for symbolic purposes, they chose the agreed upon version by the Polish users. Plus, hard disk space is cheap, it will not hurt us to have this variant. I still think we need to chose a file name for it, but I like to have this image as a comparison. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The problems are: (1) who decided that this is the correct conversion? (2) who decide a conversion is possile at all? The Polish flag has its legal version because the Polish government provided the RGB codes or it was a conversion made with some strange website as in our case? --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect to find out a legal version or what they used for the textile colors. However, I still want to try a conversion as much as we can. I tried to get an answer from the Italian Gov't before, I will try again. 68.105.121.54 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (me logged out)

Your Userpage[edit]

When I was looking at your userpage, I noticed you say that you are an administrator here twice. Did you mean to do that? Razorflame 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake and I fixed it. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem! Razorflame 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking[edit]

Hey, are you allowed to upload a picture of yourself for use in your userpage? Razorflame 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can, but I just chose not to. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering. Lemme see if I got a picture of myself that I can upload. Razorflame 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It still needs to follow our policies on licensing and all of that stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Where can I read said policies? Razorflame 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found them. I read them and it says a small amount of personal photos are allowed, so I am going to upload my picture now. Razorflame 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding viewing problem of image:Flag of Italy (1861-1946).svg[edit]

I noticed u had in the past a problem with viewing the image, and i want to know how did u solved it?
I reinstalled Inscape and Adobe SVG viewer on my computer, but nothing seemed to help. Oren neu dag 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with SVG viewers; the image is blocked by an "ad block" if you use Firefox or any other add blocker. You need to whitelist the server where Wikimedia hosts images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
but i use Internet Explorer 6.0 Oren neu dag 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia[edit]

Another blue question. Please check it out on the talk page -- Rainman 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OMW. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa the flag is now pink-blue-white. Colours are definitely wrong. Please download CMYK http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/images/Srbija-Drzavna_zastava-4.5x3m-cmyk.cdr or Pantone http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/images/Srbija-Drzavna_zastava-4.5x3m-Pantone.cdr and see for yourself. --Avala 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This version of the flag is far too flashy, the previous one was absolutely correct. Even the 20px version appears to be flaring and a little kitch, compared to the other flags. Therefore, please restore the picture to the previous version.--Vitriden 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I followed the CMYK descriptions as described in the Serbian flag law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, have you seen the decision here? 100% of the voters decided that the official version of the Polish flag is simply unusable for the computer screens, because it looks gray and blurry. I think this is the case here, as well. The law sometimes shouldn't be directly applied to the digital versions of the flags, because they may look somewhat distractive and even offensive to the very people these flags should represent. That's just my opinion, though...--Vitriden 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am familiar with the Polish flag discussion, since it was used when the colors of the Italian flag were discussed. The main difference is that the Polish flag colors were determined by a code that very few people know. With the Serbian flag, I have a sheet from the government that says to use X, and most computer programs can easily do CMYK work. I used Inkscape to get the CMYK colors used for the image. Honestly, I do not see the pinkish color at all, and from some who I talked it over with in #wikipedia-sr, they noticed not much of a change. But, if Wikipedia and Wikimedia wants to have stuff people can cite, then we have no choice but to use the CMYK color the Serbian Government gives out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mile, Avala & I reached agreement that Proposal A should be used. Look at the gallery at image talk. -- Rainman 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
They haven't noticed a difference because they were still looking at the old flag from the cache. --Avala 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly noticed, since uploaded it, Mile complimented the file just as it was uploaded (in time when no revertment has occured), you have noticed it also. Then who hasn't noticed the new and improved file that you edited. We three have. Some others maybe haven't. -- Rainman 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you please move Image:Flag of Serbia Pantone.svg over Image:Flag of Serbia.svg (and delete the former)? I used RGB encodings of the Pantone colors as specified in the same PDF file you drew CMYK colors from. The CMYK colors were meant for printing only (as is told in the PDF), and this version has quite similar colors to the ones in files offered for download at the official site of the Parliament of Serbia. Specifically, red doesn't look like pink, which is what several people complained about. Nikola 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Now it resemble en:Maroon (color). Certainly it no longer look at least pink but adds purple into the equation. I think that PANTONE® is also meant as a reference for textiles and other "materials" but computers screens are somewhat different. I think Zscout370 used CMYK because it can be most easy transffered to RGB. There is the advantage of that colour system (CMYK) and Pantone is used by big business who can afford it and it is not so easy to translate it. It is most difficult and the results are subject to different calculation processes. But I give it still advantage because the question of the blue colour is almost solved. -- Rainman 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Can we just use this version - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Serbia_%28state%29.svg which requires no monitor calibration and looks the same red-blue-white on every monitor? Thank you. --Avala 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, because if using CMYK:
*Red: 0-90-70-10
*Blue: 100-55-0-0
*Yellow: 0-10-95-0
*Black: K 100
we end up with Image:Flag_of_Serbia_CMYK.svg and not even with the current Image:Flag of Serbia.svg.
Rainman 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Serbia.svg unprotected, so do whatever is required. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Slovenia discussion[edit]

Please look at the discussion and do try to find some photographs (that would pass your orriginality test) before changing my contribution back to yours. I know that you are an admin, and hope that I have behaved reasonably well so that no consequences should go my way. Please understand that I live quite close (in World terms) to Slovenia and seen Slovenian Flags in live colours (with my own eyes). Furthermore please come to an understanding with your humble coleague (that is I) - colours should be quite darker, you choose the level of darkness and try not to ask to much of these colour codes (RGB, CMYK, etc.) they are not perfect, what can be perfect is the best results. -- Rainman 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking, but just don't feel easy using WIPO at all as a source for colors. Plus, I could not find anything online what a stodic color chart looks like. I would like to use that, but I feel CMYK would be our better choice. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well why haven't you looked at the image and at the discussion. #0033FF is not making a compromise. CMYK is not legal. UKOM uses #0000FF but list 100-60-0-0. I compromisly suggested #002EE6, as a compromise between UKOM and Ministry of Public Adm. to be 100-80-0-10 this is (#002EE6).
Those colours that I have used are not WIPO (they look like it but they aren't theirs). I used the Presidency Symbol RGB colours and they look perfect. They are not at least - whatever atributes you gave them. I repeat havent you looked at the small (but very much scalable) CoA at that Presidency Symbol Presentation. You know - that signed and sealed one. If that is not an official document you can cite on - then I do not know what document is or would be considered official by you.
Why such quick revertment (and without reading the discussion), couldn't you have waited for someone to come forward and say - "Previous was better.".
Rainman 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked damnit and I feel that whatever charts and pages you showed make the flag faded. Honestly, I feel easy just sticking with the UKOM site and that is it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but would you look again or away or I don't know. I don't know why this last effort couldn't be streaming for a compromise. -- Rainman 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the Gods of cyberspace. Praise the lord Zscout370 for his generosity. :) I have seen that Kremlin site and still trying to search Duma and other official pages (unsucessfully). I also think that those are real Russian colours and that they shouldn't be changed but relying on only one source don't look good. If I find anything you would be the first to know. "I ... consider you a true and valued friend." [12] -- Rainman 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just need some time to cool down, and also deal with the elections in California. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Type in Slovenian flag as the search words in http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx or directly at http://pro.corbis.com/ There you are able to see that Slovenian flag looks much, much different than what we have compromised about. -- Rainman 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting source at UN: http://www.un.int/slovenia/insignia.html which were made by Andrej Benedejčič.
The latest booklet, "Facts about Slovenia", 3rd edition, published by the Government Communication Office, Ljubljana, January 2008. English version also depict darker blue colour of the CoA. -- Rainman 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Vector images[edit]

Could you please take a look at the discussion about the closing and following edit-protection of the deletion request. Cheers /Lokal_Profil 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the link Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Vector images. /Lokal_Profil 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Silver_fern.svg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Silver_fern.svg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Cecil 15:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't select the license, just corrected the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag request[edit]

Hi! I've got a request to make: Could you create a variation of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg based on this suggestion to incorporate the Welsh dragon? Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Flag of the Republic of Croatia[edit]

In the Article 23. of the Law on the CoA, the Flag and the National Anthem of the Republic of Croatia and on the Flag and the Sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia [13]; the Presidential Flag was determined.

Source: Orriginal text of the Law can be found here (in Croatian only) and partialy translated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - 7th Article of the Law - the CoA. There is written that the Coat of arms of Croatia has 25 squares red and white (silver).

This translation (however not entirely correct - new moon should be written) is more exact that FotW translation (done by Zeljko) where he translated "A golden rim borders the entire coat of arms." instead of "The entire coat of arms is trimmed by a red line." (MFA translation).

The orriginal sentence goes exactly like this: "Grb je obrubljen crvenom crtom."

I would appreciate if you would consult someone to translate that sentence for you it has been taken from the last paragraph (last sentence) of the Article No. 7 of the Law on the Coat-of-Arms, the Flag and the National Anthem of the Republic of Croatia and on the Flag and the Sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia.

This is an example of how fallible Zeljko can be.

Rainman 01:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He has it as silver, but not on the gif image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Where? -- Rainman 11:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of the Cayman Islands.svg[edit]

Hi. YOu removed the "no permission" tag from teh above image but do we have any evidence suggesting that webchantier.com have released their works as PD? The only license related thing I could find on the webpage is "2005©Webchantier™" /Lokal_Profil 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When will I learn that the only way to get something done is through a deletion request. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the Cayman Islands.svg. /Lokal_Profil 01:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Boss Kurvicek[edit]

Hi, I found the userpage of user:Boss Kurvicek. I don't know, if you know it, but he reverted your changes. I think, there shouldn't be any of penis picture (theese are to articles about penis and no other). Also his user name isn't OK - it's derivated from "kurva" = "bitch" (prostitute). --Daniel Baránek 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Belarus and V-I.com[edit]

I quickly glance through Гербы і сцягі гарадоў і раёнаў Беларусі and got some ideas. It'll be great if you'll help to implement them in SVG. For some cities COAs design is very simple (Kalinkavichy, Chachersk). Some COAs were derived from nobility COAs: Azarychy, Khotsimsk, Narowlya, Vetka, Valozhyn (I could miss some cities), so design is definitely PD. I think will be good idea to compare Category:Coats of arms of cities of Belarus and Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland (many of them in SVG already!). --EugeneZelenko 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If time permits. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of the United Nations.png[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Flag of the United Nations.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg[edit]

When you find the time please help us solve this question. Currently the file is locked and the administrators who have dealt with the question have pulled out of the discussion. The file is locked at a version that has not been agreed upon and the main purpose of locking is to stop edit-war.

My proposal is using the colours from Image:Flag of Croatia icon.svg thoroughly described in the discussion and in the icon file.

There is a workspace Image:Flag of Croatia for discussion.svg that is used for describing rationales and then the debate is redirected to Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg.

Rainman 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the true colors to the Croatia flag, so I am going to be useless. Just keep in contact with me and I will find time to comment. Just swamped with school work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please lock the file Image:Flag of Croatia.svg. The fellow user Minestrone does not obey any rules. He has drawn one flag only and positioned CoA way up in the red field.
But this is not his only transgresion, he doesn't participate in the discussion, he doesn't justify his revertments, he doesn't seems to be interested in synchronization with dependent images, he thinks that using colours from an another state flag is good way of solving problems.
I hope that if you choose to lock the file that it would be locked very soon and preferably on mine humble contribution. I have synchronized all dependent images except Civil Ensign which has been locked indefinately.
Rainman 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The construction sheet that you cite at [14] are just approximate in nature. Hm...i;ll look into it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is aproximative. I have never planned it to be the only source. Have just used it for 3rd band of the flag. I think that the solution for the blue is in the scope between what Mello used and the ordinary blue. Also I have used around #0000FF colours (even bit darker) as a sort of compromise - but unsuccessful. Last colour was CMYK 100-80-0-15 and it is now on display -- Rainman 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why that revertment. To what purpose. Why not going to the source, Nightstallion has used different colour and then Neoneo13 changed the colour. More on that topic on the last edit of Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg -- Rainman 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is just for the purpose of staying neutral why not locking on the colours that were orriginal. That colour was used by Nightstallion. Ok. You have chosen what you taught is most neutral but why not droping a line on what is your plan. Please talk. Again why not protecting on the version of Nightstallion. -- Rainman 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to the image before the edit wars on the colors began, which was a long time ago. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the entire thing happened precisely because those bad colours of the Flag and the CoA. Why not reverting to the orriginal colour that was set by Nightstallion.
And for the second matter, do you consider the thing to be over, solved ..., or it is just a measure of ensuring staying neutral. CoA is currently off. It could be double white, red bordered or simply red bordered - not what it is now. Why going into the CoA dillema before solving basic colour issues like what kind of red and what kind of blue. -- Rainman 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What about locking the file on the sittuation that was when orriginal uploader uploaded the file. Just colour wise not entirely (design, CoA question and other minute details). -- Rainman 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Why no answer. Any of the problems regarding this topic is not solved, the sittuation is worsened by changing the CoA on the Flag. Ask Zeljko to say weather the presidential sash has the CoA doubly bordered white first to the CoA, red second to the CoA. The Law is still better than nothing and the argument could arise that Flag had exactly the same CoA on it during all this time on Commons (nobody said anything or complained). -- Rainman 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And the sittuation as you left it is fine also? If this flag would be even considered as a starting point for the compromise this would be very bad. This has never been the colour of the Croatian People. -- Rainman 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please change the colour to the orriginal first upload colour that Nightstallion used. This and only this can be interpreted as not biased. The oposition side (Minestrone) demanded that current colours remain, you left those colours probablly because at one point that oposition side changed its position slightly. But this has never been their plan - see history of Image:Civil Ensign of Croatia.svg. There you would find that Minestrone returned to his orriginal position that nothing should be changed.
Leaving the file at current version is allowing his side to an another entire month or more of their POV in place. They have been awarded by pure luck (I am not accusing anybody) a month and a week. Why my version shouldn't have the month User:O gave it - also by pure luck.
Please answer.
Rainman 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest development on the Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg under the title Finalization. -- Rainman 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Minestrone removed Template:protected from the Image:Flag of Croatia.svg this probabbly means that a compromise has been reached. But I am not completely sure of that. I hope that you wouldn't not jeopardize the possibly reached compromise by changing anything before discussing it at the Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg. -- Rainman 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker[edit]

Hey, I saw your commands to CommonsDelinker. Can it do PNG->SVG now? I know they were talking about making an exception for Vector-Images.com images, but I didn't know if they got around to it yet. →Rocket°°° 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have SVG replacements for these copyright questionable images, we should try and use the delinker bot to just start the process. I only started now because Toolserv is being a PITA. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I talked to siebrand (here) and he mentioned that the replacements using CommonsDelinker are possible but need to be put in manually by him or Bryan. /Lokal_Profil 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting rid of white space Image:Coat of arms of Croatia.svg[edit]

This is fine, but (oh God there is always a but with me) when the CoA is observed at a gallery or a thumb then the lower portion of it is cut-off, same thing happens with roundels.

Why not allowing just a little white space below in order to prevent this from happening. In this way no portion would be cut-off.

The image in question is sVG that means scalable so white space doesn't change anything other than prevents such misfortune to happen.

See Category:Coats of arms of Croatia which clearly shows what I am talking about.

Rainman 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not intentionally targeting you at all. You just happen to deal with a subject that I have a heavy interest in. Anyways, taking your suggestions and making a small blank buffer around the crest. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel targeted at all. -- Rainman 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen it now. Have you noticed that I was not talking about the crest but the bottom of the CoA. Same meaning of lower portion, little white space below... -- Rainman 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is fine now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have contributed to your talk page some sources for the Flag of Slovenia and the Flag of SR Croatia, where should we continue those discussions. On the archive page or here. -- Rainman 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just continue them here under new headings. I still remember what you said earlier. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Medvedev_at_Davos.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Medvedev_at_Davos.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

sk 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourg vs SR Croatia 2[edit]

Sources on the talk page. In your archive No. 2 you have some remarks that I made regarding the user R-41 and his colour choices in the past.

Rainman 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

R-41 has dropped out of the discussion, also I must remind on his dubious colour choices when it comes to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia period. He draw them (flags) with the same colours like some Serbian flags of today (the colours that were previously used at commons). I on the other hand have contributed valuable sources (photographical, imagery and documents) that haven't been even noticed. -- Rainman 07:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not fine. You have declared your mistrust in WIPO based on what? I will not yield to your "drop this" request in this matter because:

  • Proofs from WIPO and my recollection of events when I was a child and waived flags that I was given by my teachers at school. We were all given those flags to waive and I have seen others waive exactly the same flags at TV (at the time).
  • R-41 has proved so far that has a dubious colour selection policy as regarding the flags from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia period.
  • Multiple standards, I have offered reliable source that is very well documented at a specialized institution which deals with such info. Even FAME uses this source as a reliable info (as example regarding CoA of the SFRY period).
  • It is also not a "good policy" claiming:
    • Slovenia today (pro.corbis.com and wipo share alike content) - Disqualified by Zscout370
    • SR Croatia (in fact entire SFRY flag section) (pro.corbis.com used as an only source) - Approved by Zscout370
    • Lebanon (Constitution used as an only information source as well as some embassies) - Approved by Zscout370
    • Croatia today (Constitution and Law not used as a reliable source, selective pro.corbis.com sourcing) - Yet to be observed what policy Zscout370 will folow.

I have to stress the fact that every republic in SFRY had its own constitution which defined the flag and the CoA. R-41 thinks that flags of the republics were modelled with a one source - the Flag of SFRY. Where are his proofs for that statement. Has this statement ever been written in any document from before 1990?

Are you still going to support R-41 position?

Rainman 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I still support his position. Each flag image cannot just be based from WIPO. There are a lot of times WIPO either gets it wrong or is not updated at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
After I described you that R-41 has made mistakes regarding the colours of flags of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia!?
Also it is not just WIPO, as I communicated to you flags of the republics were created according the each and every constitution of each and every republic. This was not the ingerence of SFRY (the Federation). Also I named sources in the form of paper flags that were mass produced that I as a child waived. Also this image shows two different colours (nevertheless we cannot see which is the second flag). A few pictures from pro.corbis cannot be enough proof when I collected those oficial and unoficial sources. R-41's position that all of the republics flags were made after the SFRY flag is void (unsourced and undocumented) - yet you find it to support such position. Why?
Countries are not obliged to change symbols every few years so that "the update" factor would be satisfied by your standards. Yugoslavia oficially protected those WIPO symbols. This is oficial and not some fantasy.
Rainman 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is expecting that each and every flag is based on WIPO, but in this case it is the only oficial information, all other informations like chilidren's encyclopaedia is reserved for Zeljko only. Namely he constructed minority flags for Yugoslavian minorities based on one sentence from a chilidren's encyclopaedia. What are the sources of R-41? I do not see them. And also you could reply more often, if possible. -- Rainman 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have received not a word from you since a long time ago. Why haven't you commented on the fact that even USSR republics had different colours on its flags, even different colours of hammer and sickle, different green's too. And SFRY could not had different colours - it must have been uniform - Why? Because R-41 thinks so, because of his gutt feeling or a hunch that all of the republics of SFRY had exactly the same colours - Where is the source for this - and I mean documentary source - not some modified scans. Please release SR Croatia and SR Slovenia - I do not care about the rest. -- Rainman 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As I wrote in my last comment on Image talk:Flag of SR Croatia.svg. Those WIPO flags were protected in the times that democratization of Yugoslavia was attempted, in fact in those day (1968) the entire World breathed more free of any oppression. A meer decade from that time everything went down hill, Tito died, centralisation begun, currency plunged and we should use sources from those times, from times of war and disrespect of human lives (not to speak of flags). Why havent you commented those facts and also why havent you commented that even USSR flags had different blue's, green's, maybe even red's. Even different styles and colours of the Hammer and Sickle symbol. USSR republics can have different symbols but SFRY cannot ?! -- Rainman 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Slovenia discussion 2[edit]

Sources that I have listed in your archives No. 2 are also listed under the headline Compromise on the talk page of this header/title.

Rainman 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Paging Jimmy"[edit]

Re your deletion comment here: if you meant "Jimmy" == "Jimbo Wales": well, I guess you're more likely to get an answer if you asked Mike Godwin per e-mail. Lupo 09:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. I wasn't trying to start a legal battle, but I figured Jimbo might have clout with the folks at the WEF and see what is exactly going on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that's a possibility that didn't occur to me. Lupo 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS help needed[edit]

Could you please check OTRS for e-mail from Riccardo Simonutti (User:Srp, most likely from riccardo dot simonutti at free dot fr) in relation to Image:LeHouguet.jpg? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that I resigned my OTRS access in January 2008. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for troubles. I'll ask help of other administrators. --EugeneZelenko 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Language template missing Template:Be-x-old[edit]

Because of that this translation doesn't appear properly:

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Сьцяг Харватыі

Rainman 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some contribution to this template but it still needs a revision by an expert or something like that. -- Rainman 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko would be the best to ask about it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kay Chernush photos[edit]

Hi Zscout370,
already any feedback from the state dep. about the Kay Chernush photos' status? -- Túrelio 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

None. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying of translations from Image:Croatia flag large.png to Image:Flag of Croatia.svg[edit]

If it is not to much to ask please copy - better yet simply append on the list of translations of the file Image:Flag of Croatia.svg - some additional translations from Image:Croatia flag large.png.

I think that the translations should not be changed, but instead just appended to the main image area.

Rainman 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

While you are "at it". Please reconsider a) broadening the red edge of the CoA (is seems not-visible because it is too narrow); b) using the #003E9F for the blue band/stripe of the Flag as did the orriginal uploader Nightstallion used. You can check this info very easily; c) using the revised CoA (either Croatian Coat of arms.svg or Coat of arms of Croatia.svg Thanks a lot -- Rainman 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

These translations that I made are not duplicates of the main image, these are a new lot. -- Rainman 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Translations transfered, working on arms. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not using the orriginal blue colour that Nightstallion used (he was the first uploader). It could be a basis (a starting point) for reaching a compromise. -- Rainman 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How can we reach a compromise if you continue to use #021272. Why not the orriginal that Nightstallion used (#003E9F). Why not vexilla-mundi colour that even Zeljko at one place recommended. These are double standards. For Lebanon it is OK to use vexilla-mundi colours for Croatia it is not OK.
If you are to agree with the vexilla mundi - blue (only) colour which Zeljko and Mello suggest then you have all of the neccessary background for that decision.
I have changed the Image:Croatia flag large.png in a way that uses vexilla mundi blue colour. This file is still being used at hr.wikipedia.org for the user-info-box with the text "I'm from Croatia" or such. Who objected - nobody.
Please answer.
Rainman 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Lebanon[edit]

You haven't said anything about the (by my calculations) wrong 2:3 ratio. Nor commented the Constitution which might have had by the legislators been romantically stated green Cedar tree. First drawing can be still found at it:Bandiera libanese. Flag that has been first hoisted and probably kept in a Lebanese National Museum should also be considered. Also when was the Cedar tree been completely green - never (in nature) but when has that symbol started to be dominantly green. Why has the green-brown symbol been omitted from the history of this flag. And finaly why is the Constitution of Lebanon enough and the Constitution of Croatia (and the Law) not enough. -- Rainman 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The ratio is correct. The Constitution copy I has says the Cedar tree is green. The flag image is correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not know why do you feel so rightful to say what is correct and what is not. I do not think that current use of the flag is wrong per se but rather that other usages with other colours and with the trunk in black are also correct.
What was my goal with this topic. The goal was to explain the administrators that Bradipus should not write his POV about the other flags being definately incorrect, wrong or such. They are simply versions. I hope that you would revert his (Bradipus) editing of the Image:Leb flag1.PNG because it is just his POV and not a neutral and not-biased way of looking on this topic.
I have no intention of pretending that a previouslly and massivelly used version be returned. That is the question for the parliament of Lebanon and not me, but instead I wanted to stop this pretence that this flag is unofficial and wrong and not correct and not constitituonal.
If you or I were Lebanese and waived the brown trunk version, what would happen to us. - Answer: Nothing. That is no problem for them, there are no laws to punish anybody for expressing his oppionion and version of the flag.
Please stop POV that Bradipus writes on Image:Leb flag1.PNG.
Rainman 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I downloaded the images and I checked the math. The SVG image, while sized not in a normal way, I shrunk it down to 400x600 pixels. Various construction sheets I have found uses this 4x6 method for checking the flag. I checked the stripes and they are even. 1x2x1 is how the stripes should go, just like in the Spanish flag. The cedar tree is supposed to be 2 units high and wide; it matches. The only issue seems to be the colors, but the lack of information from Lebanon makes that determination hard. All we have to go by is the national constitution, which has it as all green. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not mind Image:Flag of Lebanon.svg as it is today. Maybe the red colour should be more bright. We should also look at the pro.corbis.com for some flag photographs. The Cedar tree is just supposed to be 2×2, we agree even on that. But the Constitution as any legal text is not the only and definitive source. To repeat myself - I do not want the flag to be changed, but instead to have the right to do the same clarifications like Bradipus did on flags that do not meet his criteria. He even wanted other sources/images to be deleted. Also I expect for you to go along with this Constitutional story to select some neutral blue colour for the flag of Croatia.
In Croatia we have a law that defines the flag as red-white-blue (not dark blue, no matter what colour is being used in some institutions, they vary significantly - so none should be used as a source).
Also we have the Law which uses same words for the description of the Flag as the Constitution does. That same Law defines the flag of the President as navy blue. This way we can all see that the Presidential Flag is a significant source because the National Flag has to use a completely different colour (almost the half of the saturation than the flag of the President.
Also that same Law defines the CoA and the "Crown" on top of the CoA. That "Crown" has 5 small shields which by the letter of the law use blue, navy blue, blue, navy blue, blue colours (looking from either left or right). Firstly I insisted that this blue on the 1st, 3rd & 5th small shields should be exactly the same as the bottom stripe of the flag, then I compromised and agreed with others that 3B pattern should be used. That is 3 blue colours. blue on the CoA is in fact light blue, navy blue on the CoA is navy blue and blue on the flag is ordinary #0000FF blue (or if we want a more serious blue colour then CMYK 100-80-0-15 or #002BD9 should be used.
Why not trying those colours and see if anybody would contact you and ask to move back that dark navy blue which was earlier used (#021272).
Rainman 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the flag of Lebanon, I am not sure about the colors. As I said before, colors appear light on my computer, but it does that to all images. As for the Croatia flag, I'll see what I can do. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How bout discussion?[edit]

Can you tell me why you just delete an image without discussing the deletion beforehand with the community. Beside that, where have the questions been raised? They are supposed to be raised here at Commons!--84.166.1.246 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what image it is, then I can shed some light. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ANude+female.jpg

The discussion took place on en.wikipedia; they expressed severe doubts over the licensing and the sourcing of that image. I agreed with them; we have many images of nude females or nude body parts that have better licensing and sourcing than this one, plus the uploader is long gone. So I used my judgment and speedied it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Where can I find this discussion?--84.166.56.210 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's archived on the ANI of English Wikipedia, not sure where specifically. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even after having a close look at the en:ANI, I couldn't find this discussion. And even if there was a discussion, why should a Commons picture be discussed at the English Wikipedia and not here at Commons. To be frank with you: to me it looks as if you just didn't like the picture (apparently because of the content it was showing which meens female nudity) and so you dicided all for yourself to delete it. So could you just post the link to this discussion and dispel my doubts. Shouldn't be hard for you to find it. --84.166.8.101 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, there was a discussion going on but it was basically about whether this picture could be shown on a userpage or rather not. You took the consequence and just deleted the picture. As far as I know, the deletion of a Commons Picture is first discussed on Commons. The pictures here are used on many international Wikipedias (this one was used in the German Wikipedia), not just on en:userpages. So could you please undo the deletion and then you might post a deletion-template and have the deletion properly discussed here at commons. --84.166.21.215 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There was discussion about the image, but it was buried in the overall discussion. But I honestly think the move I did was fine; we got plenty of other images of this female body part that have a better source, a better license and a better release. So, no. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you search around the Commons, there are various other photos, with a better release and sourcing, than the image I deleted, so you are welcome to use those instead. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, but still it would be nice for contributers of other Wikipedias to discuss about deletions here at Commons and not at the English Wikipedia. Just for the next time.--84.166.1.10 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Western Sahara[edit]

stop protecting wrong things! --Isno 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism issue has been going on for months and months, so this ain't the first protection nor will be the last. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Attr-Tartu[edit]

I have sent permission to the "permissions@wikimedia.org" in 21. March--Hendrixeesti 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
then what about redirection to the "Template:No license"?--Hendrixeesti 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed it back. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SFRJ flags[edit]

That page for which you have asked R-41 to source some book is completely and utterly false. I will mail the editor to remove such false content.

  1. Blue colours on flags are wrong, but you know my position on that topic so I will not repeat myself
  2. Flag of SR Bosnia & Herzegovina has the Flag of SFRY outlined in white instead of yellow, also the border is not complete because it needs to be all around the Flag of SFRY
  3. The yellow outlined red stars (on flags) are not correctly positioned
  4. CoA of SR Croatia has the first field in white, which has not been the case, it was clearly tampered with
  5. CoA of SR BiH has also been tapered with, smoke from the chimney in blue, endings of the green wreaths
  6. CoA of SR Serbia had an irregular shaped red star
  7. CoA of SR Montenegro had grey Lovćen mountain and grey Njegoš chappel not blue
  8. CoA of SR Macedonia had yellow poppy flowers exactly the same as the sun, also the background was light blue
  9. All CoA's had differently sized stars, some bordered yellow, but some not bordered at all

And you would use that site as a source.

Rainman 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


http://forums.cjb.net/titovforum-post-47.html this crap has been posted all around the Internet - does it make it right - NO. -- Rainman 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So did these images come from a book of some sort? But I do notice the following; this and the WIPO images, along with other pages, are showing thicker stars. I think we can safely make all of the stars thicker with regards to the gold. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that any book in Yugoslavia (SFRY which existed (in reality) up to 1989 and the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution led by Miloshevich) would portray such mistakes. I do not think so it is just a prank, nothing more. As I see on FotW - Zeljko uses CoA's from WIPO IPLD 6ter database?! I do not care about the border of the stars, it can be broader, thicker, less, more, colours is what matters. Yellow borders were much, much more present than gold. I think that only the SFRY flag had that narrow border (edge, hem). Even if WIPO can show us that SR Montenegro followed with that narrowness. -- Rainman 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just trying to find what we actually agree upon. I am not an expert at coat of arms, so whatever you feel is best for the arms, just stick with those. Yes, I know he uses the arms from the WIPO database. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why cannot we agree that there are differences present in the case of Croatia and Slovenia. USSR had different blue's, green's and even hamer & sickle symbols. -- Rainman 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why cannot we agree that there are differences present in the case of Croatia and Slovenia. USSR had different blue's, green's and even hamer & sickle symbols. -- Rainman 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting through to you? Namely what R-41 wrote is ambiguous up to a point being void. His position that all of the SFR Yugoslavia's republics must have the same shade of blue is proposterous and basically biased. I have listed an official source, he has not listed anything other than his hunches. If USSR's republics could have had a different shades of blue, green, even red and different shapes and even colours of hammer and sickle symbol - why cannot the same "freedom" apply to SR Croatia and SR Slovenia. -- Rainman 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seal of Idaho.svg[edit]

Why did you request that this image be transferred to Commons, when you should be well-aware that this is not a federal government emblem, so that the copyright tag used is extremely dubious at best? AnonMoos 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to request the move, or someone did this on my behalf. Anyways, since the seal was derived from the state flag, I was told to use the same license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Whoever you are, thanks for the Soviet Flag redesign, it is beautiful. I'm not pro-stalin or anything, but as a socialist I consider the flag of the first worker's state to be quite special, even if it was as frequently abused as is our poor Star Spangled Banner (the first of its kind as well, you could say). So anyway, thanks.

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

China flag[edit]

see zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他/存档/2008年2月#由中华人民共和国国旗的颜色说开……--Shizhao 07:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Orgasm oggs[edit]

I notice you deleted the two recordings alluded to in the recent media coverage, because of permission issues. Is there somewhere that describes Commons treatment of permission requirements for explicit content? I'm covering the pornography story for the Signpost, and I'm looking for somewhere to point to that explains the basis for those deletions.--Ragesoss 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have permission from the female subject of the sound recordings, and I been asked in the past (not sure when or by whom) that we need to have tougher permission notices when it comes to pornographic media. Once the emails and news articles started to circulate online, that just gave me a bigger cause to get rid of the files. We don't have a "possibly unfree images" on the Commons; we just delete at will. Anyways, it was three recordings, not two. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Rainman puppet[edit]

Confirmed for what it's worth - no others at present - cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, once the account was created and started to revert back Serbia related images, that pretty much what tipped me off. But thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


TUSC token b81245d45c4f762e47a55afde19159b3[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

PD-Serbia[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you deleted dozens of files which are in public domain. Check this out. Many of pics (not all) that you deleted are in public domain as official materials of a Republic of Serbia state body, for example, photos from Serbia National Assembly site. Copyright signs on the bottom of their sites are related to site design, not to official materials that are in PD by law. --Matija (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the Serbian copyright law saved onto my computer. Many of the sites I am deleting images from, they claim copyright for everything single thing that is on there, including photographs. The only images I am not deleting are of the national symbolics. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they don't have the right to claim copyright to official photos of National Assembly deputies or those of President of state or similar. They are claiming copyright by default, without observing the law which prevents them from doing so. --Matija (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your destructions. So many time lost to find official sources... Kindly, --Aristote2 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like trolling, Zscout370. I got the same message. Nothing specific, so nothing we can help with - user does have a lot of uploads removed because of copyvio. Siebrand 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Siebrand, email me please. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Hapsenje V Cvetkovica.jpg - another PD photo deleted. It was taken by a Serbian MIA official photograph, just like Image talk:Hapsenje D Dzajica.jpg (check the image talk of that deleted photo, if it's still available). --Matija (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Walden69 block[edit]

Hi, I am an administrator from catalan wikipedia. User:Walden69 does not speak english and has been blocked. He has asked me to ask you for the reasons of his indefinite blocking. In the log, I can see:

01:10, 10 June 2008 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) blocked Walden69 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Uploading files without source/licensing after warnings)

Although I have seen a lot of deletion requests in his talk, he says most deleted images were not recently uploaded. Would you mind explaining me your decision and I will explain him in catalan? Would it be possible to reconsider changing the lenghth of the block? Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the images he has uploaded before, he has lied about the source and lied about the licenses. He also transwikied images from other Wikipedias and he either forgot the source or lied about the licenses. He was blocked for this many times before and I felt like it was enough, so I made the block indefinite. As for reducing, I would say no for right now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire)`

army photos[edit]

You even removed those Serbian army photos and apart from them being in PD they can also be used under fair use rationale if you insist that they are copyrighted (civilian photographing of military is forbidden therefore there can't be free equivalent available). But you have the law on your computer. That's the justification for mass removal. Of course you didn't stop them when they were transfered from en wiki to commons so now they are gone both from en wiki (deleted because they were transfered here) and here on commons (based on your decision). So even though whatever you might believe those images could stay either here or on wikipedia but removing and erasing is more fun I guess. I must say that I am shocked. --Avala (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map_Canada_political-geo.png[edit]

I was quite surprised by your statement regarding the deletion request of Image:Map_Canada_political-geo.png. Here is the source image, from a Canadian government website: [15] and it is also on this Canadian government website: [[16]]

The user "E Pluribus Anthony" states that this map was "drawn and adapted" from the Atlas of Canada website; hence it is clear that there is a non-coincidental connection between the source map and the map in Wikipedia. (Government of Canada URLs tend to change frequently, and the exact URL specified by "E Pluribus Anthony" is now a dead link. However, the two Canadian government URLs I have cited above are currently valid.)

To my eye, the one map is a slightly modified form of the original map. Note the unusual font for provincial names, the way that the name of Greenland is given in both Danish and Greenlandic languages without using the word "Greenland," and the way that "Saskatchewan" has been squeezed in by placing it diagonally. The map in Wiki is cropped and minor changes have been made to the legend, but for all intents and purposes, these are the same maps. What am I missing here that led you to your conclusion? (Email is preferred. Email link is on my Wiki-English user page.) Canadian2006 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many images that we use another website to cite as a source. I looked at both maps, and another administrator too looked at both maps, and we found no problem. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg[edit]

Hi, Can you start a new deletion request? I couldn't participate in the first one. thank you --Xiquet (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no cause too. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ensign of the United States Coast Guard.svg[edit]

With regard to this deletion, I see the new image lists as its source the old page. That's not gonna fly (sorry:) because it's a circular argument given that the new and old page are the same. What is the actual source for this image (i.e., the source of the previous image)? DMacks (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Zscout, who was the OTRS volunteer who said Tabercil's Luke Ford permission was a forgery? Kelly (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS has noted, internally, that the volunteer responding to Zscout370 was mistaken regarding the status of the ticket in question. I suspect Commons will not have issues with the particular volunteer again. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, see my email. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All Rights Reserved images stay for year and a half[edit]

Instead of deleting PD images how about paying attention to images that were uploaded from flickr and which are licensed under the terms of the All Rights Reserved. For an example Image:Tara-masjid.jpg or any other in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR ? --Avala (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

image - use your version please[edit]

I don't know know which version did you revert Image:Flag of Serbia.svg in all that mess those users made but the correct version is the version by you 09:59, 15 February 2008 900×600 (543 KB) Zscout370 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/ff/20080510194614%21Flag_of_Serbia.svg and it's not the current version so please revert to your version not to something that popped out in the middle of the rv war. Colours should match with Image:Flag of Serbia (national).svg, which is also with your last edit but unlike the first file this file is OK. --Avala (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So?--Avala (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help reverting a page move[edit]

I saw that you reverted the renaming of Latvija, so I ask you if you could revert the renaming of Riga to Rīga - Рига? The native name is only Rīga, there are no official alternatives in spelling in the local Latvian language. This is highly political (and thus sensitive) issue with regard to the local language policy; I mean, such bilingualism is unacceptable for the sake of withstanding the Russian influence, and I ask you to revert the page title to the native name Rīga. I couldn't rename it myself, because the previous page needs to be deleted. Thanks a lot in advance! --Juzeris (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LukashenkoB.jpg[edit]

Good morning/evening,

I would like to express my misgivings following the deletion of the image File:LukashenkoB.jpg by you on the 27 July 2008 with the doubtful explanation "I was told that...". Your action conncerns an image which is being used on several Wikipedias (at least three) and which is provided with a stringent and irrefutable reason for its upload, namely the free copyright if a backlink to the source is provided which I have assiduously done. The unambiguous text corroborating this copyright free usage with a backlink is accesible here for every person with an inetermediate knowledge of Russian or Belarussian and it sounds as follows:

Русский: "Материалы Портала могут использоваться в средствах массовой информации, распространяться в сети Интернет без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Единственным условием является ссылка на первоисточник. Никакого предварительного согласия на использование материалов Портала со стороны пресс-службы Президента Республики Беларусь не требуется."
Беларуская: Матэрыялы Партала могуць выкарыстоўвацца ў сродках масавай інфармацыі, распаўсюджвацца ў сетцы Інтэрнэт без якіх-небудзь абмежаванняў па аб’ёму і тэрмінах публікацыі. Адзінай умовай з’яўляецца спасылка на першакрыніцу. Ніякай папярэдняй згоды на выкарыстанне матэрыялаў Партала з боку прэс-службы Прэзідэнта Рэспублікі Беларусь не патрабуецца.

With regard to the above mentioned staightforward terms of use I would demand the restauration of the image concerned because of the diligently quoted terms of use in the template which I used in order to elucidate its copyright status, lest an administrator, fluent in the Russian or Belorussian language, be apprised of the committed action and I would be ineffably content if a stringent (sourced) explanation in lieu of rumours is used for any action concerning diverse uploaded images. Bogorm (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had images uploaded here and other locations, specifically en.wikipedia, from the same website. I had another Belarusian user tell me that the images are not available to be used for commercial purposes and no mention about the ability to modify the photos is on the website. Those two key items are what we need in order to get photos on the Commons; photos from president.gov.by do not promise that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you please mention the user so that I can clarify this matter with him and converse about the quoted sentences stating just the opposite of what you wrote? Or would you ask him about his oppinion about the link above (this one) and the straightforward sentences permitting any use without any restrictions? Bogorm (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The user in question is User:EugeneZelenko, and he speaks Russian and Belarusian naively. What I was getting at is while the web portal does allow their images to be used without their permission, they claim copyright on their works. They still have the right to have the images only used for non-commercial purposes and still have to right to ask people not to modify their images. And this is not something coming out of thin air; this is our actual policies. I ask you to read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses in your preferred language. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I too noticed that this was deleted. If the note says "without any restrictions" than it means "without any restrictions" including the right to edit no matter what some user might have said.--Avala (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As I told you, I had images before from that website on en.wikipedia under the exact same terms Bogorm had; they were deleted for not being free enough. If we have no note about commercial reuse and modifications, we cannot host the images here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
So if it says "without any restriction whatsoever" it's not a proof that we can use the image? When they erasedthem they could have made a mistake. --Avala (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Lukashenkorotaru.jpg[edit]

You have committed an error. This image File:Lukashenkorotaru.jpg has nothing to do with the reasons you have stipulated as reason for deletion of the image. Please, kindly bring it back immediately.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The copyright of the photo is held by the website of the President of the Republic of Belarus, so the license you chose was incorrect. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)