User talk:Fry1989: Difference between revisions

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks of manually replacing hundreds of images across all the Wikiprojects (so I didn't have to), and for your tireless contribution to the field of heraldry and vexillology on Commons. Thank you! Sodacan (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The SVG Barnstar
	For obvious reasons. INeverCry 20:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The SVG Barnstar
	Thanks for making a vector version of this flag on such short notice! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The SVG Barnstar
	Thanks a bunch for taking the time to make SVG flags of all these U.S. federal agencies! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi- I extracted some vector images of Brazilian and Argentine road signs from official government sources for a little project of mine. Well, Brazilian warning signs at least. The PDF containing the regulatory signs only has raster images. Anyways, I was wondering if it would be ok with you if I overwrite the ones you've uploaded (the ones that are derivatives from other sources) with the official ones I extracted? And of course I'll add the ones that you missed.

And FYI I got the PDFs from Morón Municipality for Argentina and the DNIT (federal department) for Brazil.

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

No problem at all, feel free! Let me know if you want to rename them if there are any official sign numbers and I can do that for you as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I noticed your sandbox comparison table, it's much like the European, although you do have some errors. Would you mind if I work on it with you? Fry1989 ^eh? 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, it's entirely ad hoc. And yeah, that was the basis for it - I felt like building a similar one out of personal curiosity. I know some are wrong and I haven't really done any sorting, so the categories aren't really very good either. Especially the mandatory signs...they don't really translate from Vienna Convention to MUTCD. --Amateria1121 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's true. What I would suggest is instead of getting super specific like the European table, just do the most common signs all countries share in common like "stop", "give way", "no parking", "speed limit", things like that which every country has. I'll play around on my sandbox some time in the next week or so and you can see how you like it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do a bit of that already, heh. Things like "Unprotected quayside" or "explosives prohibited" really don't have any MUTCD equivalent. And you can go ahead and edit my sandbox directly if you want. I usually use N++ to write code-y stuff anyways so I have a backup if I need it. --Amateria1121 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to change the yellow on your Brazilian warning signs if that's ok, based on the real ones that can be seen on google streetview. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It's the colour I got from here, and yeah, I know the IRL ones look a bit more orange. I also wanted to include Mexico but I couldn't find any vectors of their signs, and I can't really sub any in because of the unique arrows they use. Actually the only place I've ever seen arrows like that is lane indicators in Ontario.--Amateria1121 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish all countries made their signs available in SVG but most don't even make the documents available at all, and those that do usually are very difficult to find and don't have them in SVG or charge for them. I wanted to upload British Columbia's signs but it costs about 5000 dollars to buy quality SVG files of the signs and the ones in their free PDFs are choppy junk. I don't have that kind of money I'm on a disability pension. South Africa has a PDF of all the signs but they're JPEG and too poor to upload here. Quebec's are free and I have to finish that up, I put it on hold for a while but I'll get back to it soon, luckily they make it free. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BC has some weird road engineering practices...--Amateria1121 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I needed a nap. However, I have thought up a plan of attack, what I was thinking is together we can finish uploading all the Argentine signs, we're gonna have to do it under the naming scheme "Argentina road sign ..." because Courcelles screwed it up from the way I originally named them, but honestly it's probably better that way anyway rather than just the name of the country and the number. I'll rename the ones already uploaded, and the others can just follow in line. I'll also work on a new file information box for them all so they are the same. After Argentina, maybe we can work on Brazil and after that I will get my ass back on to finishing Quebec. How does that sound to you? Fry1989 ^eh? 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good--Amateria1121 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I finished up with Argentina, there weren't too many left. The touristic info signs don't actually have numbers assigned to them, so I just named them what they were called in the PDF.--Amateria1121 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, and we have all the sign numbers at Senal AR so I'll do the renames and the infoboxes tonight. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed all the regulatory signs, but idk if it's worth the effort to do it to all the warning signs. I wish Courcelles could have left well enough alone. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the yellow on the Brazilian warning signs, but eventually I will redo the diamond shape because it's a bit uneven. First though I really do need to finish up Quebec. I also just found documents for Brunei so that will have to be done in the future too. Looks like we both have a lot of work :) I'm glad you're here, it was tough being the only one. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I finally did more work on my sandbox - I added Japan and Mexico (it was a pain in the ass getting those let me tell you haha). I also have some signs from Uruguay and Peru, but I haven't done those yet. I wasn't sure about the rights from the Uruguyan signs, since government property doesn't appear to be public domain, and the stuff I got from Peru isn't complete. And I still need to get some real Brazilian regulatory signs. Also I was thinking about categorization or if there was anything else that should be included. I'd welcome any ideas. Anyways, just an update.--Amateria1121 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed last night, it's great we have more signs :) Keep up the good work. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I think that's pretty much all I can do with it. Let me know what you think or if you have any suggestions. And thanks for the help with categorization!--Amateria1121 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fry, I've noticed you from spending time on looking at coat of arms on wikipedia. I'm not sure if I've left a comment before but I want to say that I admire your enthusiasm for coa's and that I regret that guinea flag svg I uploaded so long ago (now I've learned how to use vector programs and can draw...) Anyway, I noticed you uploaded a somaliland svg coa and thought that a tool might be helpful. I'm not sure if you know about this but there's a wiki tool called "Global replace" [1] which makes it so you can replace an image on wikipedia throughout all projects. It's a pretty powerful tool but maybe you can find a use for it. --Turn685 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that's exactly the kind of tool I've been looking for ever since Commons:Delinker has it's fault. If you ever need help with anything, all you have to do is ask :) Fry1989 ^eh? 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fry, I've some problem in a vector image. I've come to know that you can contribute with a basic level on vector graphics. In fact, I created a svg image. Font in this image is Eurostile LT Bold Extended 2. But it looks like Arial on Wikipedia or Commons. Please resolve this issue so that font will look like Eurostile LT Bold Extended 2. Thank you! -- Wárrãich šÁhiß talk • contribs 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help, but I am not good with fonts. I would probably make it worse than better. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved issue. Thanks! -- Wárrãich šÁhiß talk • contribs 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry I couldn't have been more help. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi friend, I'm involved in a controversy about an AC/DC album cover. It seems that the aboriginal flag of Australia has set a precedent so many users think that ALL the works originated in Australia should be under copyright.

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

Hey saw you did a version of the emblem the Irish air corps etc nice job! guess you must be part Chinese/Irish after all ;). Just on the naval emblem version the english writing has been replaced with gaelic despite appearing on the defense force pdf, human resource clerical error using an old incorrect seal I would venture as it law that Irish is the first language of the country and so they had to change it. Setanta Saki (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suck at drawing images and suck even harder at text, so I'm not going to be able to change it. I have no objection to you doing so however. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It might come off that way but I never would have been able to draw those images by myself. I've fiddled with text a bit, and I can build upon other people's work, but when it comes to creating something original, I really only feel safe with basic geometry. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have plenty of flags on Commons which officially include a fringe but we do not, because a fringe is a decoration and not a physical part of the flag itself. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In ROC's troops, any flag designed with the tassel in the Appendix must fly with its tassel. That is, the tassel is not a decoration but a physical part of the flag itself. Moreover, according to your opinion on the talk page of ROC's emblem, the Appendix is superior to what we do or not do on Wiki. Thus, you should help all the flags which officially include a fringe added it on Common in stead of reversion what Jitcji revises accroding to the Enforcement Rules.--Akira123 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can provide the source says that the ringe is a decoration and not a physical part of the ROC's military flag itself, such as the standard of the President, can't you?--Akira123 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I founded a article about the military flags from Turkmenistan.

Pictures of the military flags

Link to the picture

174.91.68.16 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fry, the image has been totally redesigned by the Italian Graphic Lab. It is not the original version that you can find on the Vatican website. The version has been designed in accordance to Commons's policies regarding the coat of arms. If we followed what you say, every coat of arms similar to the original one should not be uploaded to Commons, and this is absurd! Look at the emblem of the Italian Republic: even if it has been redesigned in .svg format, nobody has ever objected that the file could be present on Commons! Or consider the coat of arms I Pope Francis: it's identical to the original, but no one has ever had doubts about its copyright! Furthermore, there's no copyright on the coat of arms of nations. Please have a look on other coat of arms status and reconsider your opinion, thanks. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no copyright on the coat of arms of nations"??? Yes, there is. I really wish there wasn't, because then we could have every country's coat of arms on Commons, but we can't because many of them are copyrighted. The new version was drawn based on a Vatican document and therefore the concern about copyright is very real. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you didn't have any problem in Coat of arms of San Marino.svg to accept the new version when another user wrote: "it's public domain because it's an official emblem". And with Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg you do? The design age (85 years old) is proved in the official document. The official documents have presumption of truth and if you doubt it, you are insinuating that the document has falseness... and in that case, the responsibility to prove the incorrectness it's yours. --Echando una mano (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting my time responding to a troll. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to find a proof to claim our file is copied; otherwise your personal concerns are just your own opinions. And believe me, you won't find anything, because that file has been designed by us.

This thing of reverting an upload, based only on personal concerns, is wrong an incorrect - if it wasn't, I could hypotetically revert any new upload simply based on my own opinions. --Gambo7 (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the find proof your file is copied, the proof is right there. You all freely admit you redrew the image based on the PDF. You have no clue what you are talking about. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any idea about the arrangement of the rays in the Turkmenistan Air Force Flag? It's pretty hard to see in the photos, but it doesn't seem they are arranged at equal angles like in the webpage linked to two sections above this. Since you created the Ground and Naval Forces flags I assume you were about to make the Air Forces flag too. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue, it's too abstract in the photos. And actually I'm glad you made the flag because I couldn't, I was gonna borrow from the Russian Air Force flag but it's rays are different so it was a no-go for me. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can read the decree here. It also contains official drawings. The new crown is accurate in the sense of its proportions (1/10 taller, 6/10 wider than the cross), but it is not the exact design that would be used. I think the best thing to do would be for some experienced Wikimedia heraldist to design the flag of Greece so it can be used but I think that the updated crown on the new flag is far closer to the actual shape of the Greek crown than the previous one (the crown of Denmark). I did some poking around in the Greek government newspaper's archives, you can see a full list of laws regarding the flag which I found, here. Regards --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi,

I was gratifyingly surprised after realizing that Australian traffic signs uploaded by you were restored. But my real intention was to apologize because I voted " Delete" in an old DR related to a vectorized kangaroo traffic sign that you had uploaded.

I understand I commited a mistake so traffic signs (beyond their grade of complexity) are universal symbols with no status of copyright although they are in use in Australia or other countries with low ToO. I supposed that the legend "All contents copyright Government of Western Australia" at the bottom of Main Roads website caused some grade of confusion on me that influenced at the moment of leaving my feedback on the DR.

Further more, I also noted that in the Road signs and lane markings section of Queensland Gov website there is a {{Cc-by-3.0-au}} tag that would allow its contents (= road signs) to be hosted here. According to this, I will probably work on a copyright tag designed specifically for Austalian road signs to avoid unnecesary DR (and their subsecquent discussions) about this traffic signs.

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

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

Are you crazy? Or blind?

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

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

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

And you are a waste of time. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to intervene. I just think you would be interested in having a look at this discussion. 86.41.66.80 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would You again look at the situation concerning the file: Finland Greater Coat of Arms.svg, please. --85.76.177.31 17:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you very much, I didn't know those tags existed. If you ever find any Chinese state documents on the road signs, especially PDFs, I would really appreciate that too. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of your recent posts at COM:ANV (e.g. [2]) violate the interaction ban between you and Perhelion. Please do not mention Perhelion again, especially in that discussion. Violating the ban may lead to you being blocked from editing. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be joking! You are saying I can't even comment on the specifics of the interaction ban in a controlled AN setting or else I risk being blocked? That I can't even state the facts regarding why the IB was requested in the first place (I'm the one who asked for it!), which would require me to mention the actions of the user I wanted the IB with? Meanwhile there are others who are suggesting nobody should be blocked at all even for clear violations of the IB by interacting with someone they weren't supposed to. That is not what the IB was for, it was to stop edit warring and reverting and personal attacks, not to stop the discussion and pointing out of factual actions that a user has taken. Everything I've said is fact, and can be backed up with links, apparently under your interpretation of the IB (again which I requested and suggested terms for) that would not be ok, and I wouldn't even be able to go to AN and point out if a user I had an IB with had violated it. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not joking. The post I linked to is a gratuitous comment on whether the other party to the ban deserves their block. It is not a report of a violation of the ban, nor a direct response to such a report (which might perhaps be exceptions). --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they "deserved it", I said these are the past behaviours which caused me to demand an IB in the first place, these are the past behaviours I don't want to see again, and I am seeing signs of them which is why I will not be supporting an unblock. I have no obligation to support unblock, nor am I opposing unblock either (I haven't said I oppose it at all), but I made it clear if I were to see some good faith then I would. Now how many users do you know who are willing to even entertain the idea of supporting an unblock of a user with which they've had the problems I've had? I considered that rather generous and friendly. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you were feeling generous and friendly is not the point. My point is that you should not have offered your judgement on whether they should currently be unblocked, as this is unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. (If you had instead simply proposed "If X agrees not to do A, B, and C, I agree they should be unblocked", without casting judgements or commenting on them showing good or bad faith, that would have been less objectionable - although focussing on resolving the underlying ban would have been even better.)

I know Commons is not enwiki, but w:WP:IBAN and w:WP:BANEX give some guidance on how interaction bans can work. In particular, while you should not "make reference to or comment on" the other editor, one exception is "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" [my emphasis]. --Avenue (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fry, you violated now also interaction ban with Perhelion. I was really tempted to block you, but I thought, that you maybe did not know, that interaction ban is valid even if the other person is blocked. Now you know. Please be cautious. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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