Hello, someone asked me to finished them a longtime ago but because of the complexity and the large number of them I decided to only do three more: the Crown Prince's, Princess Sirindhorn's and Princess Chulabhorn's. They are still in my todo list. Sodacan (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, great work on the governor flags! I don't think that they belong at the top of the article - given it is about the state flag. However, they definitely deserve their own section or page. Sorry about putting them in the See Also section. I meant for this to be a temporary solution until I could do some research on the symbolism. I created a new section for each governor flag in each of the articles. The descriptions need a little work. ...okay, alot of work... :) Cheers! -DevinCook (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the badges are beyond my abilities. I'm still pretty basic with Inkscape. I do agree though that we should have these flags added, and have some mates on the Commons who I can request of. Fry1989 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see; well, you're still better qualified than I.
Very Excellent! I love flags myself, I collect them in real life.... My state flag is rare OHIO... I believe its the only one like it in the world... though I could be mistaken... Keep up the Work
--HRH.zadock (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, why did you revert back to the old version of the Vermont seal? The graphic is over 100 years old with the current state-used design by Ira Allen, and has been duplicated several times on other educational websites. It doesn't qualify for 18 U.S.C. 701, and is only governed by statutes 1 V.S.A. § 494 and 13 V.S.A. § 1904, the first of which states it may be used by the "Vermont development board" in a publication with advertising provided there is the Governor's approval, and the latter of which strictly states that it "may be used for commemorative medals or for public displays not connected with any advertising" as long as it does not say that the State of Vermont endorses the work (in this case Wikipedia itself). So why should it this not be portrayed exactly as it is officially illustrated? While there are other versions on the internet based on Wikipedia's older renderings, the official portrayal is still widely available elsewhere in similar contexts. --Ken (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in my reversion, a direct copy can cause us problems. Just because the Seal is over 100 years old, the particular graphic you traced it from may not be. I'm trying to protect the file, because we've had issues like this before with others. Fry1989 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seal being over 100 years old has little to do with it, the graphic from which it is derived is from the Vermont Historical Society, which does not even own the rights to the seal (see the laws above, a quick Google search will show this is the original version) but even so states on its website that its materials are allowed to be duplicated for non-commercial, educational purposes. I'll assume that you have good intention to protect the file, but you have given only given a blanket statement here and in your reversion. Saying that it can cause problems like those of other files (with which copyright status may be unknown) is different than saying such is the case for this specific file. Even assuming that the rendition isn't 100 years old, it is still usable content on the grounds of both the source site and the original author (the state). In light of these permissions, please give me a valid but specific reason that it should not be used here and I will drop this.--Ken(talk) 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get what I'm saying. Just because the Seal is PD, the rendition may not be. Do you know who made the version you traced? If you don't, that brings it into question. Do you know how many PD seals and arms I have seen deleted because the rendition wasn't? Seals that are well over 150 years old have been deleted because the rendition they were based on is a modern one. Fry1989 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're saying but it simply doesn't apply, if you read in the revision you would see it says who made the version (Reuben Dean, who did so for the state, I even emailed the VHS and they confirmed this is the same version), where it's sourced and that said source states it is fine to use in a setting like Wikipedia. If you had gone on the website it came from or looked at the revision you would have known this. Instead you pick the first statement and ignore all of what I've just said, it has nothing to do with the seal or the rendition being public domain, it has everything to do with the author and holders of the rendition both saying it is okay to use. Not being allowed for commercial use in any form of rendition, the seal probably shouldn't be public domain as is. I think I have been as thorough and specific as I can be, at this point you're only being overbearing.--Ken(talk) 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to help. If I am wrong, correct it, but don't call me overbearing when my original intent was modest. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gold Olive BranchSorry about that, I've just had too many dealings with edit wars on here before, and rather than doing that, in the end I just left a nice steaming heap on this talk page. Though the usage part is true, it was mostly unnecessary. When you asked who made the rendering it really set me off, I thought you were trolling me. I'm sure it was an oversight, and I probably could have done to edit it into the description as well. You have my apologies --Ken(talk) 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the shield of the arms is all that counts really. Obviously the full arms with the crown is preferable but sometimes (as on the outline article) just isn't practical.
I hope you will just leave a bind eye to the new image's inclusion on the "Outline of Denmark" article (and if not please reply back). Although I agree that the full version should be used on all other articles (perhaps excluding some lists).
Third one: I'll do the seals for Massachusetts tomorrow. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, looking beautiful :) Fry1989eh? 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view or download the Flickr file for the seal of the Governor. There seems to be an error. Do you have another source, or a backup? Adelbrecht (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okday, request has been completed. Adelbrecht (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man,
Really there is no need to edit war nor to accuse me of being disruptive and not knowing what a word means. That's just rude.
Image is labeled coat of arms not Royal standard, we're not going to confuse readers and label a royal standard a coat of arms. Armiger is the Kingdom of Morocco not the king himself, that's like saying that the armiger of the coat of arms of the United States is Obama. To say that the king is the only one entitled to use the coat of arms is false. No law, that i know of, regulating the use of it and reserving to the king exist. The standard is to use the coat of arms for such articles and that's what's done elsewhere. Tachfin (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what armiger means. In a monarchy, the Monarch is the armiger of the national emblem. It is that way in every Monarchy, from the United Kingdom, to Sweden, to Japan. In a Republic, the armiger is the State itself. The King being the armiger does not mean that he alone owns it, or that he alone can use it. The Monarch is the embodiment of state, and that is why he is the armiger. As for the page with the royal standard, I am trying to correct the problem. Fry1989eh? 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay re the armiger, I might have based my judgement on false Republic/Kingdom analogy. But regarding the coat of arms vs Royal standard at "List of rulers", that's how it's done for all countries i.e. coat of arms is displayed as per template design if you disagree with that you should raise the issue at the template's talk. Please note that it is a royal coat of arms. I really don't have anything against displaying the royal standard instead but labeling it coat of arms is false Tachfin (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you asked, and when I tried to upload it under the same name as the Commons file, it gave me two options: Either go to Commons and upload over the file there, or upload it here under a different name. Fry1989eh? 22:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It just gives those two options, or to ignore the warnings and upload to Wikipedia-En anyways. Fry1989eh? 04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that answers my question. I am trying to see if there was a way that me or any admin could to prevent the uploading of images here by using advanced protection controls; it gives me the options to prevent creation and uploading, but the uploading creation for red-linked images seems broken. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, not much I can do , being a basic user, but I thank you for looking into it. Fry1989eh? 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you explain your edits on this image (and thus the associated template SANDF), please? Whilst I'm quite happy to believe that this image is a free one, you do have to explain why it's free, and the rationale given is inadequate, especially as the quoted source http://www.dod.mil.za/index.htm has a copyright notice at the bottom. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are free under the national laws of those countries. The South African military's emblems are covered under PD-South-Africa-exempt because it is an official work of the Government. The logo fo the Folketing is free under PD-DenmarkGov as it is park of an official "Act, administrative orders, legal decisions and similar official documents" which are not subject to copyright under Danish Law. The problem is some of these licenses are not available on Wikipeda-English, and when they are not, I am forced to change them to PD-ineligible (which isn't really that inaccurate since the national laws say they are exempt) until I am able to transfer them to Commons, where the appropriate license does work. Fry1989eh? 23:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this discussion says that coats of arms are not covered by PD-Denmark, and were thus deleted from Commons... Black Kite (t)(c) 23:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where in that discussion it was proven that the Folketing arms (or any Danish official works) would not be considered part of "Acts, administrative orders, legal decisions and similar official documents" which are not subject to copyright?? The problem in that discussion was that a German license was used for Greenlandic coats of arms. Fry1989eh? 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"as these are not official documents in the sense of §9 of the Danish copyright (works of visual art never are)"... Black Kite (t)(c) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that's far from proof. If either a coat of arms' adoption or it's description (and usually it's both) are in a legal text, that would be part of an official document. And considering there was never a link, I wouldn't take the word of a anonymous IP anyways. Fry1989eh? 23:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the image in question was deleted from Commons, and the link to the discussion was even part of the image's fair use rationale. Unfortunately, it is incumbent upon you to prove the image is free, rather than the other way round. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I already am. You're free to join in on the conversation. Fry1989eh? 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And meanwhile, you claim the SA image is covered by something called PD-South-Africa-exempt, but you haven't tagged it with the relevant PD tag. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read above, as I told you, some Commons licenses aren't available and don't work on Wikipedia English files. In that case, i am forced to use PD-ineligible (as exemption and ineligibility are the same thing) until I can move it to Commons where the proper license does work on the file. I already tried to use PD-South-Africa-exempt on the Wikipedia file and it shows as red because the license doesn't exist here, only on Commons. Fry1989eh? 23:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's clear enough, but is a South African Army logo "an image of or from an official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or an official translation of such a text." (which is what PD-South-Africa-exempt says)? I'm not being awkward, just saying that this tagging of non-free images as free isn't very transparent to someone who comes across them. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to push this, but would it be possible simply to leave a note explaining what you're doing on the image page. Then the rest of us wading through images with dodgy copyright notices don't have to dig into the minutiae of foreign copyright law. Thanks, Black Kite (t)(c) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the lack of transparency in the process I use, but it's the only way I know how. I can't transfer anything with an unfree tag on it, and if the license that applies isn't available here, what else can I do? If you have a better method, I'm open ears. Fry1989eh? 23:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, a quick text note would be fine - you could even create a template in your own user space that you could easily stick in there. Black Kite (t)(c) 08:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fry1989 . This map[1] needs some changes: Niger and Burma are not currently ruled by military juntas, Niger is a semi-presidential republic and Burma a presidential republic. Egypt and Fiji are ruled by a military junta. Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy, not semi-constitutional. Addition, Somalia, Eritrea and Libya have transition governments. I hope the response and the change in the map. Thanks and regards. MauriManya (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do what I can. Fry1989eh? 20:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now is updated! MauriManya (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour of Rukshanawahab (talk·contribs) in claiming you as the author of road sign images is mind boggling. If there are any more you would like to see deleted, just give me a list or a means of identification, eg. all uploaded after the warning on Oct 20. No need to bother applying speedy tags. I am currently deleting his blatant holiday snaps. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 09:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand why he did it. I really don't know why. In any case,. the majority of his signs are valid and should stay, but he has mixed up some signs which aren't used by who he claims they are. Usually it's a Vienna Convention prescribed sign (which the US is not a signatory to, and does not use any of it's signs), which he claims are part of the MUTCD. Those ones have to go, and I'm nominating them where I catch them. Personally, I wouldn't mind he be unblocked, if he can be taught to mark himself as the author of his own files. Fry1989eh? 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The block expired over a week ago. I wish he would simply indicate that he has read his talk page. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know it had passed Fry1989eh? 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Countries with multiple capitals map.PNG[edit]
Hello Fry1989. This map[2] needs some changes: The countries whit more than one capital at present (in red), need to add Swaziland. In the countries whit more than one capital in the past (in light red) need to add Germany and Libya, and would have to change Philippines and the former Serbia and Montenegro. I hope your answer. Thanks and regards. MauriManya (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will hop to it shortly. Thanks for informing me, I enjoy updating maps :), any other map issues, always feel free to come to me. Fry1989eh? 19:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I always try to resort to other users when any map is outdated, because I do not know which program to use to update them. Regards. MauriManya (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fry - I've noticed that you've made several request works to the Top-4 over the summer and recently. Myself and NikNaks had independently expressed concern that the requests could be simpler - the top-4 is meant to be requests that can be fulfilled within a short period, and with its prominent position, the intent is that more straight-forward requests can also involve new graphists.
There's an additional modus operanti in that they come as a set - i.e., each four is rotated in and out together. I personally felt that this gives the working "group" a sense of accomplishment, that something is completed, which rotating out individual completed elements would not. With the above said, could you please place Hazmat's completed request back in? We can talk about these some more in either of the talk pages linked to above. Jon C (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fry, You asked me why I would remove the good svg? The answer is simple. SVG is good, but the image is not so good. The image that I removed is an enhanced version of an image that I donated to the World of heraldry about 15 years ago. You can find it on Ralf Hartemink's excellent website, here: http://www.ngw.nl/int/nor/norway.htm. I got it from Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon (encyclopedia), the 1900-1910 edition. The same image is reproduced in the last edition from 1924. It resembles the official 1905 design by Eilif Peterssen, approved by Royal Order in Council December 1905. But it is not a design that has ever been used (except in Wikipedia, and by Salmonsen). A characteristic of Norwegian offical heraldry is the adherence to officially approved designs. For that reason, it was confusing to readers of Wikipedia that the text describing in detail the official coat of arms was accompanied by a fanciful picture that resembles but is not the real thing. I found it expedient to replace it with a faithful reproduction of the official coat of arms of the government and the king from 1905 until 1937, which the royal family continued to use until the present time.
So what is wrong with Ssolbergj's version? As a design, it is not that bad. But it is different from the real thing in many details. The shape and colour of the escutcheon is different, and it has a raised edge that is seldom seen in Norwegian heraldry. The posture and fur of the lion is different, its crown has a different shape and angle. The most disturbing detail is the crown surmounting the escutcheon, a nondescript royal crown that could belong to any other kingdom, but definitely not to Norway. The distinctive heraldic crown from 1905-1937 is an important detail. Peterssen's and Ssolbergj's designs are so similar that one is enough. Peterssen's original design is the encyclopedic one, Ssolbergj's is a phantasm. That makes for a simple choice when editing an encyclopedia. And to show both would just be confusing. For that reason I deleted the latter.
It is too late now to edit the article, but be prepared for the removal of Ssolbergj's image in the near future. You can still enjoy his version of the royal arms, full achievement. I don't have a good replacement ready, but it will come soon. In the meantime, I offer you a reproduction of Peterssen's 1905 version, the motif of an oil painting now in the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.
Peterssen 1905
All the best to you from fellow vexillologist Roede (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fry1989, I insist about the emblem because, first of all, I have never seen it encircled unless it is part of a seal of some ministry. Most important, if you check the link beneath the purported emblem at presidency.gr, you can see the law in Government Gazette (Greece) that brought it into use. I do not know if you understand Greek, but at the bottom of the page you can see the graphical representation (first in order) of the emblem together with the Great Seal of Greece and other seals. It is not in circles. [3]. As for presidency.gr, I think they couldn't imagine the controversy they caused! Do not think that the web designer had any heraldic conscience; I am pretty sure he picked some image from somewhere else. Dimboukas (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dimboukas, I understand why you insist, but we really need a discussion on the file page about it. It's too complicated of an issue just to base off of webpages anymore. We do need to get it right, but a discussion is the best way to figure it out. Fry1989eh? 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I am going to start a discussion here, check. Dimboukas (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you reverted the change I made yesterday to replace a Commons file of extremely dubious copyright status with a Wikipedia space version under Fair Use. I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Rwanda#Seal of Rwanda to try to resolve this issue. If you could indicate why you think the image is legitimately licensed at Commons, I would be grateful. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to give a better reason to question the license than just because you think it's dubious. Fry1989eh? 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, when it comes to media the onus is on the uploader to provide correct licensing information. Suspected copyright infringement can be deleted on sight. In this case, an image whose copyright is owned by the Rwanda government and which also acts as a national symbol, with associated restrictions, has been uploaded to Commons with the phrase "I, the copyright holder" and under a GNU Free Documentation License. The issue was already flagged up by User:J Milburn at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1 and it would likely be a sticking point in any future FAC attempt so this isn't just me flogging a dead horse here.
Anyway, assuming nobody comes up with a compelling reason why the licensing is correct, I will mark the Commons version of the file as "to be deleted" and see what happens. If an administrator there decides to keep it, then we can consider the issue resolved. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't read your response on the Commons page before writing the above. I am now prepared to accept that the Commons version is legitimate, per COM:COA. Thanks for clarifying this. — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking consensus on when to edit File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg following new legislation/court-rulings[edit]
Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect.
Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#When_to_update_map.3F_Effective_date_or_signing.2Fruling_date
Hey there! Thanks for thesetwo edits, replacing the png versions of the West Virginia seal with the svg version. How I managed to upload two different versions of the state seal thinking they were county seals is beyond me. I must have been really tired that night! Anyway, I am going to remove the state seals from those counties, since I clearly made a mistake in identifying the correct seal and I don't think the counties really use the state seal as their official seal. I am also going to submit thesetwo files for speedy deletion, as I clearly named them incorrectly and they are not needed. Again, thanks for catching my goof! --Andrew(User:90)(talk) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also, if you find any county seals that are based on the state seal, like many of the Ohio county seals (example File:Seal of Highland County (Ohio).svg), you can upload them to Commons as PD-US, as West Virginia's seal is public domain. Fry1989eh? 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll watch out for that. --Andrew(User:90)(talk) 21:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fry1989. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}} You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.
I vectorised the mossad seal. You should find it in the archives(Feb 2012) along with your request. Move it from stale to resolved if its ok.
Roshan220195 (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh sorry, but the Hebrew text disappears while uploading to commons. Will look into it and let you know when i resolve it. Sorry again.
The first few weeks of the restrictions are the hardest. I must stress that you NOT try to push the boundaries of these restrictions because as I have discovered, that wears down the patience of the community really quickly and getting it back is easier said than done! That being said; I wish you good luck in your future editing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good luck. If it's ok, tomorrow I'm gonna be on an article talk page trying to get some consensus on an issue that has brewed for almost a year. May I invite you to join in on that tomorrow afternoon? I'm not getting into it until tomorrow because I need some breathing time. Fry1989eh? 05:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your great works on different coat of arms and now I need your help. It's about the monograms of Diana, Prince William, Catherine and Prince Harry. Their coronets are incorrect. The correct coronet of the monogram of Diana is the coronet of the prince of wales, like Camilla's monograms, and the correct coronet of the royal monograms of Prince William, Catherine and Prince Harry is the coronet of a child of the heir apparent. Can you correct them? Please answer me. Keivan.fTalk 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can correct Diana's today, and I'll see what I can do about the other 3. Fry1989eh? 19:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK! But please correct the others too. Also, please correct the coronet of Dual Cypher of Prince Andrew and Sarah. The coronet of their dual cypher should be the coronet of a child of the sovereign not a grandchild. Also, correct the coronet of Prince Andrew's monogram; Its coronet should be the coronet of a child of the sovereign too. And please correct the coronet of Dual Cypher of Prince William and Catherine, because its coronet should be a coronet of the child of the heir apparent. Sorry, but these are all Glasshouse mistakes. Keivan.fTalk 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working with Glasshouse on it. Fry1989eh? 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how, but please try to convince Glasshouse to correct them, or do this yourself. Thank you. Keivan.fTalk 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about your undo for the Warning Signs in Ireland, but allot of the signs don't exist anymore, so I created new ones according to the Tfraffic Signs Manual 2010, that are all standard and saved in a Common Format that includes the sign number from the Traffic Signs Manual 2010.
A better option is to request the ones that do have an SVG format to be updated, and those that do not have one created. But uploading them in PNG is not the right way to go about it. You can request them to be updated in the Commons Graphic Lab, as well as request the creation of those that don't exist in SVG, according to the 2010 TSM. Fry1989eh? 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just noticed that you altered the shade of the Flag of Pakistan and provided a summary in which you stated that it has been difficult to determine the exact colour of the flag. While I agree that the new version looks more accurate, I was wondering if you've ever read this before: Pakistan green. This provides a description of the shade of green used in Pakistan. Just in case you might not be aware, is that the kind of thing you used? Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Actually I was not aware of that, so no, I didn't used anything like it. But looking at the RGB shades set on Pakistan green, that's what the flag used to be before I altered it. Based on observation however, official use of the Pakistani flag is a much darker, richer green. I've been trying to get it right for a long time, and basically all I have is my eyes (which I would say are pretty good), and the various observational photographs I have of official use. Some of the photos which I have based my decision on are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Fry1989eh? 05:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right! The shade in these official photographs is indeed dark. Just a note, I think you mistakenly reverted yourself on this file. Mar4d (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I uploaded the same file twice because it's not rendering the new colour (if you click on the latest upload, it does have the new green I have selected). It's a bug with the servers, some times uploading again will fix it, other times we just have to wait for it to work itself out, which is really annoying. The last flag it happened to me with was the flag of Belarus, and it took the servers about 2 or 3 weeks to work out. Hopefully, this will not be such a long wait. Fry1989eh? 06:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to update those two, because they're not SVGs, but a PNG and a Gif. I wish I could. Fry1989eh? 05:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will get the file fixed, but Madboy74's file can not be used because it has borders that are not part of the flag. Fry1989eh? 19:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hello, please take a moment to overview the instructions for completing ship infoboxes here. the career ship flags you are inserting are reserved for warships. commercial ships use the homeport field. thanks. --emerson7 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where it specifically says that, and I'll stop. Otherwise, no. Fry1989eh? 00:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"unless there is a clear and definite association between the ship and the nation of registry (including but not limited to vessels belonging to a government body or a national shipping line). If used, the nation's civil/merchant ensign", which is exactly what I am doing. Still don't see an absolute rule against it, infact it actually says it is allowed (with certain qualifiers). Fry1989eh? 00:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fry1989, I have no dog in this fight. I just love the Dano/Norwegian/Swedish ensigns that you are adding to the early 19th Cent. warships articles and don't much care where they sit in career box. In fact, I have put East India Company flags in the same spot. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I enjoy doing it :)Fry1989eh? 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been placing Royal Navy ensigns against the Majestic class carrier article info boxes. Please stop this. None of the Majestics were ever commissioned into the Royal Navy. - Nick Thornetalk 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Majestic Class Carier, yes that class actually HAS been commissioned by the Royal Navy. Second, you do realize the Royal Navy's white ensign was used by the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and Indian Navies until the 60s right? So even if the ship wasn't in the UK navy, if it was in one of the navies above, it used the white ensign. Third, I go by the "Ship Career" section of the infobox when I add an ensign, so I don't make mistakes. If it says the ship was used by a certain navy at a certain period of time, I add the correct ensign. If you can find a mistake, feel free to list it here, and I will correct it. Fry1989eh? 00:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read that article. It quite clearly states than none of the Majestics saw service in the Royal Navy. The ships in that article that were commissioned into the RN were all Colossus class. Adding the Royal Navy's ensign to these articles is misleading. - Nick Thornetalk 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Ship's article says "Career (United Kingdom)" in the infobox of that ship, then either it was in the Royal Navy despite what you say, or that's a mistake with the article itself, not me. I go by what the infobox says. Fry1989eh? 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the Majestic ships' articles have a "Career (United Kingom)" section in their info boxes because none of them had a career in the RN. - Nick Thornetalk 00:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either we are not looking at the same "Majestic Class", or you're wrong. This is a list of ships in that class. Looking at their articles, HMS Venerable served 3 years in the Royal Navy, HMS Theseus served two, and several others on that list also appear to have served the Royal Navy. The only other "Majestic Class" I can find on Wikipedia is the Majestic Class battleship, but that class also served the Royal Navy. Fry1989eh? 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, I request that you take the time to read the articles you are flagging andor referring to. Also, please do not assume that all ships within a ship class saw service in the same navy. In this instance, the class article you are referring to is 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier. This design incorporated two classes, the Colossus class, and the slightly upgraded Majestic class (as stated in the lead, the "Design and construction" section, and the list of ships). All of the Colossus class ships served in the Royal Navy. None of the Majestic class did. -- saberwyn 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Both Venerable and Theseus were Colossus class. If you actually had a look at their articles, as you put it, you would see this. If you don't know anything about a subject you might be better advised to learn a little before you start making edits to it. - Nick Thornetalk 01:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I go by the infobox on the individual ship's article. I do not group all ships in a class together, nor am I going through these ships class by class. If the individual ship's article says that the ship in question served in a particular navy, either it did, or that is a mistake with the article. So far, neither of you have pointed out a specific ship where I added the white ensign, that did not serve the Royal Navy (or the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand Navies before the 60s when they also used the white ensign of the United Kingdom). Do that, and we'll talk. Fry1989eh? 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Thorne, since you want to act like I'm editing something I know nothing about, let me now educate you. I added the white ensign to the HMAS Sydney (which was Majestic-class). You removed that white ensign under the edit summary "Sydney never commissioned into the RN". What you clearly didn't pay attention to was that the HMAS Sydney was commissioned by the Royal Australian Navy in 1948, and again in 1962. From 1911 to 1967, the Royal Australin Navy used the White Ensign of the United Kingdom. Not until 1968 did Australia adopt a unique white ensign based on the Australian national flag. So since the ship served from 1948 to 1958, and then 1962 to 1973, it flew under first the UK White Ensign and then the Australian White Ensign, and I was right in adding the UK white ensign. So educate yourself before you try and claim IDK what I'm doing. Fry1989eh? 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) HMAS Sydney (R17) and HMAS Melbourne (R21). These ships, at no time, served or were commissioned into the British Royal Navy (at least, according to A- and FA- class articles, and all of the works that I've read on them to assemble the articles). At their commissionings (1948 and 1955 respectively), the carriers were commiisioned under the Australian White Ensign. From 1913 to 1967, the Royal Australian Navy used a flag that was identical to, but not was the British White Ensign (hence, possible confusion), at which point a unique flag was implemented. As I understand it, the policy for ship infoboxes is to only use the last flown version of a ensign for the relevant career infobox. As the 1967 version of the RAN White Ensign replaced the 1913 version of the RAN White Ensign, the article of any RAN ship operating post 1967 should use only the 1967 version of the flag. I cannot speak for the Canadians, Indians, or Kiwis, but assume similar circumstances for these navies. -- saberwyn 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it was identical to (and therefore there was no distinction) the Royal Navy's white ensign. Infact, the Admiralty was the one that initially forced the RAN, RCN and RNZN to use the White Ensign of the Royal Navy, with only the naval jack (being the national flag) as distinction between the four Navies. So these ships didn't have to serve the Royal Navy to fly the white ensign, they simply had to serve the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand navies before the 60s. As for your understanding of the policy to only include the most recently flown ensign, I've not read that, and I've seen many ship infoboxes which did not follow this, such as the SAS Somerset. So far, I'm completely vindicated in adding the UK white ensign to the Sydney and the Melbourne. Fry1989eh? 01:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:BRD. You were bold and made a change. I have reverted that change and now we are in the discussion phase. I propose that we move this discsussion to Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier and until a clear consensus has been established for your proposed change you should refrain from making it again. In fact I will copy this discussion there now. - Nick Thornetalk 01:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need to be discussed on Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier, the fact is that if a ship served the RAN, RCN or RNZN bevore the late 1960s, they used the UK white Ensign, that is a fact. Now, if you want to discuss showing both ensigns, or if only the most-recently flown ensign should be used in the infobox, that's a discussion that can be had, but you, Nick Thorne, came here and assumed bad faith, and also accused me of adding an ensign to a ship that didn't serve the Royal Navy, ignorant of the fact that even if that ship wasn't in the Royal Navy but rather the Royal Australian Navy, it still would have used the Royal Navy's white ensign between 1911 and 1967. You told me I should read about a subject before editing it like I know nothing about it, when it turns out you didn't know about the ensigns. So talk to me on an equal footing, and we can figure it out, but don't speak to me like I know nothing about anything. Fry1989eh? 01:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Nick, I think the issue isn't Colossus vs Majestic, but rather that these ships served in a Dominion navy while that navy still flew a copy of the British White Ensign (alternately: "how many ensigns in an infobox"). As such, I'd advise alll three of us take a breather, while I post at WT:SHIPS requesting clarification andor further opinion. -- saberwyn 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the real issue is that Nick doesn't understand that the RAN used the UK's white ensign until 1968. This is clear by his edit summary saying the Sydney "never served in the RN". If he knew that, this discussion wouldn't be taking place right now. Fry1989eh? 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the British White Ensign (or a copy of it) does not equal commissioned warship serving in the Royal Navy. Sydney and Melbourne never served in the Royal Navy, regardless of what ensign they flew.
I never said that flying the UK white ensign equated serving the Royal Navy. I have ALWAYS said from my first reply that the RAN, RCN and RNZN flew the UK white ensign under orders from the Admiralty until the late 60s when they all adopted their own unique white ensigns. However, Template:Country_data_Australia makes available the UK white ensign that the RAN used until 1968, there's nothing wrong with using it, and I will not apologize for being right when a user accused me of adding an ensign for a ship, which that ship actually used for part of it's service in the RAN, because of his false understanding and assumption that I was somehow trying to claim the ship was in the RN. It's his fault is he didn't know that the RAN used the UK ensign before 1968, not mine, and I shouldn't be subject to this bad faith accusation. Fry1989eh? 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what ensign the RAN used and when, being a former officer of the Royal Australian Navy. I take great exception to the your ad hominem attacks and request that you strike them. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Also, you should read WP:NPA. - Nick Thornetalk 02:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made a personal attack, I have made a perfectly reasonable assumption of your knowledge on the subject based upon your edit summary removing the UK White Ensign saying that "Melbourne never commissioned into the RN", which suggests you equated the UK white ensign with serving the Royal Navy only, rather than the RAN as well between 1911 and 1968. Your choice of words suggested that, and if you are a former RAN officer and as "Well aware" as you say, then I am confused as to why you would equate the White Ensign to the Royal Navy only. As for commenting on the edit and not the editor, you broke that first when you said to me above "If you don't know anything about a subject you might be better advised to learn a little before you start making edits to it" (sic). If you will apologize for (or strike out) suggesting I have no knowledge of the subject, then I will apologize for and strike out the percieved personal attack you think I made about your knowledge of the ensigns that the RAN has used threw the years, and we can restart this discussion on an equal footing, but those in glass houses should not throw stones, and I take great exception to your assumption on my knowledge of the subjects I choose to work on. Fry1989eh? 02:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, who was it that incorrectly stated that the Melbourne and Sydney articles had U.K. service sections in their articles? Who was it that incorrectly claimed that Majestic class carriers had served in the RN? Who was it that incorrectly stated that Venerable and Theseus were Majestics? Any assumptions I might have made about your level of knowledge is based on your own statements. At no time have I stated that the RAN did not fly an ensign identical in design to the RN ensign. That is an incorrect inference of yours. What I have stated, unlike you, at all times has been factual. None of the Majestics have served in the RN. Your adding the RN ensign is misleading to those who might read this article without an understanding of the history of the RAN's ensign. - Nick Thornetalk 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that, but after you had removed the flag saying the three ships in question were never in the RN, and after I said said in my very first reply to you "you do realize the Royal Navy's white ensign was used by the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and Indian Navies until the 60s right?" (sic). That was an honest question, IDK what you know or don't know, I've never even interacted with you on Wikipedia before today. As I also said in my second reply to you, when I add these ensigns, I go by the infobox on the ship's article, so if the infobox says the ship served "this navy" during "this period of time", I add the ensign which was used by that navy during the period of time in question. That's what I have always said. Now, I'm offering you an apology for what you feel is an insult, if you will simply do the same for the insult you gave to me. You said that I should learn about a subject before I edit it, suggesting I know nothing about this, that's presumptive and insulting. But at the same time, you are upset that I assumed you didn't know about the history of the ensign used by the RAN, based on your choice of words in your edit summary when you removed the flag. I don't want a fight, I just want to be spoken to like an equal, and so far I haven't received that. Are you willing to mutually apologize for what ever rubbed nerves there are, or do you just want to bicker about the finner points of who said what? Fry1989eh? 03:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for commenting on your level of knowledge. What I am really interested in here is improving the encyclopedia. We need to keep in mind that readers of our articles do not have the same background as we do and we need to be careful that we don't make things more confusing than they need to be. It may seem like semantics, but the RAN did not fly the Royal Navy's ensign, it flew its own ensign, admittedly of identical design. The Admiralty did not have ultimate command of the RAN, that power devolves to the Australian Government through the Governor General. Yes, the Admiralty did have operational command of at least some RAN ships during the World Wars, but that is hardly the same thing. - Nick Thornetalk 04:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I apologize for commenting about your level of knowledge on the issue. The only issue here for me is whether or not a ship in the RAN, which because of it's time in service used both ensigns, should have them both in the infobox, or only the last one that was flown. Fry1989eh? 04:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you exclude Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus from the map File:Schengen_Area.svg please. (because I don't know how to edit svg files :) --Camoka4 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are green on the map is because they are not currently members but have to join in the future. Fry1989eh? 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on when to update File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg[edit]
Hello, there is a discussion here concerning when we should update this map (when a new law/court order/etc. is made or when it goes into effect). You are being contacted because you participated in a similar discussion a few months back. If you are interested, please stop by and leave your opinion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in the deleted articles, I can recover them into your user space as drafts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Please take a look at this proposal to start a new workshop in the graphic lab. Please add your views on this. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I just noticed that the ANI thread got closed. If you want, I can open the DRN thread back up and we can work to try and find a peaceful resolution to the dispute. However, DRN isn't for user conduct issues, so if this is primarily a conduct issue then we will have to close the thread down anyway. Also, if we are going to deal with this at DRN we need both of you to be calm and focus on the content that is in dispute. So no blaming the other user, no shouting, and no hasty responses. We need you to be patient, and willing to compromise. Bearing all of this in mind, would you like me to reopen the thread? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour(have a chat) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it looks like DrKiernan and I have to come an informal agreement that if the crowns on the Greek monograms are returned to blue, they can go on the articles. I don't wanna make a bigger fight out of this than needs to, but if his control issues over the monograms extends to other ones in the future, it may have to go back to DRN. I guess you could classify it as a behavioural problem in the sense that DrKiernan has the impression that he can control the articles like he owns them, and only allow certain images to be included if they meet his exacting standards, with no room for artistic license. He has a black and white mentality and takes sources very literally. I remember early on in this dispute years ago when there was a monogram created for Mary Queen of Scots, and one of the sources was a period-minted gold coin with Mary's monogram on it. He insisted that since the coin was minted from gold metal, our digital recreation must also be coloured gold. That's almost extremist in literal interpretation. So far he's gotten away with his bully pulpit and forcing what ones can be used and what ones can't, but I've lost my patience (which I think I've been very generous in, considering 2 years of this nonsense), and eventually others will too (looks like Peeperman is coming close). Anyhow, as I said, as long as it doesn't extend to all the other countries' monograms we have, I can let it go this time and compromise. Thanks for your help, I really do appreciate it. Fry1989eh? 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that you have reached a tentative agreement, and that was also the feeling that I got from reading the later messages in the DRN thread. So we'll leave the case closed, and let it get archived. As I said, though, if you have any future problems with this that aren't primarily about conduct, then feel free to post them at DRN again. (And if you're not sure where it should go, you can always leave a note on my talk page.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour(have a chat) 06:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Royal Monogram.. I never said Mary Queen of Scots' monogram must be coloured gold. This is typical of Fry1989. He constantly makes things up about me as part of his strategy of harassment. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did, more than once ("the coin is correct. The svg image is wrong as you have introduced colors which are not there in the original", ergo the vector file must be gold like the coin instead of the red that Glasshouse had selected), but not before you tried to use a modern embroidery book from Amazon.com with a different monogram as a source to try and discredit the period-minted coin. Fry1989eh? 19:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you are misreading my posts or deliberately misrepresenting them. I can only hope it is the former. Read my words again with unjaundiced eyes. At no point do I say the monogram must be gold. In fact, I made a point of saying that multi-colored versions of her monograms that survive in her embroidery usually show the letters in blue. DrKiernan (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes are not jaundiced, they simply have a distaste for you because of the way you've bullied me over this for 2 long damn years. I've tried reasoning with you, I've even bothered to compromise, but you? You never budge an inch on anything. You've actually been nice enough after a year and a half to try and ask me to change something rather than command me, and it worked. Hopefully you've learned it's a far better approach to ask then telling users to do this or that or else you won't allow their work on the articles. I don't have infinite patience, and I'm telling you that the next time to you try and ramrod me about this, I won't be nice, it will go to DRN, and it will be dealt with there once and for all. Fry1989eh? 20:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've compromised again and again, and up till yesterday you'd never compromised ever. I disagree with the addition of the monograms, the color of the monograms, and wish to remove the style infoboxes from the articles. You insist that the monograms must be added, that they must be colored, and that the style infoboxes must remain. I have conceded that the monograms can be added. I have conceded that the infoboxes can remain. I have conceded that the monograms can be colored. And yet you claim I don't compromise. That is unreasonable. You claim I haven't been polite. Look at your own edit summaries and comments. Not one of them is polite. Treat others with respect, and they will reciprocate. Stop treating me like something you've scraped off the sole of your shoe, and move towards a common ground instead of constantly berating me and refusing to discuss civilly or listen to alternative views. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast you finally admit it! I don't see why you're so against the monograms, they're just as much an important part of a person as their coat of arms, i don't see you going to war on removing personal coats of arms from articles about Royal Family members. I've compromised with you countless times, I stopped pursuing Mary's monogram on that article in place of the coin, just last night I changed the crowns to blue for you! But all you have ever done is remove the images with weak excuses like "the colours are wrong", even though you know the colours can be changed in an instant with SVG files, and now and then command other users (mostly myself) to change them before you will "allow" it on the article like you own Wikipedia. You choose to deprive these articles of content that is just as valid as a personal coat of arms because of your own personal dislike of them, not for any valid reasons about content issues or over-crowding, and that's why I don't like you one bit, and dare I say it, even hate you. Fry1989eh? 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there seems to be a back-and-forth that needs to be settled. If you could, would you please provide a source that states the bordering of the GDR emblem is black? Most images of the emblem with black bordering originate from this same SVG, while most photographs of flags produced in the GDR feature dark gold bordering (as here and here). As far as I can find, there doesn't seem to be official legal specification as to the colour of the bordering one way or the other, however most flags produced in the GDR and used for official purposes feature dark gold bordering. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to you already, there are plenty of sources that also show it in black. Fry1989eh? 20:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you please provide these numerous sources of authentic flags printed in the GDR featuring black outlines, and not modern day replicas based in the current SVG. Because most images I find of flags actually used for official purpose by the GDR feature dark gold outlines. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STOP following me around you stalker. You watch my discussions on here, you follow me down to Commons, it's really annoying and none of your business. If Michaelwuzthere thinks it should be gold instead of black, he can discuss it on Commons and provide sources, but right now two separate users have reverted him. He doesn't need you to defend him. Fry1989eh? 18:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I want to point out that this was not a simple black and white edit war. Yes, i broke my 1 revert per week restriction, but looking at the bigger picture, I actually was also in the process of trying to fix the problems the other user didn't like. I was not simply reverting to a previous version unchanged, I was constantly changing parts based on what the other user said on his talk page that he didn't like. It was a massive effort to compromise, I went far out of my way to make changes that were acceptable to the other user. Just so everyone knows there's a bigger picture to this.
In any case, I will take responsibility for my actions, they happened and that's not deniable. But with this mea culpa, I would like to propose a new single restriction, that will not only be easier to enforce, but easier for myself to follow:
My block would be reduced to 1 month (30 days). This would reinforce that my actions were wrong, and give me time away to rethink my methods of confrontation
After that expires, I would not be allowed to revert anything, period. The only exception being obvious vandalism (example, when the IP 203.97.254.233 vandalized the article Road signs in South Africa)
I must understand that not reverting anything means the use of the revert button is forbidden, and editing a page to restore something that was changed, would also count as breaking the rule
If I see something that I feel must be reverted, I am to contact an admin and request that they do so on my behalf (I would need an admin to agree to letting me contact them when necessary on their talk page)
I must give a clear concise edit summary in all edits I make
Civility restrictions I was under remain for talk pages and edit summaries
This restriction would be in effect for 6 months, at which point it would revert back to my previous restriction of 1 revert per week
I believe that this is an easy, black and white restriction that can be followed by myself with no gray area. And for those who think it may be difficult to believe I have honest intentions, just look at the evidence of my previous restriction. Yes, I broke it, BUT, it took me 5 months to do so. That shows that I did put alot of effort into following it. I do take this seriously, I don't just agree to things and then break them the second I think nobody is looking. I tried hard and while I slipped up, alot of people do. What matters is that even if I slipped up, I put effort into it.
Please no editorial commentary from people like "I told you so" or "I don't know how I can believe you anymore", because first off, I wont reply to it and probably will remove it from my page, and second I've already proven through my actions the last 5 months that I'm trying.
Furthermore, I have created and maintained 12 articles myself, as well as created 2 articles for a dear friend who didn't know how. I have also made over 60,000 edits here, the grand majority of were extremely positive. I have provided hundreds of useful and educational images to Wikipedia via Commons, as well as uploaded several non-free onces to Wikipedia itself. I've added plenty of useful information to hundreds of articles. I have never socked, and have never vandalized an article. I've proven that I have value to add to Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to loose such an editor just because of a slip up, especially when they made a noticable effort to stick to a restriction they were under for nearly 6 months.
The above proposal can be augmented to however the overseeing admin feels is suitable, but the general theme of it I would like maintained. You can ask me any questions, and I will answer them honestly. Fry1989eh? 19:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Closing as obsolete. Based on the extensive discussion that has transpired below, this unblock request is no longer applicable. The block duration has been reduced to 30 days, and remaining unblocked after the block lifts is subject to Fry1989 adhering to the conditions outlined at User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the very broad civility restriction that was also in place and which you violated, at least in your edit summaries?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that, I have done so now. Fry1989eh? 20:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My view is, while the voluntary self-imposed restrictions on reverts are admirable, they are unnecessarily harsh. Is there some history I'm not aware of that rendered inadequate the usual 1RR restriction imposed upon just about everybody else who needs such restraint? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You need to look at the restrictions Fry was under before his recent conduct. Here is the block log and this discussion in April. I note that to find the discussion I had to hunt it down because Fry had removed it from his Talk page. I do NOT know what led up to the indefinite block in the first place, which was then lifted in exchange for the permanent restrictions. What Fry is proposing are harsher restrictions for a limited time before reverting back to the previous restrictions. The harsher restrictions and the 30-day block represent an acknowledgment that he violated the previous restrictions and allow him to contribute to Wikipedia rather than remain indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was back in the beginning of this year, I was in an edit war on an article about the Flag of Rwanda. There were sources, but one user felt the sources were "unsatisfactory", and kept removing content. I was blocked for a month, and during that month in my private time I built up a very thorough 6 paragraph statement including over 14 new sources I had found, all confirming the same thing. I posted it on the article talk page nearly instantly as soon as my one-month block had expired. However, an admin felt that my introductory sentence was confrontational, and then blocked me right again for "battleground behaviour" and going back to the war (the full thing can be viewed here, or this revision if you just wanna read my post), I believe the specific part of my introductory sentence the admin did not like was "this is going to be so much fun". So then I had to plead for an unblock from him, and he have me the 1-revert per week restriction. It was silly, considering all I did was post on the talk page. It's length was because I was not only including over 10 new sources, but because I was addressing two separate users on two separate points. I didn't desere such a silly restriction when all I did was wait my month and then reply with new sources, I didn't revert anything at that time or continue the edit war, I did exactly what I was supposed to, take it to the talk page.
Anyhow, I agreed to it, and I've been trying hard for the last 5 months to work within the restriction. Despite how some people felt, I think I've done quite well at it, until now. What happened yesterday was that another user kept removing a piece of content that was sourced because he didn't like the particular wording. I asking him on his talk page to stop removing it and he wouldn't. I made a dozen different edits changing the wording, but I had to fish around to get it the way he would accept, because he was never specific, he would just say things like "it's still wrong!". So while my edits seem extreme, it was an effort to fix the article. I actually succeeded, it should be noted, because the edit war ended hours before it was even reported, with the other user accepting my changes. I'm voluntarily accepting this new proposal because I want to edit here, I've proven I'm valuable through all the work I've done and it,s only a punishment to the project to get rid of me for a slip up on a restriction I really shouldn't have had in the first place. Fry1989eh? 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the links I provided above, I shouldn't have even gotten the original restriction in the first place. It was a complete over-reaction to half a sentence in a 6-paragraph work. Fry1989eh? 21:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are my preliminary thoughts. Positive. First, I think your detailed proposal is admirable (and remarkably well worded). Second, I'm pleased that you want to accept responsibility for what you've done. Third, I like your strong desire to contribute to the project. Negative. First, I'm troubled by your claim that you didn't deserve the restrictions. I confess that I haven't taken the time to look at all of it (and I don't want to), but it was based on another admin's determination, and I'd rather defer to that. Second, I haven't had a chance to verify that you've been good for the last several months. I know you say that, but I haven't looked at your history other than to know that you haven't been blocked until now. Third, I don't like the fact that you "buried" the April block discussion. For the moment, I'll wait to see if Amatulić - or any other admin - has something else to say before deciding what to do next. Hang in there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First let me address the "burried" comment. Until recently, I never archived discussions, of any sort. Once I felt the issue was done with, I removed it from my page. This was the same thing I did on Commons. Recently however, it was highly suggested to me to start an archive process. I did on Commons months ago, and just started doing so here. Anything not on the archive page that was previously on my talk page is not "hidden", it was just dealt with in the way I deamed was appropriate. As for the "1 revert per week and extreme civility" restrictions, I am sorry if you feel it's negative for me to bash it, but I wont shy away from the fact I feel it was rediculous and heavy-handed. The facts are easily verifiable, I edit warred on the Flag of Rwanda article, I was blocked for a month, the day the block expired I posted a 6-paragraph work citing 14 sources and addressing two users simultaneously, and then moments later I get blocked indeffinately for "battleground behaviour". I would have agreed to anything at that paint, the admin had a noose around my neck. And despite whether I agreed with the restrictions or not, I agreed to them, and spant the last 5 months working within them. There was one confusion where I didn't realize revert included single edits, rather than the use of the revert button, but besides that, I have stayed within my restriction of 1 revert per week (not per every 7 days, but once a week). It's all verifiable, and my effort shouldn't be ignored. Fry1989eh? 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely understandable for you to challenge what happened before, but, unfortunately, it's not the best thing to do when trying to come back here. Essentially, you're criticizing the admin rather than just moving on. What comes immediately into my head is let's say I accept your proposal exactly as is and 6 months from now, you violate it, and another admin blocks you, you could just as easily say that Bbb23 had a noose around your neck, and you had no choice. It's not that I don't want to be fair. I'd just prefer to avoid rehashing the previous admin's determination in this posture. One thing you could consider is if you come back pursuant to your proposal (or some variant of it), edit for 6 months, demonstrate your good behavior, and then go to WP:AN to ask for a review of the restrictions and why they should be lifted or eased.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that I have moved on. Despite my disagreement with the restrictions, I accepted them and put effort into working within them. That's not something a lot of people would do. Most would protest their innocence. Others would start messing around the moment they think nobody is looking. Some might ven just make a new account, or sock around their block (something I have NEVER done). I on the other hand agreed to the restrictions (permanent, I might add) because I a: didn't have the energy to argue the validity, and b: I just want to contribute to here. To be blocked now for breaking those restrictions obviously brings them to note. I don't have to like them, but I worked within them despite it and that's what matters. Now, you don't want to go back and review the work of another admin, that's fine and perfectly within your purview, but I think I have a right to describe the surrounding situation that brought about the restrictions in the first place. That I add my personal thoughts of them being an over-reaction to the circumstances is my own opinion. Fry1989eh? 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticizing the admin" is taking place because he's being asked about challenging what happened here. I don't fault that.
I've been examining this talk page history. Lots of heated discussion recently. Earlier history concerning admin actions shows that this is what took place: Fry1989 was unblocked after promising not to be a WP:DICK, then hours later was re-blocked again for violating 3RR. After some back-and-forth, the blocking admin proposes a 1RR/week restriction. This is the first time that any 1RR restriction ever came up. It is rather burdensome to keep track of how many days it's been since the last revert, but it appears Fry1989 managed to abide by it fairly well. Even so, such a dramatic escalation of sanctions on the part of the blocking admin, completely skipping over the possibility of a standard 1RR, does seem a bit over the top to me.
Given what I see in the talk page history on just this talk page (not looking at Fry1989's other contributions), I'd say that the revert issue is the lesser problem, a standard 1RR should be fine. The larger problem I'm seeing is civility. Since his last unblock Fry1989 has made disparaging comments on the behavior of certain contributors.[4][5][6] Granted, these comments in some cases were the result of rudeness on both sides, but it should be understood that just because someone else violates WP:CIVIL in a comment toward you doesn't give you a license to do the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say about those three civility links, that the first was when someone told me I didn't have a clue what I'm talking about when I did, and the other two were the culmination of 2 years of confrontation with a user who removed content over the smallest of reasons. If the image's colour was wrong (or he thought the colour was wrong), he would just remove the image, he wouldn't go to Commons and fix it himself, he wouldn't ask anyone else to fix it (though on the rare occasion he would command others to fix it. I don't respond to commands and that's exactly what I said in the third link), he'd just blind remove the image, source be damned. I may have issues being polite, but it's only out of utter frustration. I'm never rude just because I think it's fun. Fry1989eh? 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that you were rude for fun. My point is, there are other ways to deal with this (WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, WP:AE etc.) without blowing up at someone, no matter how justified it may seem to do so. WP:CIVIL is a policy, a governing rule of Wikipedia. It is not just a behavioral guideline that defines a "best practice". And civility was a firm condition of your last unblock. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And when I do that, it usually isn't resolved or comes back at me, especially with DrKiernan who is an admin and therefore "can do no wrong". That's why I rarely go to a report board, because unless it's blindly clear what the issue is, it gets muddled and I get the results. It's not an excuse, it's a reality, no it doesn't make being rude right (which I am not saying), but it makes it understandable. I had to spend 2 years with DrKiernan removing images from dozens of articles over the most trivial reasons ("it's yellow, I don't like it yellow I want it blue"), and in those two years he never got proper scrutiny for this because of his admin status. His constant removals without asking anybody to fix the colour (or even better, going to Commons and doing it himself), coupled with his rude approaches commanding me what to do instead of asking; I had had it. Fry1989eh? 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, friendly reminder to review WP:NOTTHEM. This is about you, not others. You elevate the status of admins too much. Admins are regular editors with well-above-average experience on Wikipedia, who have been entrusted by the community with a few extra tools to help control disruption. There's a joke that being an admin is like being demoted to a janitor with a mop, but it's really no joke, there's always clean-up to be done, including making some tough calls about disruptive behavior. Note that when an admin blocks someone for edit warring, the dispute is irrelevant, the admin doesn't care, all that matters is stopping disruption to ensure continued stability of the project (that's why an unblock request that dwells on the dispute or the actions of others is guaranteed to be rejected).
Being an admin doesn't mean you can do no wrong. Generally admins are more familiar with the policies and guidelines, so an admin in a content dispute will often have the upper hand for this reason. But content disputes are separate from behavioral issues. We're not superhuman. Admins can have restrictions, bans, or blocks imposed on them too, including the loss of admin rights.
In the event you want to subject anyone's behavior to scrutiny (admin or not), your case is strengthened greatly if nobody can demonstrate that your own behavior was questionable. Conversely, if you have stooped to the same level, you don't have a leg to stand on. That is a good reason to remain civil. Believe me, I know it can be hard. Admins also need a thick skin; I've been subject to plenty of verbal abuse myself but have managed to restrain myself and remain civil in the face of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You told me I should take things to a report board rather than "blow up" at them. I'm telling you why I don't do that as often as you think I should. You asked about the restrictions, I give background information about how they came about. I only bring others up when I'm including information about the situation, nowhere have I done so deliberately to distract from my own actions, nor have I tried to deny anything I've done/said, I've done the opposite in fact, by agreeing that my recent edits were wrong, and agreeing with you that just because someone is rude to me, doesn'tmake it right to be rude back. I don't focus on others too much, they're simply part of the situation. Fry1989eh? 00:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, no problem. I was just trying to clarify some points that seemed to need clarifying based on the conversation so far. Gotta leave for the day. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I might add that admins are not monolithic. Just like non-admins, we often disagree on what's the best thing to do. Part of the problem is "best" is an illusory concept. However, hopefully, when admins disagree, they can work it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case (and despite the unhelpful and infactual comments added below), I'd like to continue to discuss my unblock request and the restrictions surrounding it. Fry1989eh? 00:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but you're going to have to be patient. Nothing more will come from me or Amatulic today. A civility tip for you, though, in terms of your response to Nick below. First, your tone wasn't so great overall. Second, it's always a good idea to reread Talk page posts more than once before posting them, particularly if you're in a dispute. Usually, you'll find that some of what you're saying is unnecessary to communicate your point. As an obvious example, you could have easily left off the last sentence (wasting time); it wasn't necessary, and it was aggressive. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can be patient, I have plenty of things to do. But don't expect me to let people come here and put things in my mouth that I never said without correcting them. Nick Thorne's post served no purpose in my request, that's why I removed it (as I said I would in my original post). It was completely unhelpful, it means/addresses nothing on whether or not my request should be taken or not. If you would remove it yourself, I'd be thankful. If not, my response stands, I never said what he accuses me of saying, I said the opposite. Fry1989eh? 00:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amatulic, thank you for collapsing that. It's the very reason I said I don't want any commentary from others, it causes arguments on things from the past. I just want to focus on this request, and the merits and demerits of it being granted. I have to go to bed, and have a busy day tomorrow, so if either yourself or Bbb23 or another admin posts here, I won't be able to reply until much later in the day tomorrow, please be patient if you guys ask any questions. Fry1989eh? 01:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989, restrain yourself from answering. You are not helping yourself by doing so.
This whole thread was started by me commenting on the voluntary restrictions mentioned in the unblock request. From the way this conversation has evolved, it seems clear to me that the current unblock request focuses on the wrong thing (reverts) when the real problem is Fry1989's conduct when interacting with others. I would be fine with a standard 1RR restriction. 1RR/week is impractical, unnecessary, and doesn't address the real problem: civility.
So the question for us to answer is: what restrictions or other conditions would be acceptable to the community before Fry1989 can be unblocked? Suggestions, anyone? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would have accepted the unblock request with the conditions as suggested by Fry as of 20:02 yesterday and that remain in the unblock request as of now. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the restrictions set forth by Fry seem harsh to Amatulic, but I agree with DrKiernan. As I said before in this discussion, Fry can always demonstrate good faith by doing good work for 6 months, at which point he can ask that the restrictions be eased.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I called them "harsh" in my first comment, but now I feel the revert restrictions are simply unnecessary and do not address the real problem. However, if the existing civility requirement is acceptable to everyone (it seems rather vague to me), then I have no problem with unblocking under the conditions proposed by Fry1989. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel they are vague, and what would you change to make them clearer? Also, as an aside, whatever restrictions are finalized, they need to be retained so in the future an admin can easily find them. My suggestion, to avoid the stigmata of listing them on Fry's user or Talk page, would be to create a subpage that is linked to in the unblock log entry.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing civility requirement as stated in the unblock request above seems rather vague and perfunctory to me. Looking through this talk page history, I see the requirement is "I also understand that any of my edit summaries, talk page summaries, and anything else I say must be civil."[12] The problem as I see it is that Fry1989 has trouble understanding what Wikipedia means by "civil". I would be more comfortable unblocking if Fry1989 commits to something more specific, like refraining from commenting on individual contributors except on behavioral noticeboards, and understanding that WP:CIVIL still applies there. (A good thing for Fry1989 to watch for would be if he finds himself needing to use the word "you", then the comment is likely inappropriate.)
I am uncertain what you mean about the subpage. Do you mean archive this whole thread to a sub-page and link to it in the block log? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the civility restriction in the block log ("the most severe WP:CIVIL restriction imaginable"), which I construed to be civility, very broadly construed. If you want to reword it to be more specific but still broad, that would be okay. As for the subpage, no, I meant we would end up with an agreed-upon restriction bullet list (Fry did a good job above). That bullet list would become a subpage. A link to the subpage would be in the unblock entry. I don't want an admin to have to wade through this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not intend on answering any more commentary, simply the questions directly relevant to my unblock request. While at least one of you is saying that my proposal goes out and beyond what is necessary, I would actually like to ask that my proposal for "no revisions of any sort (except obvious vandalism)" be kept, at least for a "little while" if not 6 months. It's a clear simple no stopping line in the pavement that will give me some practice in restraint, and honestly I think it would be easier to follow than a revision restriction based on a number per day/week. Everything else is of course negotiable and depends on the preferences of the admins here. When I'm left to my own devices, I rarely get in trouble. I spend most of my time on Commons anyways, when I am up here it's to add information on things I'm knowledgeable about, and new images recently added to Commons, I don't go seeking trouble. However it does find me when I get in conflict with others who disagree about my additions, for various reasons. I want to avoid it, but sometimes I have trouble. Fry1989eh? 19:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fry, very helpful comments. I understand perfectly the desire to keep things simple and clear. We're all still working on this for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989, would you propose below a modified list of bullet-point conditions/restrictions based on the above conversation, that you feel would be acceptable to you and everyone else? If it were me, I'd just impose a basic 1RR like everybody else gets with more specific behavioral conditions, but if your list in your unblock request would be changed, I'd like to see your proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First I have to ask you to explain what 1RR is, as I'm unsure. Does that mean I can revert more than one thing a day/week, as long as I only do one revert per page/article? Or does it mean something else? I'm not exactly up-and-up on the acronyms. Fry1989eh? 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think of 1RR as the same as 3RR but one instead of three. In other words, under 1RR, you are not allowed to make more than one revert to the same article in a 24-hour period.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's what I thought, but I needed clarification. I'll work on a new bullet point, it will take a moment though. Fry1989eh? 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) See WP:1RR. As to the sub-restrictions (per page, per day, per week, whatever), if you can live with 0 reverts as you proposed, or 1 revert total per week and ask that it be relaxed in a few months, or even 1 revert par day total, that's fine, so long as you also agree to discuss each revert on the talk page. Keep it simple. The details of the revert restrictions aren't as important as the civility issue, in my mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested new bullets (based on what I'm getting from the above discussions)
My block would go down to a month, or some other length of time
I would be restricted to 1RR (for some period of time, at which point if I'm well behaved I can address an admin board and ask for it to be lifted)
Civility restrictions would be made more specific and clear for me to follow
Someone will help me understand the "finer points" of civility that I lack
Give clear concise edit summaries
I think that's everything? Fry1989eh? 22:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the civility restrictions and the edit summaries, we need a time frame. Also, before this is all wound up, I don't want to forget my subpage proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries is a practice I never really got into, it's something I've meant to but like writing a journal it's something you're either into or you're not. IDK what kind of tie frame for that you would expect, but once I get into the habit of it I'll probably be too used to it to stop. For the civility restrictions, I really can't say, I was expecting you guys to come up with a time rame if you felt the need. Fry1989eh? 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten it. As for civility restrictions, I suggest "All communication including edit summaries and talk page comments must abide by WP:CIVIL. All communication must refrain from commenting on individual editors except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages, understanding that WP:CIVIL applies on those pages also."
I'd suggest 1RR total per day (easiest to keep track of) for six months with the requirement to discuss each revert on the article talk page. This restriction would not apply to reverts of unambiguous vandalism or spam. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that, I rarely need to revert more than one thing in a day anyways unless it's repeated vandalism, and then others will join in with me in reverting the vandal. Fry1989eh? 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amatulic, the civility restriction is good. What about the time frame? Do we need a time frame for the edit summaries? If so, it could probably be shorter as I tend to agree with Fry that he'll get in the habit of doing it. BTW, Fry, there's a setting in your Preferences for warning you if you don't include an edit summary - could be helpful as a self-enforcement tool. Oh, almost forgot, Amatulic, forgive me for being dense, but I don't understand the 1RR per day. Do you mean 1RR for one article per day - all other articles 0?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the civility restriction I wrote is really just "follow the policy" and it applies to you and me and everyone all the time, but I guess we're talking about a time frame in which violation would trigger a re-block. So let's have a blanket statement that violations of these conditions within X months of being unblocked will trigger a re-block. If X=6 is too big, then maybe X=4?
I use that setting Bbb23 mentioned. It forces me to use edit summaries. Good idea. Eventually you get into the habit of always filling it in.
As for 1RR, I suggested one revert total per day (1 revert in 1 article), figuring that was easiest to keep track of, and it prevents the possibility of following another editor around to different articles to get in 1 revert on each of them, which violates the spirit of 1RR. But really, I don't care if it's 1RR/article/day or 1RR total/day or 1RR/article/same-editor/day just as long as there's some restriction. I think it matters more that Fry1980 follows WP:BRD as if it were policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest 6 months for the civility restriction as everyone seems to agree that's the most important thing for Fry to learn. It was "permanent" before, but I think that's a bit much. What about the reblock? If Fry violates any of the terms, would the reblock be indefinite?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reblock would be a site ban. Which is by design indefinite unless the banned person successfully convinces the WP:BASC that they will not resume the disruptive behaviour that led to the ban. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ban generally may only be imposed by the community or by Arbcom. So, a violation by Fry of the terms of his unblock would not result in a ban. I think we're talking only about what kind of block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, yesterday I had some problems, had to leave early. Anything new I should know about/answer, or are you just still talking amongst yourselves? Fry1989eh? 19:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any talking I've done has been right here in public; I don't do back-room deals on Wikipedia. I've been busy all day too.
Everyone please have a look at this page I created: User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions. I will now change Fry1989's block to a 30 day block, and if any admin has any changes suggested to those conditions before the block expires, please edit accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my insinuation. Fry1989eh? 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, and I apologize for coming across as irritable; I wasn't. You are welcome to comment on the unblock conditions also, by the way. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On here or the subpage? Sorry I'm kinda juggling several things at once. Fry1989eh? 23:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, you can't edit the subpage (it's fully locked). Amatulic, you did a wonderful job, thanks. I made a few minor changes to the conditions, nothing substantive. One of the changes was "communication" to "communications". That may be British/American thing; if so, feel free to change it back. Thanks again to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and no I don't have anything to add to them, it's very clear. Fry1989eh? 00:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989, I just wanted to be sure you aren't feeling railroaded this time. I think the conditions are more lenient than what you originally proposed, clearer, acceptable to both me and your blocking admin Bbb23, and I believe even acceptable to the admin DrKiernan. Bbb23, your changes are fine, in this case I think Brit/US grammar would agree. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't feel railroaded, I just have issues going on right now, that I don't need to go into here. You guys have been nothing but clear and helpful. Fry1989eh? 00:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant revisiting of past disputes already plain in contribution histories.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Edit conflict) There's nothing like a little self-serving revisionist history, is there? You state "that the first was when someone told me I didn't have a clue what I'm talking about when I did." As the other party of that particular exchange I feel obliged to point out that you were told you didn't know what you were talking about after you had continued to make statements that the Majestic class carriers had served in the Royal Navy, which none of them ever did. Your statements were were absolutely incorrect with you even claiming to have read the ship articles concerned - which contradicted your statement. You even pointed to the class article and made a statement about what it said when it specifically stated the opposite. This occurred over a series of your posts interspersed with corrections from myself and another editor pointing out the relevant information which you continually ignored. Making the observation "if you don't know anything about a subject you might be better advised to learn a little before you start making edits to it" was and is entirely appropriate under the circumstances and not a breach of civility. It seems to me that you bring problems on yourself by adopting a battlefield mentality, as has been pointed out to you before. That you don't recognise this is part of the problem. I hope you can learn to overcome this and continue to make contributions to the encyclopaedia but I think you need to make a more explicit recognition of the issue in your action statement above before I would be happy to see this block removed. - Nick Thornetalk 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already said above that I would remove useless commentary from bystanders like yourself. But since you want to force yourself, let me correct your revisionist history. I never said out of my own right that ANY the Majestic Class served in the Royal Navy. I said I was going by the article that lists the Majestic Class ships here on Wikipedia. I was adding the white ensign of the United Kingdom to all ships on that article which served in a period of time under which they would have flown File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg as their ensign. That includes ships which served in the Australian Navy or the New Zealand Navy before 1967 and 1968 respectively. Your problem was that because File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svgn has the name it does, it will confuse people into thinking the ship served the Royal Navy. We don't have three files of that flag on Commons called "Ensign of the UK", "Ensign of Australia" and "Ensign of NZ" for each situation because it's silly duplication, and the fact remains that before the 70s, those three navies flew an ensign which was identical. Using File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg was therefore neither mistaken or incorrect. It was your own personal issue with the title of the file that caused that dispute, not me supposedly saying those ships served in the Royal Navy. If you can find a single post by me where I say one of those ships served the Royal Navy, post it, and I'll happily apologize. Otherwise, don't waste everybody's time here with your revisionist history and misquotes of what I actually said. Fry1989eh? 00:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History is a guide to likely future behaviour[edit]
As requested by Fry1989 in the now collapsed section, here are the diffs where he claimed that Majestic class carriers served in the RN: [13], [14] & [15]. I await the promised apology.
Oh, and Amatulic, the reason why I responded as I did was because of Fry1989's mis-characterisation of his and my previous interaction - had he said nothing, neither would I. So although I agree that the original dispute was in the past and of itself not relevant here, Fry's attempt to whitewash what happened then is entirely germane to this discussion. He has been called out for a battlefield mentality and lack of civility. His attempt to rewrite history is a confirming example of his apparent inability to grasp the meaning of the undertakings he gave previously and calls into question just how much weight should be given to current promises of future behaviour. - Nick Thornetalk 02:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His characterization of the dispute, or yours, are not germaine. The fact that both of you disagree in your individual interpretations is to be expected, and irrelevant. Neither of you seem capable of comprehending how the other side sees it, each of you accuse the other of revisionism, each of you feel compelled to "correct" the other. Admins will not be drawn in, will not take sides, and don't need either of you explaining to us how to interpret your dispute, therefore both of your comments on the matter are best disregarded as irrelevant. We can all read the contribution histories.
Unblocked parties have heated disagreements all the time and that doesn't warrant a block. Disagreements happen, and the fact that there is still disagreement between both of you is also irrelevant to the question of unblocking. We are discussing civility and the potential for future disruption. This is not about Fry's characterization of Nick or vice versa, it isn't about any specific dispute, it's about Fry1989's ability to remain civil if unblocked, and stay unblocked. I have seen enough 'bad' editors redeem themselves to know that history is not always a guide to likely future behavior.
I strongly suggest you both let it go and refrain from further comment on any specific dispute. Fry1989, pay attention: when you wake up and see this, just stop. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in any case I have said all I intend to say on this matter. - Nick Thornetalk 04:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"History is a guide to likely future behaviour", yes let's talk about my past history shall we? I have been here for nearly 5 years if you count the time before I made a dedicated account. I've made over 60,000 registered edits. The majority of them are still standing in some form or another. I have created and maintained 14 articles. I've provided hundreds of images to this project. I've given between 5 and 10 hours of my day to Wikipedia almost every day of the year excluding vacations and when I'm busy. I've also screwed up on things several times. I've edit warred an handful of times, I've argued things to a point they don't need to go anywhere near, I've been rude as hell to some people. But neither the good things I've done or the bad things I've done erase eachother. It's the whole picture that matters, and my picture is a very positive one indeed. Fry1989eh? 19:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coat of Arms of the Second Hellenic Republic[edit]
Hello, I hope you are doing well. You have on a number of occasions reverted my edits to the following file: File:Coat of arms of Greece (1924–1935).svg (). For your reverts, you gave two explanations: (1) "it wasn't like that at all" and (2) "And it looks like this on others. This is how it should be unless there's some definitive evidence". Would you be so kind as to explain your reasoning? I was the original uploader of the file, and I can tell you right now that it was taken from: File:State Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Greece.svg. Taking into consideration that the user that created the original file has said before that heraldic representations are up to the creator to make as he finds pleasing (provided that they meet the criteria set out by the law on what it should look like), it renders your point that "thats what it should look like" moot, but nonetheless I would like to know why you are so convinced that this is what it looked like and not this or this (and I remind you that this is the only representation of the Coat of Arms that exists to my knowledge). I look forward to hearing from you, --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are arguing over the shape of the shield?? Like, the radius of the curves at the bottom and the angles of the lower edges and the sharpness of the pointy bit? I am curious, why does that matter? As far as I know, any official heraldic specification won't ever provide such technical detail for escutcheons, but rather specify a general shape. Note also the passport File:Greek_Passport.svg which doesn't look like either of your representations. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I recall you've been involved in discussions about coats of arms. This may be only tangential to your interests, since it's fictional, but would you please look at my reasoning for removal of the image from the infobox of Mordor? My reasoning is at Talk:Mordor#Removed lead image. Feel free to restore the image if you disagree. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big LOTR fan, but I don't really know anything about the heraldry behind it so honestly I can't say either way. Fry1989eh? 02:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't recall that there ever was any heraldry behind LOTR, particularly for Sauron / Mordor. That's why I removed the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, could you please look over and add your thoughts on this issue? Roede has completely failed to provide any period sources for his change in the name, and now DrKiernan just popped up and is trying to propose a rename with sources that are 107 years out of date. Surely you would agree that actual period sources trump ones that were created 107 years later. Fry1989eh? 20:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, honestly, I have no idea what to say. I remember running into this situation in the past (modern sources versus period sources) and don't recall that the issue was resolved. The debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad and it went on endlessly, including a follow-on Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's not directly relevant to your dispute, just tangentially analogous.
I believe there's a preference on Wikipedia to go with how the majority of modern sources refer to a thing. I could be wrong though. WP:RSN would be the best place to ask.
There's also the WP:COMMONNAME issue, which often trumps "official" sources. That is, if something is commonly called one name by mainstream modern sources, and official sources call it something else, then the common name prevails on Wikipedia. I personally disagree with this, but that was the broad consensus in a recent argument about whether technical analysis indicators should be capitalized as proper nouns (according to usage by their creators as well as by what are considered the most authoritative sources on technical analysis) or use the capitalization most often found in mainstream press. There's an essay about this: Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy.
When in doubt, it may be a good idea to summarize the problem at WP:RSN and see what others have to say about it.
I know you'd like me to weigh in on one side or the other, but as I said, based on my past experiences in related disputes, I don't really know what the "correct" position would be in a Wikipedia context. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the problem is. Period sources are clear, modern ones are 107 years out of date, and nobody has been able to show that our readers are somehow confused by "Union Jack" and that "Union Badge/Mark" would confuse them less. It's one user who has a problem with the article name, nobody else has ever complained or said anything about it, it's is and should be a non-issue for everybody. Fry1989eh? 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that modern sources aren't "out of date". They're contemporary sources. Contemporary sources reflect modern usage, and Wikipedia is also a contemporary source that reflects modern usage.
I also agree with you that likely any native English speaker on either side of the Pond would know what a "Union Jack" is (proper name or not) and may not be familiar with the terms "Union Badge" or "Union Mark". In my case, I had never heard of those two latter ones until today.
Your dispute names just a tiny number of sources. Playing with Google Ngram Viewer, to scan huge numbers of books, may be illuminating:
"Union Jack" versus "union jack" shows the proper noun much more widely used for the last century, although the proper noun may be biased by books using it in titles and chapter headings.
Does any of that help? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I am thankful for your effort, I'm not really good with statistics. I'm just so tired of people making a mountain out of a mole hill. This shouldn't be a problem, no actual harm has been identified, no confusion of our users, no inaccuracy or bias, but Roede is driving this issue to such a point it's honestly driving me nuts. Fry1989eh? 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've done some work with SVG images. I'm just curious if you work with that format directly, and if so, what tools do you prefer? I've been looking around for something and can't really find anything that doesn't have a steep learning curve. It would be great if there were a way to convert drawings I make in PowerPoint to SVG but I haven't seen anything to do a good job of that either. The best solution would be for Microsoft to support SVG in PowerPoint but I don't entertain any hope of that happening. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use inkscape which can be downloaded for free, but my skills are limited. I can create basic shapes, and I can edit other SVG files on Commons changing their colours or changing basic elements, but I can't create complicated SVG elements on my own, and I have no idea how to do conversions. Fry1989eh? 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to change the dry counties map to reflect changes in Virginia. This is the most recent ABC report mentioning dry counties in Virginia. Artsygeek (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on it when I can, thanks for the link. Fry1989eh? 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've removed the old AAdvantage logo from both AAdvantage and American Airlines. My reasoning is that Wikipedia generally limits the circumstances where non-free images can be used through the non-free content criteria. In both articles, the new AAdvantage logo (which is also a non-free image) is already displayed. Adding a second non-free image purely to display an historical logo seems to violate NFCC #3a. Unlike the original AA logo and livery that are used in the American Airlines article, there's no critical commentary about the old logo, which might perhaps justify keeping it in the article (though I'd probably still argue against its inclusion). Esrever(klaT) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is insufficient. There is no reason to loose these former logos, it's done on the main article it should be done for the subsidiary elements. If the file was on Commons I wouldn't care, but when it is on Wikipedia under a non-free reasoning, we risk loosing it forever and a higher standard of reasoning is needed. Please return it. Fry1989eh? 20:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But a higher standard of reasoning isn't needed. WP has a pretty clear set of standards about how we can use non-free images, those copyrighted images that are owned and controlled by outside people or organizations. Those images aren't "lost" because they were never really WP's in the first place. We use them through the "fair use" standard, but inserting a non-free image just to illustrate an article isn't a fair use. Esrever(klaT) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They ARE lost because it is content we have, and once it is deleted we no longer have the ability to present it to our readers. They're here to learn, and illustrations are an important part of that. Fry1989eh? 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, images are an important part of that, but WP doesn't own the right to these images. As much as we'd love to just plaster them all over the encyclopedia, that's not allowed. Esrever(klaT) 00:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any such thing. Are you aware of how many television channel articles we have showing as many as 5 or 6 former logos besides the current one under Fair Use Rationale?? I don't think just having one former logo for AAdvantage is too much to ask for. Fry1989eh? 04:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I may but in, generally former logos are kept on the articles of the company. However, these must be commentary about the change of logos and other discussion that can show it is not there for just mere decoration. I seen it done with sport team logos, logos of TV stations and things like that. This should be treated no differently. I may personally do not like it, but that is what is allowed here. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would only suggest to have the old logo placed at the AAdvantage article and not the parent article since, currently, the discussion of the program is very lacking on the main article about the airline. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the AAdvantage program logo is only notable because of its connection to American. I respectfully submit that only the company's main logo (and its attendant history) is notable. Esrever(klaT) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right so I removed the AAdvantage logo from the parent article, but kept it on the program page. If the article on the program is expanded and included texts about the old logo, it could remain. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who's in charge of making all of the SVG logos? --Kevin W. - Talk 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's "in charge", they just happen to be here. Last time I touched them was to crop unnecessary extra space. Fry1989eh? 22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. The search continues! :P --Kevin W. - Talk 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't be more help. Good luck. Fry1989eh? 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. TBH, half the reason why I'm looking for a certain few logos is for a non-Wiki reason (though they'd all have valid reasons for being uploaded here too!) so I'm fine with taking the time to track down someone who can help me. --Kevin W. - Talk 23:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, you updated the original one, and the browser cache was playing tricks on me ;) all good now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarska (talk • contribs) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s: one thing I noticed at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Territory_Trieste_Flag.svg
could you give me credits for it, as I actually didi it from scratch? Name: Arlon Stok.[reply]
Fry, hopefully you're following the discussion about you at ANI. If not, please bring yourself up to date, particularly the last two posts, by me and by TP. I'd like to work this out with you in a manner similar to what TP describes, but that will require cooperation and compromise on your part, meaning you may have to agree to things that you don't think are wholly justified. Here's my proposal:
an acknowledgment by you that you violated your unblock conditions. That doesn't mean you have to admit the violation was egregious, just that it was a violation.
an extension of your civility unblock conditions beyond their current expiration. Six months has been proposed, but I'm open to a shorter extension.
As for your problem with DrK, at the risk of being repetitive, I have two things to say. First, if you want to propose sanctions, you should do so at WP:AN as a separate matter. I would caution you that you should have plenty of evidence to support such a request; otherwise, it may not go well. I would also counsel that you wait a bit so it doesn't look like retaliation. That would also be a good thing because if while you're waiting, DrK leaves you alone, you might reconsider such a request. If he doesn't, you'll have additional evidence. To be clear, I'm taking no position on this issue. Second, if DrK "provokes" you in the future, think of it as an opportunity to control your "hyperbole". With every edit you make, stop and think before clicking on Save: can anyone interpret this as a violation of my civility condition? You'd be suprised how easy it is to reword something to avoid even the appearance of negative personal commentary and still get your substantive point across.
Let me know what you think. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am following but I was asleep and only just got online about half an hour ago. I will reply momentarily. Fry1989eh? 19:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your post at ANI. It sounds like we're almost there. I don't see the necessity for a block based on your post at ANI, so the only thing left to be decided is the length of the extension, unless you want to open up everything to NE's suggested revisions. In my view, although some of NE's suggestions have some merit, I prefer to keep things simpler, meaning keep things as they are. Otherwise, we are probably in for a prolonged discussion. Please respond here. We can go back to ANI if need be.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understand NE's suggestions, it gives me a little wiggle room where I can discuss things with other users, including some of their actions (as long as it's civil), without fear of an absolute "no mentioning of the other user at all", which the current version's interpretation by others seems to be. Correct me if I misunderstood. As for a time of length, 6 months again sounds like a reasonable extension since it was the original length, though the principle of the restrictions is something I've been trying to stick to permanently. I knew the restrictions were to soon expire, although only formally after an official request by myself, something I had not yet considered doing. I've had difficulty, but I would argue that I've mostly been good at sticking the the principles set out. Fry1989eh? 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NE's revisions do more than that, but let's talk about the "wiggle room" part. Based on the present wording, you can discuss things with other users. In my view, you can even discuss their "actions" but only in a substantive way. What you can't do is express an opinion about their actions, even along the lines of some of DrK's diffs. And although I understand that may hamstring you somewhat, I don't see it as a major burden. If anything, it may help you develop a more substantive, collaborative style when you're frustrated. I don't think anyone is going to come along and accuse you of violating the civility conditions as long as you haven't focused on the editor instead of the content. Does that make sense?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Even when it starts looking like it's "getting personal", my focus has always been the validity of someone's arguments, not them as a person. But I understand how the two become muddled the way I speak. Fry1989eh? 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. So, are you okay with extending the civility conditions, as currently worded, for 6 months beyond their current expiration? You've already done the acknowledgment. There would be no block. I don't want to push you, particularly based on my "opposition" to NE's suggestions, so give it some thought before responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everyone is in agreement, I have no reason to say no. Fry1989eh? 21:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm taking this back to ANI now. Please look at the changes I made to your unblock conditions. I tried to keep it simple, so I changed the expiration of the civility conditions from 6 months to 12 months, effectively adding 6 more months. Let me know if it looks okay to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, yes your changes are agreeable. Fry1989eh? 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. As I said at ANI, I'll keep the thread there open for a while before closing it. Unless something unexpected happens, we'll be done and you can return to more pleasant tasks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can assure you nothing will happen on my part. Fry1989eh? 22:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you archive quickly. As you may have noticed, there's been a snag. Doesn't look like this is going to end today. You shouldn't worry, though. Whatever happens, it shouldn't worsen what we agreed to.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I archived it because the title is somewhat inflammatory and I don't want to attract extra attention to my predicament. In any case, I'm not going anywhere, though I may be slow to reply. Fry1989eh? 02:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, I restored the ANI thread from archives, commented, and closed it. Thus, your unblock conditions are as we discussed (extended for 6 months). TP wanted to make sure you understood something. Pay close attention to the comments above TP's "That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then." Please let me know if you have any questions. If you don't, feel free to archive this. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 I do understand, and I also want to thank you (and the others) for your cool head(s) in this matter. Fry1989eh? 01:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Too bad we interact only in somewhat unpleasant circumstances, but I'm glad we worked it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No "decision" has been made, I am simply replacing an inferior file with a new superior one. The image on the left is better than the one on the right, and is derived from our new SVG coats of arms of the Kingdom of Italy. Please do not revert my change without a proper reason. Asking "what decision?" is not a reasoning. Fry1989eh? 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Google Trad.) Thank you for your answer on wp: in. Personally, I find the second version less aesthetic. However I did not understand the explanation based on the new model File: Coat_of_arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_ (1890). Svg which differs greatly from that file it File: Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Italy (1890). Jpg. If your decision seems to be consensus on wp:en, on wp:fr, one representing the new crest representing the Duchy of Savoy does not seem to be. Cordially. --B-noa (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is really sadening that you are going to pretend to be the author this image. You have taken excellent creation and diletantly extracted the CoA, produced a mess, didnt react on the cure and reported wrong status. Is that the way you will continue to contribute here? Maxxl2 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pretending to claim anything, it's called "derivative work". If you have a problem with the way it is licensed, talk to me about it, but don't accuse me of "stealing" another user's work, and then vandalize the files on Commons by changing their licensing. Fry1989eh? 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt change the licensing. That was somebody else. I cleaned code and saw that you had taken Katepanomegas code, cut out the CoA, but werent able to handle the remainders, ignoring the license Katepanomegas had set, but stating yourself to be the only author. That is very disappointing to see such a disrespect of an excellent artist and collegue here. I hope you will correct these infos shortly. --Maxxl2 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really cute that you want to accuse me to claiming another user's work when I didn't. Did you even notice at all that in the file description boxes, I linked the original files, and in the licensing section I included Katepanomegas's attribution license??? No ofcourse not, or else you wouldn't accuse me to claiming the files as 100% my own. "Derivative work" is a valid exercise on Commons where content is required. In this case, we had the great coat of arms, but not the shields on their own, I filled that hole and I don't care about your "sadness". Fry1989eh? 20:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emblem of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario[edit]
Please do not revert the updated version of the emblem for the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. It was provided to me explicitly for use on Wikipedia. Jagislaqroo (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YOu should not replace Commons files with non-free local versions. Fry1989eh? 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The materials on this website are protected by Crown copyright (unless otherwise indicated), which is held by the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. If credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged, the materials may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes." = Free http://www.lgontario.ca/en/pages/copyright-information.aspxJagislaqroo (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean anything. You have uploaded the file locally on Wikipedia as non-free content, and you are using it to replace a completely free file from Commons. That's not prudent. Fry1989eh? 19:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adelbrecht (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
%20version%203.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forms_of_government.svg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_with_multiple_capitals_map.PNG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Royal_Monogram_of_King_George_I_of_Greece.svg&diff=53959884&oldid=49032491){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Royal_Monogram_of_King_Constantine_I_of_Greece.svg&diff=53959914&oldid=49083903){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Royal_Monogram_of_King_Alexander_of_Greece.svg&diff=53959925&oldid=49083414){kind=link}
.svg){kind=small}
). For your reverts, you gave two explanations: (1) "it wasn't like that at all" and (2) "And it looks like this on others. This is how it should be unless there's some definitive evidence". Would you be so kind as to explain your reasoning? I was the original uploader of the file, and I can tell you right now that it was taken from: File:State Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Greece.svg. Taking into consideration that the user that created the original file has said before that heraldic representations are up to the creator to make as he finds pleasing (provided that they meet the criteria set out by the law on what it should look like), it renders your point that "thats what it should look like" moot, but nonetheless I would like to know why you are so convinced that this is what it looked like and not this or this (and I remind you that this is the only representation of the Coat of Arms that exists to my knowledge). I look forward to hearing from you, --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
