User talk:SiBr4/Archive

Welcome

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, SiBr4!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

hawaii oas

hawaii is a us state, so it should be green on the oas map. --Ty Rezac (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You should ask that at File talk:Organization of American States (orthographic projection).svg. I'm not that good at orthographic maps. SiBr₄ (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of South Africa.svg

What you call "unnecessary objects" are those which ensure that the green Y is confined to the field, and so does not extend outside the flag rectangle. It doesn't make any difference to uses within Wikipedia, but some would consider the 555-byte version to be "sloppier", and certainly less useful as general-purpose SVG clip-art... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you've been doing a lot of editing since I left the above comment, but haven't bothered to give me the courtesy of any reply, I reverted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand why the clippath should be kept, as it doesn't matter at all for the software. Areas outside the page are cut off when rendering. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the clippath isn't the only thing I changed. Some of the green and black parts were there twice; that's what I meant with "unnecessary objects". SiBr₄ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The clipping path should be kept because it makes the file useful for more purposes (though it doesn't affect the rendering to PNG within Wikimedia). Frankly, if making the file higher-quality makes the file larger by 100 (or even 200 bytes), then we can easily "afford" that. It's nice to make an SVG file legitimately smaller, but byte-count fetishism pursued for its own sake is not the be-all and end-all.. AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's not really "outside the page" -- it's outside the viewBox. In many programs, the page will be completely different, and the flag graphic (if imported into the program) could be just a small part of a page. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Nuvola Libya flag.svg

A recurring bug over the past few weeks has been that in some cases thumbnail versions don't update until a few days have passed. To bypass the bug, you can request an "odd" thumbnail size which hasn't been previously requested (e.g. 221px instead of 220px, etc.). Of course, if you upload another new version after that, and the bug still applies, then you have to choose yet another odd pisel width... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's not a problem with the file itself? I had the same problem with the flags of Portugal and Syria (see File talk:Flag of Portugal.svg#Rendering), and both files worked after a new version had been uploaded. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If 60px doesn't work, but 61px (or whatever) does work, then it's not a problem with the file itself... AnonMoos (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried the old and new revisions both at 25x15px. The old revisions didn't work, the new ones did. SiBr₄ (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Cuba (constructios).svg

Thanks for dividing by 15. That's what the ideal solution was, but I didn't feel like redoing the text from scratch (easier to just delete "0"'s... ). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Thank you for your interest in categorising flags. The thing is that the categorisation of Guernsey, Jersey and Mann generally recognises their self-governing status and the fact that, although they have a constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom (through the Crown), they are not dependencies of the UK. Have you got a reason for proposing that flag categories should be an exception? I must say that I find the various ...of Crown Dependencies categories make as much sense as ...of Commonwealth Realms would but if they're helpful, I don't have enormous objection to them except on the grounds of overcategorisation - but of course they're not helpful if they mislead people into thinking the Crown Dependencies suggest some sort of incorporation into the UK, any more than any eventual Commonwealth Realms categories would. Man vyi (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the exact status of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, but as far as I know, they are dependencies of the UK (Wikipedia's list of dependent territories includes them, one of its essays says that its residents are officially British citizens, and they're even called "crown dependencies"). The Commonwealth realms are different from the CDs in that they are all sovereign states on their own. I think grouping these under ".... of the Commonwealth Realms" would be like having grouping countries under "... of EU member states": the realms share the same head of state, but are all independent countries. The crown dependencies are more like the U.S. insular areas or the French overseas collectivities: they are self-governing, not integrated in their mother country, but not independent either.

Commons has no policy or guideline as for what entities should be included in "... by country" categories. Most of these though list only sovereign states; the ones that do list dependencies normally list them because nobody bothered to move them. It doesn't seem like there is some rule or standard that the CDs should be listed separately: the search results for ... of the Isle of Man etc. show that a lot of the categories about the CDs are categorized in "... by country", but the same is true when searching for ... of French Polynesia, for example. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They do appear in the article list of dependent territories, however they're under the sub-heading of Crown dependencies. That's not the same as "dependencies of the UK". For the purposes of categorisation (in many industries, etc. not just on wikipedia), these islands are normally categorised as, and often treated as countries, this is why they have their own ISO 3166-1 country codes. Danrok (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 defines codes for both countries and dependencies, so them having the ISO 3166-1 GG, JE and IM codes doesn't say anything about whether they are countries or not: other dependencies like Bermuda (BM) and Guam (GU) have "country" codes as well, as do some integral parts of countries like French Guiana (GF) and the Dutch special municipalities (BQ). Most WP ranking lists too list both countries and dependencies, as do most others. I wonder if any list/categorization by country anywhere includes the crown dependencies but doesn't include the BOTs, the U.S. insular areas, the Chinese SARs, etc.

In Wikipedia's Dependent territory article, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are grouped under "Crown dependencies", but they are still in the Lists of dependent territories section. There is a separate section for areas with special status (like the Aland Islands and Hong Kong/Macau), but the CDs aren't part of that. And why would they even be called "crown dependencies" if they aren't dependencies? SiBr₄ (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally getting back to this at the end of a busy week. The thing about the Crown Dependencies is that they are dependencies of the Crown (naturally enough), not of the UK - the sovereign power being the Crown, and again not the UK (think of the way the Crown is different in Australia and Canada, even though the same person is monarch). Since Foo in the CDs are by definition not in the UK, and Foo of the CDs are by definition not of the UK, it is logical to categorise by country. Since the flags (getting back to the particular issue at hand) of the CDs are specifically used to symbolise the separate identities of the countries (which the UK agrees are identities that are different from that of the UK - see the Framework Agreements), it is evident that flags of the CDs are per se not flags of the UK. The UK Ministry makes it clear: "Government officials must never state or imply that the Crown Dependencies are part of the United Kingdom". The CDs are self-governing, if non-sovereign, countries and whether they happen for historical reasons to be titled "Crown dependencies" or "Crown countries" doesn't change the nature of the relationship with the Crown. Man vyi (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't know much about the exact status of the CDs. The Crown is something very complicated, (as I've read) perhaps similar to New Zealand and its associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue. I agree that the crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom proper. In fact, dependencies are by definition not integrated in their mother country, but are still dependent on it. The same is true for Gibraltar and the UK, Puerto Rico and the US, and New Caledonia and France, for example. Yet almost all "Foo of dependency" categories are subcategories of "Foo of mother country"; this doesn't imply them being part of the respective country's integral area.

There is no universal definition of a "country"; though mostly a "sovereign state" is meant. If not restricted to these, dependencies, autonomous regions and overseas integral areas are often included pretty arbitrarily: any definition including Martinique or Bonaire should by the same logic include Hawaii, and uninhabited or sparsely populated territories like the USMOI islands or the Heard and McDonald Islands are often left out. If restricted to sovereign states, the only possible disputes are the states that claim sovereignty but aren't generally recognized, like Taiwan and Kosovo, which in the case of the flags, have their own category. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Nuvola Republic of Peru flag.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nuvola Republic of Peru flag.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 04:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

There's no rule; it's general agreement. As it's Commons, we don't need verifiable facts, but if we did the fact that e.g. the government of Jersey states that Jersey is a country[1], would be considered evidence of country status. Why would the consensus on Commons go against the recognised facts? I'm with the consensus - and the facts. Man vyi (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Man vyi: A "consensus on Commons" can only be established by an actual discussion on Commons (though I doubt if there is actually such thing as consensus on Commons). If you're hinting at the several discussions we had half a year ago; both of these ([1] [2]) ended in you not replying to my last comment, rather than any form of agreement (let alone a consensus).

As for the actual issue, one mention of Jersey being called a country (even if official) doesn't change the fact that there is no universal definition of a "country". There are plenty of sources calling the UK's four constituent parts "countries", but it wouldn't be very convenient if the "... by country" categories on Commons would include the UK and its constituent countries separately. My point remains that it's best for these categories to stick to the sovereign states, as long as there isn't a general guideline on which areas should be considered "countries" for purposes of categorization. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

False assertion in one of your reverts in French overseas

You state that the TAAF and Clipperton are "officially" each a TOM.

This is plain wrong now. The status of TOM no longer exists in France since years.

All of them are either

• a DOM (departements, they are also a ROM which does not require two separate administrating collectivities, for example Mayotte runs a single collectivity and not two merging the two roles)
• or a COM (each of them having their own specificities),
• the only transiant exception being new Caledonia (with its transiant sui generi status, which will be terminated after the results of local referendum of self-determination and its legal application: it will either become an independant country, or will need to evolve to a COM, not really different from Wallis-et-Futuna or French Polynesia, where there are also several personal and territorial status, protected by the 1958 Constitution including for their natives leaving anywhere in France or in the European Union).

Clipperton and the TAFF are **officially** now COM (even if they are uninhabited, they have all what is needed by law to work like COM, notably they have their own regulating council and an executive administration in charge for all the needed roles, even if this council is not elected by an inexistant local population of permanent residents but designated by the government, and their public accounts are supervized by Cours des Comptes; all od them have competent courts of justice in all domains).

Don't revert it again. There is now no TOM in France (the status of TOM has been completely removed from the French Constitution and all laws, and all the territories had to evolve to one of the 2 legal status, with the only exception of New Caledonia).

The argument that these two territories is "special" is not valid legally, all COMs are special compared to DOM or the metropolitan area, each one has its own specificities, and its own designation, but all of them oveying to the constitional definition of COM's.

A "COM" also does not require that their council being elected.

A COM also does not require that their council seats locally (this is also true for all French territorial collectivies, including communes, departments, regions, and the EPCI, or other admnistrative departments of the State, like prefectures, courts of justice, police, army, education and health). The only exception being Paris being designated by law as the country "capital" (but this is not a constitutional requirement, only something in standard law which is becoming weaker now with the increasing regionalisation laws).

Apparently your foreign source is outdated since years (the only fact you are refering to the "TOM" means that you don't know the subject and that you used outdated sources). Check with better sources or learn reading French.

And apparently you don't know the subject as well when you changed things in dependencies of the British Crown (Jersey, Guernsey and Man) which are definitely NOT dependencies of UK (they are freely associated with it but are not required to maintain it, their States are fully self-governing and can freely reject thelselves laws of UK, their courts also don't obey to UK courts, and they can legally be parties to international treaties, or choose themselves to designate UK to represent them; treaties ratified by UK don't have to apply to Crown dependencies unless they ratify these treaties themselves).

IMHO, avoid the subject of categorizing dependencies for countries you don't know.

verdy_p (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Verdy p: I was just posting a message on your talk page about this. According to w:en:Overseas departments and territories of France, the territories in Overseas France have the following statuses:

• Overseas regions/departments (DOM): French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, Réunion
• Overseas collectivities (COM): French Polynesia, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, St. P.&M., W.&F.
• Sui generis collectivity: New Caledonia
• Overseas territories (TOM): TAAF
• Other territories: Clipperton

Their seemingly official websites confirm that TAAF is an overseas territory ([2]) and that Clipperton has a special status ([3]). I don't know of any change in status of these two territories. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they have special status, but they are COM. You need to read authoritative sources in French, not informative English translations without any legal binding effect.

As I said, *all* COM's have their own special status, they are still COM's. They no longer are TOM's since several years, because TOM's no longer exist anywhere in France (this old status has been completely removed from French laws and from the Constitution).

Only New Caledonia has special status with a specific transitory part in the Constitution (which will be dropped when the results of the self-determination referendum will be known and applied). New Caledonia is the only remaining part of the terriroty that did not benefit of this self-determination (but it has locally approved the French Constitution, so this is no longer a "colony"; it is largely self-governed in many legal areas, like all COM's in fact, except the limited domains reserved by the Constitution that are relevant only to the Republic's State; notably the international policy, defense and security, and protection of territorial waters and the maritime EEZ).

In other words, beware of English translations (they have NO legal status in France and they are always misleading). Read the French Constitution which is the definitive source above all French laws and regulationsn which defines only fours categories:

• The metropolitan territory (in Europe): the 21 regions and the terrritorial collectivity of Corsica.
• The départements (and regions) d’outre-mer: now including Mayotte, in addition to the 4 older DOM's and ROM's.

  Note that the status of ROM is not required by the constitution (the 4 ROM's, created at the same time as regions in the Metropole, should have disappeared but remained in effect in the 4 older DOM's). As well, the 21 metropolitan "regions" or the terrritorial collectivity of Corsica do not have Constitutional protection, only departments have status. This is why they are attempts to drop regions (but this is failing) or to merge departments completely into regions (impossible without constitutional change, this recent attempt has been cancelled).

• The collectivités d’outre-mer (COM): now including Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthélémy, Saint-Pierre-and-Miquelon, as well as the TAAF and Clpperton, but not longer Mayotte.
• The sui generi status for New Caledonia.

Initially when the status of COM was created, it should have covered the DOM/ROM, but they rejected this status (except Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélémy, which then were separated from Guadeloupe), so the DOM status was kept. Later Mayotte decided to become a DOM after having been a COM. The COM status should also have covered New Caledonia, but the trouble events came before this status came into effect. Instead its sui generi status was created and approved for immediate application.

The sui generi status only exists to be transitory: after it, New Caledonia will be either independant, or will become a COM like Wallis-and-Futuna, keeping almost all specificities (including the personal status independant of the common status of the Code Civil, because personal statuses are protected by the Constitution everywhere in France, or including the territorial assembly).

The sui generi status was created (and approved by a national constitutional referendum) to fermly warranty that the self-determination referendum will occur in due time and under good conditions, and to prepare the possible peaceful transition to full independance without too much damages for all communities leaving in the territory or for their natives leaving elsewhere in France, but also to make sure that staying in the Republic as a COM remains a viable option. The same national referendum also confirmed the required abrogation of the old TOM status.

But the most important thing given by this sui generi status in the Constitution is that it creates and an additional new Caledonian citizenship, and protects it for the coming self-determination referendum (not all French citizens will vote, only New Caledonian citizens, wherever they will live in France). This referendum, if it decides to remain in France, may decide to preserve this citizenship, in which case the Constitution will be amended.

The French Constitution is already compatible with multiple personal citizenships (so it already offers the European citizenship to all French citizens), but it's independant from the status of territories, or from the personal status (in common civil law, or local law): this can be seen in Mayotte where a customary personal status also exist and is protected everywhere in France, independantly of the territorial status, or from the current place of residence for owners of these personal status or from their citizenship(s).

verdy_p (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the Crown Dependencies, they may not officially be dependent on the UK, but since they're not fully independent countries either, and do have a relationship with the UK similar to that of other dependencies (being self-governing but not independent), I thought Guernsey, Jersey and IoM may be better located in the "UK" categories than in the "countries" categories (though they may officially not belong in either category). SiBr₄ (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

These 3 Crown dependancies are self-governing in a "free-state" association with UK, but really not part of UK (they are fully independant from UK, this is not the case of the British Overseas). They are similar to the relations of some self-governing insular countries with New Zealand (also in a free-state association).

They are still not independant countries, because they are dependancies of the Crown (not from UK), which is still not a country. They are nearly like Canada (except that Canada is not a dependancy of the Crown, but only a free member of the Commonwealth and Canada can freely decide to become a republic by electing a president instead of keeping the Crown as an institutional head of state).

The British Crown is much more like an international organization (like the European Union), but whose members (the Crown dependancies) cannot freely decide to join or exit. But they are completely free to exit their current association with UK, independantly of their mandatarory relations with the Crown who owns them. They absolutely don't need UK authorization to exit (and UK can also exit this association independantly).

So what is special is the status of the Crown itself, which is not a country but is fully independant from UK: even if UK, like Canada, recognizes the British Crown as its symbolic head of state, UK can freely escape from the Crown and is not a dependancy of the Crown.

Because the Crown is not a country, it cannot govern itself all the territories where it is the head of state sovereign. The Crown however has not elected president, because it is headed by the Sovereign in its bylaws. But the Crown effectively governs only in its 3 dependancies (it can veto some laws enacted by the States of these 3 dependancies, but it cannot veto the laws enacted by the parliaments of UK or Canada).

The Crown is also heading the Commonwealth, but this is by choice of its regulating assembly (which may decide at any time to elect another president), so the Commonwealth is also independant from the Crown (which cannot veto the decisions taken by the Commonwealth), both are only cooperating in free association.

If UK decided to become a republic, the King or Queen Sovereign of England would only keep its personal honorific titles protected by the British common law, but UK could be headed by an elected president, and could remain a member of the Commonwealth. The Crown would continue to rule its 3 dependancies independantly of UK, and the 3 dependancies could also remain associated with UK (by the free association of UK and the Crown for its 3 dependancies). But the British citizenship could be lost by native citizens of these dependancies. UK would still be hosting the Crown organization (like it is already hosting some agencies of the European Union or other international organizations) and would continue to recognize the personal British citizenship of the Sovereign according to UK laws governing the British nationality and citizenships, and would continue to recognize for taxes their private properties and revenues in UK, or even abroad (in the 3 dependencies of the Crown...) if the Sovereign continues to reside in UK (the Sovereign could elect to reside more permanently somewhere in its dependancies, e.g. in Man or Jersey, even if it resides legally but temporarily in England, Wales, or Scotland, but it would have to pay heavy taxes for its many properties generating lots of revenues in UK and would probably have to sell them, notably some of the most precious ones in large parts of London).

If Scotland become independant of UK next year, it will be able to choose if it wants to keep the Crown as its head of State (like Canada), or if it wants to become a republic with an elected president (The Crown would then keep then only a honorific status in Scotland, without legal status except the protection of its personal name and symbols, just like honorific family titles in France, a republic, where they also benefit this protection as part of their personal identity; the Crown would also keep its own private properties in Scotland, but would be under Scottish law, like all citizens and residents). Scotland could also be able to choose if it wants to leave the European Union, or if it wants to remain in the EU when UK would decide to leave it.

UK without Scotland would also have to be formally renamed "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland", or just "Britain and Northern Ireland", or "Britain" for short (instead of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland")...

or UK could become the "Republic of Britain and Northern Ireland", or a Federation of States (like USA) or a Federation of 3 "Nations", if UK without Scotland also dropped the Kingdom at head of state by electing a president. Still, this will not abolish the Kingdom in the 3 dependancies of the Crown.

And in this (republican) federation or union of British nations, Wales could also opt to keep its status of "Principality", with the Prince of Wales heading the nation of Wales within the Federation or Union, when the nation of England would elect its own governor; all 3 nations (as well as existing UK dependencies) would elect the president of the British Federation or Union.

As you see there are many possible options. This is showing to you:

• That the 3 "British Crown" dependancies (in fact the remaining parts of the old "Norman Duchy", after the loss of most its continental territory to the former Kingdom of France, from which it was a vassal when Normandy invaded England and then rejected the vassality to create its own Kingdom, keeping these Norman possessions private and separated from the new territory gained in Britain) are fully independant from UK, even if they are not fully independant countries: they are effectively self-governing in their States (jointly with the Crown not just heading them but also ruling them formally) in free association with UK, which currently represents them internationally (but does not decide for them) and which offers military protection of their territories, and local security with the assistance of Scotland Yard.
• And that the British Crown is best described as an international organization (a very unique one though because it is effectively ruling 3 dependancies, without being recognized itself as a "country"). verdy_p (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Article 72-3 of the French constitution clearly separates TAAF and Clipperton from the five ROMs, the five COMs, and from New Caledonia, discussing the status of each of these four groups separately (the ROMs in Article 73, the COMs in Article 74, and New Caledonia in Title XIII). The status of TAAF and Clipperton is determined by "the law" (la loi), which I can't find on the Internet.

If the Crown Dependencies are "fully independent from the UK", but not fully independent countries either, then who/what has sovereignty over these islands? Is the Crown a sovereign non-state entity such as the SMOM or the Holy See ruling three dependencies in addition to the UK? If that's the case, then what do you think should happen to the categorization of the CDs on Commons, seeing as they're neither countries nor dependencies of the UK? Should we have separate categories for the Crown containing the UK, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, with only the UK categorized in "by country" categories?

I don't know quite enough about the French territories or the Crown Dependencies to know whether everything you're saying is correct. Do you have any official links to support your references to the French constitution and laws? Also, would you mind discussing the two issues somewhat less detailed? I'm not sure to which extent the hypothetical scenario of the UK becoming a republic or the potential secession of Scotland are related to the question of whether the CDs are countries... SiBr₄ (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola by file format

The Nuvola sovereign state flags consist of a big majority of SVG flags and several PNG's. Is it OK to remove Category:Nuvola flag SVG icons from that category, as this parent now seems to be too generalizing? It can be replaced with the inclusive "Nuvola flag icons", and obviously the SVG tag can be added individually to all the SVG flags (if that would be OK). I caused the mixing of the two formats in the Nuvola-flags subcats as the observation by PNG/SVG seemed to me quite uninteresting compared with the Nuvola shape criterion. However, if "Nuvola flag SVG icons" remains, I guess it would then be right to add Category:SVG sovereign state flags. Cheers, Orrlingtalk 10:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

When I originally created Category:Nuvola sovereign state flags, there wasn't any distinction in SVG and PNG icons yet. When Pierpao added it to Category:Nuvola flag SVG icons on 6 January, I created the other subcategories to include only SVG flags, since there are only a few PNG Nuvola flags that are not variations (multiple flags, other icons added, etc.). What we can do now is to either add "SVG" to all category names to explicitly include only SVGs, or remove the SVG/PNG distinction altogether. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Whatever comes better. I would lean toward eliminating the file-format distinction, but a minute later I do realize that indeed, the few PNG's are placed under a stern transience by that "Files-that-still-need-to-be-converted-to-SVG" parent which puts it all like no PNG Nuvola should eventually exist. (though I obviously may have misunderstood this.). So please take the right action. for now, I'll take out "Nuvola flag SVG icons". Orrlingtalk 11:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nuvola flag PNG icons is a subcategory of Category:Nuvola 2.0+ icons needing conversion to SVG, though for all non-variation PNG flags except four (the Occitan, Silesian and Upper Silesian flags) there is already an SVG replacement. I suggest removing the "convert to SVG" category from the PNG flags category and adding it to each individual PNG file where an SVG version is wanted. Then the PNG/SVG categories can be either expanded to include all PNG and SVG icons respectively (with the current subcategories including both SVGs and PNGs) or deleted. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, good. Any solution that will make assembling of cross-format icon files at the Nuvola-country cats possible is welcome. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 20:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Official Emblem of Somaliland.svg

File:Official Emblem of Somaliland.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Antemister (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Languedoc-Roussillon.svg

Hi,

The image you uploaded is not a flag: it's the logo of the Conseil régional. At the Hôtel de Région in Montpellier, the Conseil régional actually uses two regional flags: the Occitan flag and the Catalan flag as indicated.

And even if the logo is used as a new flag, there's absolutely no reason to supercede the former file, this causes problem on Wikipedia as the description on some articles does not match the image. --Superbenjamin (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find an official source for which flag Languedoc-Roussillon uses (a search for "drapeau" on the region's website gives no results but one mention of the European flag). However, this website says the current flag, containing the logo, replaced the flag with the Occitan emblem and the striped quarter circle in 2004. It also includes a photo of the flag with the logo, sourced to a local magazine, which proves that the logo is actually used in the form of a flag (though I'm not completely sure it is the official flag of the region). SiBr₄ (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Many Conseils régionaux sometimes use their logo on a flag, that does not make it “the” flag of the region. Only a few of them actually have an officially recognised flag (Alsace, Britanny, Corsica, Franche-Comté, Midi-Pyrénée and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, see here), most of them based on the coats of arms of the former province. (Note that “officially” here only implies a vote by the Conseil régional, but there's still only one official flag in France: the national one.)

Anyway, if the logo-flag is used by the Conseil régional, it should be mentionned on the corresponding WP article. But you cannot just replace the file: it creates discrepancies on Wikipedia articles. --Superbenjamin (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So how do we determine which flag is "the" flag of Languedoc-Roussillon, if the heraldic one isn't official either? (FWIW, FotW also says the region changed its flag in 2004.)

As for the discrepancies, have you checked how many WP articles actually describe the heraldic flag and should be updated if this file is replaced? Many of the pages this file is used in probably just transclude the file in a gallery/infobox/navbox/flagicon etc. without discussing it (I'm not saying I have checked every transcluding page though). For all we know, some pages may already have been updated to describe the flag with logo in the two months before your first revert. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've replaced File:Flag of Languedoc-Roussillon2.svg with my recolor of the flag with logo and marked File:Région Languedoc-Roussillon (FLAG).svg as superseded. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What I know is that the articles on the French Wikipedia on the regional flags have not been updated with the description of the logo-flag (I'm doing it right now, showing both flags with explanations). Anyway, when a change is substantial like this one it's better to upload a new file than superseding an old one: it avoids all the problems (most pages using a flag do it throug a template, so if there's need for the new flag there it's easy to modify the template). --Superbenjamin (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Languedoc-Roussillon (-2004).svg

File:Flag of Languedoc-Roussillon (-2004).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Superbenjamin (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: signature

Right, thanks for notifying :-)--باسم‎(talk) 21:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Mann

Please pay attention to what happens when you do code reductions, some times they have unintended side-effects. Notice: my version and your reduction. While I understand the desire to reduce file code as much as possible, for me the integrity of the image is more important, even if that means a significantly larger code. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: What exactly is "wrong" with my version? Do the three legs need to be different or do you think I've wrongly centered the triskelion? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please open the two side-by-side and click from one to the other. You will see that your upload rotated the triskelion and lowered it wrongly. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The apparent rotation is because the three legs weren't aligned at 120° angles to each other before I cloned them; I left the topmost leg unchanged. The downward shift of the triskelion wasn't accidental; I've centered it as described at FotW, according to which an imaginary circle around the triskelion should be centered on the flag (not the triskelion itself). SiBr₄ (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I am sorry, however it doesn't quite look right which was why I reverted. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Would you mind if I reverted back again? It's not clear to me whether you still think "it doesn't quite look right" or just wanted to explain the reason for the first revert. SiBr₄ (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No reply, so I reverted back. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Not taking a side in the above discussion, but Fry1989 is referring to the technique of Blink comparison, sometimes the only way of somewhat objectively assessing the difference between two image versions (or discovering Pluto! )... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I hoped it was clear that in this case my reupload wasn't intended to be identical to the previous version. You don't have to overlay the two versions of the image to see I've moved the triskelion downwards, though that's how it should be according to FotW, Vexilla Mundi, and Graham Bartram's book cited on the FotW page. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Mongolia.svg

I don't know what the advantage of the file version which you recently uploaded is -- the previous version displays fine on the version of Inkscape on my computer, has a filesize under 1kb, and eliminates all non-integer coordinates in the file. And reducing nominal pixel sizes of pure vector SVG files isn't really a thing -- if any of the coordinates were 16,384 pixels or larger, that certainly might be desirable, but otherwise not. AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

When I opened the previous file in Inkscape, the fire at the top of the symbol didn't render correctly (nor does it now). To fix that I rewrote the coordinates of the fire with commas and repeating "a" and "c" tags. None of the other changes I made affect rendering at all, though I think they are still an improvement with respect to reading the code and manipulating it, even if they make the file 50 bytes larger. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's a bug introduced into a later version of Inkscape, since the 1,022-byte file displays fine in the older version of Inkscape on my computer, in Firefox, in Adobe SVG plugin, and in the RSVG rendering program used on Wikimedia. The 1,022-byte file isn't greatly superior, but it's compacter and cleaner, and I'm not sure that the small but real advantage should be given up for an Inkscape version-dependent bug. Maybe when the Inkscape developers finally fix the "flowtext" interoperability fiasco, I'll be more inclined to accept Inkscape as the standard of correctness... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For me too it displays like it should in Firefox, IE, MediaWiki, and the Windows Explorer SVG previewer, but not in Inkscape (I have version 0.48.2; according to the site 0.48.4 is the latest). Why is the 1,022-byte version "compacter and cleaner" in your opinion? Do you have any reason to keep it other than "it's fifty bytes smaller" and "the other file isn't better"? SiBr₄ (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I saw your coat of arms image; mine is File:Coat-of-arms-of-user-AnonMoos.svg ... As for the Mongolia flag image, I spent effort hand-coding the file to remove non-integer coordinates and get the filesize below 1k, and I don't see much real reason to give that up. I think you should file a bug report with Inkscape. AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I found out what exact part of the path Inkscape failed to render. The fire path in the 1,022-byte file looks like this:

<path d="M140,92a20,20 0 0,0 40,0c0-8-5-9-5-12 0-3,3-7-3-12 3,5-2,6-2,11 0,5,2,5,2,9a4,4 0 0,1-8,0c0-4,4-8,4-14
0-6-1-8-4-13-3-5-8-9-4-13-6,2-3,10-3,15 0,5-4,8-4,14 0,6,3,7,3,11a4,4 0 0,1-8,0c0-4,2-4,2-9 0-5-5-6-2-11-6,5-3,9-3,12 0,3-5,4-5,12Z"/>

It worked after I added spaces between the "large arc"/"sweep" parts and the new coordinates in the "a" commands:

<path d="M140,92a20,20 0 0,0 40,0c0-8-5-9-5-12 0-3,3-7-3-12 3,5-2,6-2,11 0,5,2,5,2,9a4,4 0 0,1 -8,0c0-4,4-8,4-14
0-6-1-8-4-13-3-5-8-9-4-13-6,2-3,10-3,15 0,5-4,8-4,14 0,6,3,7,3,11a4,4 0 0,1 -8,0c0-4,2-4,2-9 0-5-5-6-2-11-6,5-3,9-3,12 0,3-5,4-5,12Z"/>

However much I too like to reduce as much code as possible, I'd still prefer a code that's easier to read, uses logical grouping, and renders correctly in all programs, even if it contains two non-integer numbers and is just over one kB big. I'd certainly sacrifice 31 bytes just for new rows between the paths so the code makes sense for anyone who looks at it in Notepad. I'd also trade the weird scale transform applied to everything but two circles for reduced dimensions even if it makes the two circles have non-integer coordinates. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely a bug -- look at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/paths.html#PathDataBNF for the formal definition. If you really want me to, I'll add two spaces to the 1,022-byte file, but it would probably be more productive to file an Inkscape bug... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't mind if Inkscape is informed about this bug, but there's really no reason to not prevent it from occurring in our SVG file other than "the code is two bytes bigger". As for the other changes: I'm sorry, but "I spent effort (...) to remove non-integer coordinates and get the filesize below 1k" sounds like a w:WP:EFFORT argument while a file with slightly smaller size and only whole numbers doesn't have any direct advantages. As I explained in the second part of my previous comment (since you didn't address that part you may not have read it), I rather have a file that's fifty bytes bigger but easier to work with. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- there a number of Wikipedia policies which don't apply on Commons (or only apply in a modified and limited form), such as "No Original Research". I really don't see how the 1,022-byte file is "harder to work with", except for a stupid bug in some versions of Inkscape (not the version I have installed on my computer). If you really want, I'll upload a version of the file with two spaces added, but otherwise I would prefer it be left alone (unless you're able to legitimately get the file size under 1,022 bytes, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Again you don't seem to have read my entire comment. With "easier to work with" I wasn't referring only to the bug, but also to the other changes (added newlines and logical grouping). w:WP:ATA is an essay; I wasn't mentioning a section from it to imply it's a policy that should be followed at Commons too (as this is not a deletion discussion), but to make clear "I spent effort in it" is not really a reason to keep the older file when there are more direct advantages of the newer one (again, not only the bug fix). Why do you think a reduced SVG code and only integer coordinates outweigh the advantages I mentioned? SiBr₄ (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I discussed issues that hadn't previously been gone over and/or were worth discussing. I'm not sure what purpose a confabulation about the abstract philosophical nature of an optimized SVG would serve. If you can produce an even more optimized SVG than mine, then go wild (but so far you haven't). AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If for you an "optimized SVG" means one with a code that's as small as possible, then I can't. Though a small file size isn't always my main goal when changing SVG files. This talk page section doesn't have to turn into a detailed discussion on what constitutes an optimized SVG, though to determine which version of the Mongolian flag image should stay, it would help if you answered my question. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not as severe a stickler for every last byte of filesize as are Sarang and some others. Nevertheless a reduction in filesize which does not bring with it any substantive disadvantages is generally a good thing. I've adequately explained myself for the context of this discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: It is when compared to a 12-kB Inkscape SVG loaded with nodetypes, page/grid data and other Inkscape garbage, though a difference in file size of fifty bytes really isn't much for a 1-kB file. To me, the last sentence of your comment proves that basically your only argument is "I spent effort in it". SiBr₄ (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

encore

If the principle is "whoever has the most recent user talkpage comment wins", then that will inevitably lead to perpetual never-ending pointless last-wordism and one-upmanship. I strongly doubt whether that's what you really want. AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't. The discussion above didn't seem to have concluded yet, so your lack of reply looked like you gave up or didn't care anymore (because if you stopped because we couldn't convince each other I thought you could have said so). SiBr₄ (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have any new issues to raise or further substantive points to make, then I'm not going to comment on this page just for the sake of saying anything, but that doesn't mean that my position has changed. User talk page silence is not consent. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

[4]

You forced me to report you for constantly changing the flag. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pompebled

Beste SiBr4,

er is dus een verschil in de interpretatie van het Friese Plompeblad. Ik zie dat jij 'm weer teruggezet had naar de versie met een puntje onderin. Die weergave is niet correct en niet conform de pompeblêd welke door de Provinsje Fryslân en haar Staten is vastgesteld. Graag overleg over deze kewstie. Ik wil graag weten hoe jij tot de weergave gekomen bent en waarom jij de exemplaar met het puntje weer terugzette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosterhagen (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 March 2014‎ (UTC)

@Oosterhagen: Als ik de geometrische constructie op echtefriesevlag.nl (waarop File:Frisian flag.svg ook gebaseerd is) goed volg, komt er toch een klein hoekje aan de onderkant van het blad. Op de site van de provincie lijkt het pompeblêd aan de onderkant rond, maar nergens staat tekstueel beschreven hoe het eruit hoort te zien; zo wel in de zelfgezegd officiële beschrijving op echtefriesevlag.nl. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dat is dus een kul-argument. Het pompeblêd heeft geen punt. punt uit. de site echtefriesevlag is geen officiele site en we zullen dus te rade gaan bij de provincie of de raad voorde Heraldiek . Ik zal je via deze pagina op de hoogte houden. (Ik zie overigens dat er meer wikemedia gebruikers niet erg gediend zijn van jouw acties om telkens de bestanden weer naar jouw naam te zetten. Dat draagt niet bij aan je reputatie en maakt dat jouw bijdragen minder waardevol worden. Dat kan uiteindelijk leiden tot uitsluiting. Ik zou wat voorzichtiger zijn en meer luisteren naar wat anderen bijdragen ipv jouw eigen mening laten prevaleren.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosterhagen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 April 2014‎ (UTC)

De wiskundige beschrijving van de echte Friese vlag komt uit de "konstruksje tekening van de offisjele Fryske Flagge" uit 1954. Ik kan geen online kopie van de officiële beschrijving vinden, en Sneek is toch net iets te ver weg :) Ik ben benieuwd wat de provincie erover te zeggen heeft.

Over het advies tussen haakjes, als je geen reden bij je terugzetting geeft, wordt het lastig om erachter te komen waarom je een bestand terugzet. De kwesties over de vlaggen van Mongolië en Man zijn totaal niet vergelijkbaar met deze. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Oosterhagen: De vlag is qua vector aangepast door @SiBr4: , echter ik ben de gene die er een beste berg energie in heeft gestopt in het uitzoeken van het geheel en heb alle mogelijke bronnen aangeboord om tot dit resultaat te komen. Wanneer u het dankwoord op de echtefriesevlag.nl-site bekijkt ziet u dat ik natuurlijk bij de provincie en ook bij de Fryske rie foar de Heraldiek ben geweest. Of het puntje er nu wel of niet in hoort kunnen we over debatteren. Persoonlijk vermoed ik dat "de passer" van de heren P.H. Wagemakers en Joh. Koopmans in 1957 niet geheel zuiver was en dat het de bedoeling was dat de de beide rondingen naadloos in elkaar over moesten gaan. Echter ik heb mij vanzelfsprekend exact aan de officiële "konstrukjse tekening" en beschrijving gehouden en er géén interpretatie van gemaakt (daar staat ook exact wiskundig uitgelegd hoe het pompeblêd getekend dient te worden!!). Met andere woorden, of u het nu "kul" vindt of niet mooi, dit is zoals het officieel is vast gelegd, ik kan er niets anders van maken.

Een kleine persoonlijke noot: het puntje moet er vind ik ook af, maar formeel moet dat dan via de Provincie geregeld gaan worden, ik zal kijken wat ik voor u kan doen ;) AceT (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

kleine noot @SiBr4: : Ik heb mij destijds ietwat verbaasd dat heb blijkbaar zinvol is om een SVG enkele tientallen bytes kleiner te maken en zodoende een nieuwe versie "up te loaden". U schrijft hier alsof u "het wiel heeft uitgevonden".. het had u gesierd wanneer u een kleine poging had gedaan mij te betrekken in deze vraagstelling? (ere wie ere toekomt?) AceT (talk)

Omdat ik de "puntje-vraag" een valide vraag vindt en een zinvolle toevoeging die naar mijn smaak bij het pompeblêd hoort, lijkt het mij een goed plan om deze discussie te verplaatsen naar de "File Talk". Mocht dat onnodig geacht zijn, excuses, dan graag die pagina weg gooien (ik zal mijn best doen beide pagina's in de gaten te houden). AceT (talk)

Nu de gehele discussie naar File talk:Pompebled.svg is verplaatst, heeft het naar mijn idee weinig zin om dezelfde discussie op twee pagina's open te laten. SiBr₄ (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Graphics village pump archiving

Did you know that I left the discussions on text rendering issues on the page because they represent still-unresolved outstanding issues, and I left the announcement of Commons:SVG Check on the page because it can be used to diagnose a number of recurring issues, and that when the pace of discussions was slow, I often deliberately left two month's questions and discussions on the page? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer is no to all three. A link to the SVG check is better put in the lead/intro where it will be read by more people; the archive time can be increased if you think people will still reply after two months of inactivity. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm the one whose labor would supposedly be saved, it would be nice if you had consulted with me a little more thoroughly before unleashing a rigid and inflexible bot. I would rather have to do five minutes of cutting and pasting every month, with the flexibility of archiving things as seems best to me, than have the alleged "convenience" of a rigid and inflexible automated system.

Unfortunately, you seem to have something of a pattern of creating annoyances with the best of intentions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Perhelion agreed with the automatic archiving, and while I could have taken the presence of several discussions from 2010 as an indication that they were kept for a reason, I would not expect many new replies on a four-year-old thread. If there ever is a breakthrough in MediaWiki relating to issues discussed a long time ago, it's just as easy to start a new section which links to the appropriate archived discussions. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

You hide behind force to get your way, deny requests for something you are already an involved party in, accuse me of just doing things so bother you, and then expect me to ever work with you? Laughable. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: What's the point of posting a message like this on my Commons talk page during a discussion at an English WP template talk page? Putting whatever blunt insults you can come up with on a completely different page so no-one there sees them? How can this comment not be intended to bother me? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't given any insults, everything I have mentioned is something that you have done. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a better word than "insults", though it's not like you made a helpful comment in a civil way (even if it was all true). Let me repeat, what is the point of posting this message? SiBr₄ (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To make it clear that I will not work or cooperate with you for as long as you keep doing what you have done, and I will fight you tooth and nail on this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some WP essays that may be relevant: w:WP:AGF, w:WP:AAGF, w:WP:DEADHORSE, w:WP:POT, w:WP:CIVIL. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Vector version available

It seems you are ready with everything, and the template can be replaced? I can care for it, when you like. Nationalized versions have to be cared of later, but they are not protected - just the {{/en}} one. The {{docu}} is also free editable. IMHO the New Year is a good time to make things better. Happy New Year sarang♥사랑 12:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean {{Vector version available}} rather than {{Convert to SVG}}. Are you going to request an admin to do the replacement, or to lower the protection level temporarily (an edit request for which is pending)? The quickest method either way would be to ask an active admin directly; edit requests using {{Editprotected}} often take weeks to months to be actioned. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, of course I meant VVA. I know very well that ER last endless, I'll remove it. The best method might be to transfer the templates dis-sandboxed to Sarang/T, and then tell an admin. Do you want to do the copying? It must be done careful, there is no last test possible. I can try to give a 2^nd glance when you copied the templates. sarang♥사랑 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Los Santos province flag

Hi SiBr4, I am writing about the flag of Los Santos in Panama. You have created the flag used in Baseball competitions in the province as an official flag. An user has just added this flag to the article in spanish, which is wrong. We do have a flag used since the province was created as Azuero Province. I sent an e-mail to the Gobernación de la provincia de Los Santos and they have confirmed this information. You can write to them about the flag, they have a facebook account too: via facebook.

Here is what they told me: Buenas noches, claro que cuenta con una bandera que no es la naranja con negro (la cual es deportiva). La bandera representativa de la provincia tiene los colores bolivarianos, lo cual indica que es mas antigua que la república misma. Actualmente se está haciendo una campaña por nuestra parte para darle realce a nuestra bandera con mucho significado histórico. Lo cual es signo de que la identidad del santeño es antigua. Puede escribirle al prof Milcíades Pinzón Rodríguez , el cual lo puede ilustrar mas sobre el tema, el cuenta con cuenta de facebook con el nombre tal cual lo escribí. They also attached a flag, this one. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.254.75.81 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I went by FotW, which shows the flag with chevron, stars and monogram as being officially adopted as provincial flag in 2011. Several newspaper articles supported this: [5] [6] (plus two more that are now dead links: [7] [8]). This flag replaced a similar simpler flag in the same colors. Did the province officially change its flag again, or were the black/white/orange flags not official in the first place? SiBr₄ (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good night SiBr4. The orange and black flag has been for long our sportif de facto flag. In Panama we like baseball and all the provinces have adopted a flag to represent them in this kind of competition and our flag is the orange and black flag (for baseball competitions representation). I have to say that I also read the news about this flag becoming our official flag and I was shocked about it because this flag does not represent my province. The colors of this flag have no meaning neither the flag itself. Los Santos province was one of the first 4 provinces of Panama, first created as Azuero province (When Panama was a federate Republik) and we do have a flag, that is why I sent an e-mail to the Gobernación which is the provincial government of Los Santos to enquire about this misunderstanding on internet. They confirmed that we still have the Old flag (Azuero's flag) as our official flag and that the orange, white and black flag can be used only in sportif competitions (Baseball). They have a page in facebook which is the fastest way to contact them or you can talk to Milciades Pinzón Rodríguez about it. He is renowned sociologist of our small province. It is a pity that my province has little documentation about this facts on internet. Probably in the future it would become easier for people like me to have references from internit to prove our history. Thanks for your time. --62.254.75.81 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag

While not taking a position on the actual dispute, just wanted to mention that from my reading of the history, you have not been at all unreasonable as far as attempts to reach a resolution. I'd rather avoid taking a stance, tho... I admittedly have no clue what is actually 'right', but being confrontational never helps. Revent (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Invalid SVG

Thank you for your efforts to give the display a good appearance.

I made some expansions to this template in the last years. Because it seemed too prominent to show always this box

iThe source code of this SVG is invalid due to an error, large version.

(somehow like punishing the creator...) I made the possibiliti for a not-so-large and not-so-red box

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to an error, small.

using a smaller font size. This fits as well as possible to the "tool"-boxes, e.g.

 

This W3C-invalid vector image was created with Inkscape .

.

To make this box not too dominant is one thought. The other one is to show a bit better when there is a very large number of errors.

While a large font size is fine for the error number in the large box

iThe source code of this SVG is invalid due to 48 errors.

it is IMHO too prominent for the small box, therefore numbers of "normal" error counts, e.g. up to < 64, should not be emphasized too much; at least for the small box:

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 2 errors.

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 4 errors.

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 8 errors.

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 16 errors.

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 32 errors.

 

The source code of this SVG is invalid due to 48 errors.

.

I esteem your good ideas and your opinion; can you consent to my layout concept? sarang♥사랑 06:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Added 65 as a minimum for the font size increase. The function is now as follows:

Errors	Font size (%)
< 65	$100$
65	$2{\sqrt {65}}+84=100.1$
80	$2{\sqrt {80}}+84=101.8$
100	$2{\sqrt {100}}+84=104$
200	$2{\sqrt {200}}+84=112.3$
500	$2{\sqrt {500}}+84=128.7$
1000	$2{\sqrt {1000}}+84=147.2$
2000	$2{\sqrt {2000}}+84=173.4$
2500	$2{\sqrt {2500}}+84=184$
> 2500	$184$

The largest font size is still rather large in relation to the surrounding text though. Removing the factor 2 and adjusting the constant factor would result in a range of 100–142%. SiBr₄ (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks very good! Thanx sarang♥사랑 10:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Nord-Pas-de-Calais.svg

File:Flag of Nord-Pas-de-Calais.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hektor (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg

Hello ! Sorry for my mistakes. I reverted the use of this flag on all pageS where it was used to design the pro-independence flag or the kanak flag. I also replace all the templates and the pages where it was used to design the flag representing New Caledonia by the two flags, but there is a lot of templates that used the formula of "Flag of [name of the page/country].svg". And there is also a lot of reversions. I think that the redirection will automatically replaced all the occurences of "Flag of New Caledonia.svg" that still exicted - and that are only used for the "flag of New Caledonia" and not for the political or ethnic flag - by the two flags. --Tharkun (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are still >3000 pages using "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg". I don't know how much point there is in replacing everything now in the first place; the proposed move of the combined flags to "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg" has been opposed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg (I just posted my oppose !vote as well), so it's not unlikely you'll be told to discuss it some more before any further move requests or retargets. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for responding to my comment on the Emblem of Iran talk page. I was worried no one would see it. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thanks again! Negahbaan (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for cleanup after me..

--Arnd (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

File:NZ flag design Tukutuku by Pax Zwanikken.jpg

File:NZ flag design Tukutuku by Pax Zwanikken.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

+mt 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola flag

I see you have created some Nuvola flags. Would it be possible for you to create some new flags ?

These are the ones I would like :

•    Provence      Occitanie      Alsace      Savoie
•    Asturias      Comunidad de Madrid      Andalucía
•    Valle d'Aosta      Piemonte      Lombardia      Trentino-Alto Adige      Toscana      Liguria
•    Wallonie      Bruxelles

--Berdea (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Doing… It's been quite some years since I made those things regularly, but sure. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

So, thank you very much ! --Berdea (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Brussels
• 
  Wallonia
• 
  You can use File:Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg for Alsace
• 
  Occitania
• 
  Provence
• 
  Savoy
• 
  Andalusia
• 
  Asturias
• 
  Madrid
• 
  Aosta Valley
• 
  Liguria
• 
  Lombardy
• 
  Piedmont
• 
  Trentino-South Tyrol
• 
  Tuscany

@Berdea:  Done SiBr₄ (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Venezuela (state).svg

File:Flag of Venezuela (state).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Vector version available[editar]

Moved to User talk:Amitie 10g SiBr₄ (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hallo SiBr4,

U ontvangt dit bericht omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Wikimedia Commons. De pagina Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is beschikbaar voor vertaling. U kunt deze hier vertalen:

• vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.

Please help us to translate the speedy deletion policy in many language so that non-english speaker can read it as well.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Wikimedia Commons een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

U kunt ook uw notificatievoorkeuren instellen.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Wikimedia Commons‎, 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Myanmarfilm.svg

Can you update this file with the current flag, this flag is outdated. Thanks. 174.113.214.250 01:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done SiBr₄ (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Flag requests

Finnish regional flags

Can you do the Finnish regional flags? I've been to Finland and based on what I saw, I describe the regional flags.

Etelä-Karjala: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms
Etelä-Pohjanmaa: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Etelä-Savo: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Kainuu: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Kanta-Häme (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Kymenlaakso: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Lappi (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Pohjois-Savo (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Pohjanmaa: The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Pirkanmaa (Link): Flag on the right. The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Uusimaa (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.
Varsinais-Suomi (Link): The region uses a square flag based on their coat of arms.

Can you also fix the North Keralian flag? I don't want it to be surround by the transparent space.

174.113.214.250 22:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• South Karelia
  South Karelia
• 
  Southern Ostrobothnia
• Southern Savonia
  Southern Savonia
• 
  Kainuu

Working on it. SiBr₄ (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks but forgot the eyes on the Southern Ostrobothnia flag. Also, I forgot to add Itä-Uusimaa. 174.113.214.250 18:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The eyes are fixed. They were invisible because I had mistakenly removed the fill-rule="evenodd" attribute—Inkscape adds it by default, and it is nearly always useless, but apparently not in this case. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Tavastia Proper
• Kymenlaakso
  Kymenlaakso
• 
  Lapland
• Northern Ostrobothnia
  Northern Ostrobothnia
• 
  Northern Savonia
• Ostrobothnia
  Ostrobothnia
• 
  Pirkanmaa
• 
  Uusimaa
• Southwest Finland
  Southwest Finland
• 
  North Karelia

That should be all of them. I've based the Tavastia Proper flag on File:Pohjanmaan maakunnan vaakuna.svg (the version you've linked to) even though that is marked as superseded by File:Egentliga Tavastlands vapen.svg; I could change it using the other file if necessary. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New French regional flags

Can you make new regional flags of France? I've been to France last month. Thanks.

• Grand-Est has a 2:3 flag based on . Make the flag with , and combined.
• Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes has a 2:3 flag based on . Make the flag with , and combined.
• Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes has a 2:3 flag based on . Make the flag with and combined.
• Bourgogne-Franche-Comté has a 2:3 flag based on . Make the flag with and combined.
• Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées has a 2:3 flag based on the picture in the middle. Make the flag with and combined.
• Hauts-de-France has a 2:3 flag based on . Make the flag with and combined.

174.113.214.250 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So, basically, your request is to make rectangular versions of the existing square images? SiBr₄ (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I've seen these flags when I was in France. 174.113.214.250 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Grand-Est
• 
  Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes
• 
  Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• 
  Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
• 
  Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées
• 
  Hauts-de-France

SiBr₄ (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

174.113.214.250 told you bullshit those flags don't exist. The new french region don't even have their defenitives names! I'm sure 174.113.214.250 can not support those flags by showing us a citation or a reference! --Mattho69 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@SiBr4: There's a big problem here: the square icons presented above are absolutely not flags and are not in use in France (174.113.214.250 lied). They are symbols I created for illustration purpose on a portal. The flag you created should not be presented as “Flag of…”: they have no official status and have never been created as flags! --Superbenjamin (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Superbenjamin: I wasn't lying, I went to France three months ago. I saw those kind of flags, they match the same as yours. I've seen some waving these flags for the regions they live. 174.113.214.250 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No you did not, because they do not exist. I live in France so, please, stop telling here you saw things you did not see. I invented the icons you claimed to see as flags by combining different elements so they can be used as icons for illustration purpose only.

If any region has adopted a new flag, it should not be hard to find sources about it. --Superbenjamin (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So apparently 174.113.214.250 is just trying to “submit (flags) to their regional councils”. A good admission that s/he didn't see anything in France. --Superbenjamin (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It just an old man telling me about these flags. 174.113.214.250 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the heraldic nature of many French subnational flags, it's not unlikely the final flags will be similar. Of course, that doesn't mean these images should be used and labeled "flag of X" if they aren't actually anything more than private proposals/inventions. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Flag of Pskov Oblast () is a good example of a private proposal/invention. 174.113.214.250 01:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that example is relevant here: you pretended you saw the flags in use and that's totally untrue.

@SiBr4: Perhaps, but note that many French regions do not even bother to have an official flag. It is quite possible that most of the new French regions won't adopt a flag at all. --Superbenjamin (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You active

Hello? You still here? 174.113.214.250 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes; I just kind of forgot about the requests. I'll do the next few tomorrow. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Danish regional flags

Hovedstaden: Flag and
Midtjylland: Picture of the flag (which is 2:3) and (convert the logo to SVG).
Nordjylland: flag
Sjælland: flag (2:3)
Syddanmark: flag 174.113.214.250 00:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Capital Region

The Capital Region flag is done. For Central Jutland, the font used for the small text seems to be a commercial one with no similar free font, and tracing the letters one by one would be a lot of work. For the remaining flags, there'd need to be proof that they're freely licensed in order for any version of them to be allowed at Commons. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, just upload to them to Wikipedia instead. But before you do them, read these 1, 2, 3, 174.113.214.250 20:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally don't see the use of vectorization if it's going to be a non-free file; just uploading the original rasters would be easiest in that case. The opinions on non-free SVGs are mixed in general. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Template:Abbedabb/ESC/i18n

Hallo SiBr4,

U ontvangt dit bericht omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Wikimedia Commons. De pagina Template:Abbedabb/ESC/i18n is beschikbaar voor vertaling. U kunt deze hier vertalen:

• vertalen in het Nederlands

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Wikimedia Commons een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

U kunt ook uw notificatievoorkeuren instellen.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Wikimedia Commons‎, 20:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015

Hallo SiBr4,

U ontvangt dit bericht omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Wikimedia Commons. De pagina Commons:Picture of the Year/2015 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. U kunt deze hier vertalen:

• vertalen in het Nederlands

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Wikimedia Commons een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

U kunt ook uw notificatievoorkeuren instellen.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Wikimedia Commons‎, 05:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Emblem of Brunei

Dear SiBr₄. I noticed that you fixed the flag of Brunei. However, those errors are still present here. Just thought that I would let you know. – VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed. Oddly, the last version of the emblem file was an invalid SVG, while the previous version of the flag wasn't. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Template:Abusefilter-warning-baduploads

Hallo SiBr4,

U ontvangt dit bericht omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Wikimedia Commons. De pagina Template:Abusefilter-warning-baduploads is beschikbaar voor vertaling. U kunt deze hier vertalen:

• vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Wikimedia Commons een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

U kunt ook uw notificatievoorkeuren instellen.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Wikimedia Commons‎, 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bandera del Departamento de Boquerón.svg

File:Bandera del Departamento de Boquerón.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

59.57.29.51 13:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Coats of arms of El Salvador.svg

The lower two flags actually have transparency instead of white, and I think that you are the right guy to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VulpesVulpes42 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I wanted to base the new version on the CoA from the flag (which I'd optimized years ago), but there's a few differences between them: the flag version has darker color shades and yellow mountains, and lacks the accents on "República" and "América" (it does still have transparency in the lower flags, but obviously there's the white stripe behind it). SiBr₄ (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe with flags.svg

• 
  Europe
• 
  Africa
• 
  Asia
• 
  Oceania
• 
  North America
• 
  South America

Can you make an versions of this with Africa, Asia, North America, Oceania and South America RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@RainbowSilver2ndBackup: Apologies for getting to this so late (though even if I hadn't, did you really think I'd have all of them done in a day? :). Anyway, here is Africa. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@SiBr4: Are you done with North South and South America yet? RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done SiBr₄ (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Cayman Islands.svg

File:Flag of the Cayman Islands.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Majora (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Israel-Palestine button.svg

File:Israel-Palestine button.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

E4024 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Flag of Belarus (1995–2012).svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Flag of Belarus (1995–2012).svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

And also:

• File:Flag of Byelorussian SSR.svg
• File:Flag of Trentino-South Tyrol.svg

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bandera de la Provincia de Los Santos.svg

File:Bandera de la Provincia de Los Santos.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ganímedes (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated Flag of Brunei

Hi there ! My name is Vincent, and I have recently uploaded an updated version of the Brunei flag here (I believe this design is in accordance with the Official flag design from the Bruneian Gov't) : (check it out here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Brunei_Darussalam.png)

I tried to replace the flag on the current Flag of Brunei page, and yet it came out blurry in the preview. I was wondering whether it's because the flag is not an official svg file. Since I'm new to this image editing thing, may I ask and request for your assistance in making the image more refined and making it an official svg file? Thank You :D Vincenty846 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The image size used on en:Flag of Brunei

Current SVG

@Vincenty846: I can't replicate the blurry preview; I'm guessing that must have been a temporary caching issue. SVG has a number of advantages over PNG, but isn't in any way more "official". Although conversion to SVG would be ideal, it definitely shouldn't be required for the image to load correctly. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of South Azerbaijan.svg

File:Flag of South Azerbaijan.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

109.252.23.174 03:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Houthi leaders.svg

Can you add the portraits of the two leaders (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/I/m/Abdulmalik_Alhouthi_by_Mbazri.jpg and https://www.akg-images.com/Docs/AKG/Media/TR3_WATERMARKED/0/8/3/6/AKG3837504.jpg) on this file? Thanks. Also for these files:

• Houthi Army flag (fictional)
  Houthi Army flag (fictional)
• Houthi Navy flag (fictional)
  Houthi Navy flag (fictional)
• Houthi Air Force flag (fictional)
  Houthi Air Force flag (fictional)

Can you change the date to "6.18". RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually could nominate for deletion these POV, Unsourced, biased flags? Thanks--شرعب السلام (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean creating bicolor stylizations in the style of File:Flag of North Korean leaders.svg, based on these photographs? That's definitely not my area of expertise. Changing the dates seems doable if I can find the right font, though I'll await the outcome of the DR regarding all of these files. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Vertical United States Flag.svg

File:Vertical United States Flag.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Huntster (t @ c) 03:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Flag of Muong Autonomous Region.svg

And also:

• File:Flag of South Vietnam (construction).svg
• File:Flag of the Tay people (1947-1954).svg
• File:Personal Flag of Emperor Minh Mang.svg

Yours sincerely, please check the deletion request page for your image(s) uploaded per PD-VietnamGov minhhuy ^(talk) 03:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Flag of the Province of Dajabon, Dominican Republic.svg

Regards, TU-nor (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)