Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:37, 4 October 2023

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

National anthems and other music files uploaded by this user are claimed to be in public domain, often under a general copyright exemption clause for government works. Even if this clause applies to musical compositions (and it's at least debatable) the recording still has its own copyright, owned by the performer, and therefore is not in public domain.

Underlying lk (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests

Dear Underlying lk, there could be some minimum lack of information that I can't deny, but still it's not reason to do machine User-all deletion request. Individual single mistakes can be solved by noticing that in exact file, this is just unracional. I just will repeat to you; there was a lot of discussions about national anthems status and lot of disputations and common conclusion was reached. You want edvidence citations of constitutions, quotes from the statute law books of countries of the world to every single file here? National anthems just do have specific status in common consciousness of wiki. I am proposing to constrict files under a general copyright exemption clause for governments of nations of the world and we can discuss on another music connected with independent nations. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ: Again, the (main) problem is with the copyright status of the recordings, not just the compositions. Take the file US Navy band - National anthem of Estonia, it's considered to be in public domain because the composer Fredrik Pacius has been dead for 70 years, but also because the music was performed by the US Navy band, so the {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} tag applies. You provided some claims that your uploads meet the first condition, but not the second. But even with the copyright status of the composition you seem to have taken some liberties, for example for this file you used the {{PD-old-70-1923}} tag even though the author died just six years ago.--Underlying lk (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the composer of File:National Anthem of Weimar Republic.ogg has been dead for almost 206 years, the author of the lyrics for 141 years. As the performance of the first two stanzas has been prohibited since 1945, it's unlikely there's a valid copyright claim on the performance, either. Thus there is no reason to delete it. It seems that there is indeed, as ThecentreCZ suggests, good reason to evaluate the merits of each file instead of mass nominating them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

101% copyright free files

101% copyright free excluding all with national copyright exemptions.

File:National Anthem of Spanish State.ogg won't fall in public domain until 2042, File:Czechoslovak anthem.ogg until 2030. The 70-year post-publication term for Germany only applies to anonymous works, and no claim was made that the performers of File:Erika Marschlied.ogg or File:National Anthem of Weimar Republic.ogg are unknown.--Underlying lk (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, performances of the first two stanzas of File:National Anthem of Weimar Republic.ogg have been outlawed in Germany since 1945, which happens to be exactly 70 years ago – not that it matters. Is it really Wikimedia's aim to protect the performance rights of Nazi emblems? Further, the file's title suggests that it may even have been performed during the Weimar Republic, which ended in 1933. The file's description page asserts 1922 as the performance date. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The date given in the description template is just when the anthem was officially adopted. The file is missing essential information necessary to determine its copyright status, including author and date of the recorded performance, and unless this information is provided it should be deleted as a copyright violation. That the anthem might or might not be a nazi symbol has no relevance in determining its copyright status, which is the only question to be addressed here.--Underlying lk (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: These all appear to be 20th century recordings. As the nom says, the recordings have a copyright and it is very unlikely that any of the copyrights for the recordings have expired. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very worried about your acting here. Why did you deleted recording which are subject of national copyright exempts and even recording of United States Navy Band? What a mindfuck. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

These "flags" seem to be sourced to either the user or websites that don't contain images of the "flags" being used in the real world. When per longstanding consensus and [this discussion] they should be. Otherwise, they are hoaxes. Since a flag is by most definitions an extremely specific thing (some would say a piece fabric) that doesn't include just copying and pasting a logo onto a square background and calling it a "flag." Also, as can be seen in the ANU complaint, ThecentreCZ refuses to provide sources for what they are basing their "flag" designs on. Except for providing links to logos of political parties that don't have images of the "flags" like they are claiming. In the least the images need to be sourced to somewhere besides the uploader, or ThecentreCZ is just using Commons as a personal file host for their own pet project to create fantasy "flags" out of logos.

BTW, I'm aware that some of these images are being used other projects, but at least from what I can tell ThecentreCZ is the one that added the images to the articles in question and they seem to have done so fairly recently. So I don't think that should impede the images being deleted since it's clear ThecentreCZ created the flags for the purposes of spreading hoax images and has done just that by adding them to Wikipedia articles. An image being in use doesn't necessarily stop it from being deleted if it clearly violates the guidelines. In this case, at least NOTHOST if not others.

Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolute fake, Adamant1 is making a abusive nominations because of dispute we have had in a long discussion about Danish articles in several places, like discussion WikiProject Politics and Commons. All these flags are real and are also sufficiently sourced. Tell me one of these files, which you are seeing and you considering it as not real. There is none. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your talking about since I'm not involved in Wikiproject politics and don't edit Danish Wikipedia articles. Nor have we ever gotten in a dispute involving either one. At least not that I'm aware of. Otherwise be my guest and peovide some diffs. In absensce of any though your comment is clearly just a continuation of the dishonesty you displayed in the ANU complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not really possible to discuss with you well, although I am willing to. I want proper normal Commons user to discuss with, what would be a path to reason. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are sourced, and some are not. Here are the sourced ones

Keep File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Estonia).svg: [1]
Keep File:Flag of the Estonia 200.svg: [2]
Keep File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Romania).svg per File:Mitingul Electoral al Aliantei PSD-UNPR-PC, Baia Mare - 14.05 (11) (14461830171).jpg
Keep File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg per [3]
Keep File:Flag of the Brno University of Technology.svg per [4]. (This one was not originally sourced, but was sourced by individual request.
Weak keep File:Flag of the Communist Youth Union (Czech Republic).svg per File:Komunistický svaz mládeže - schůze mladých komunistů.jpg, not sure about the bottom text though.

I'm not sure what to do with the unsourced ones, given that this user uploaded confirmed flags too. I would lean towards, per COM:AGF,

Keep all if the user confirms that all of the flags are used as flags in real life.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the ones that are sourced. That's what I get for using the visual editor and doing it when I was busy with other stuff. I did check a good portion of them though and at least the ones I checked clearly aren't sourced. As a side to that, I wouldn't normally be against keeping the ones that aren't sourced as a presumption of good faith, but ThecentreCZ has repeatedly said in multiple places that the flags are "official" when they clearly aren't. So there's zero reason to assume good faith that there's sources for them. I don't think evidence of people using the images in real life proves anything in that regard either. Like with the image of the Dutch Parties "flag", for all we know the person could have printed the image off of commons and made paper flags out of it. That doesn't make it any less of a hoax though. Let alone an "official flag" of the Dutch party like ThecentreCZ has repeatedly claimed. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can also provide sources for a couple of these flags

Keep * File:Flag of the Left Alliance (Finland).svg: per File:Left_Alliance_at_Helsinki_Pride_2023.jpg
Keep * File:Flag of the SYRIZA.svg: [5]

24.39.70.130 18:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again this one is wasting time again, he is already removing these even the exact double sourced files marked by Mdaniels5757 from all Wikipedia language variations by saying in summary its "hoax by the creator in-order to spread misinformation". He exactly knows how flags uploaded on Commons are normally sourced and out of thousands of flags here he accidently chooses only mine uploads. Is he going to nominate for deletion all of them? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is already removing these even the exact double sourced files marked by Mdaniels5757 I removed the image from Wikipedia before Mdaniels5757 sourced it. So I don't know what exactly you think that proves. That said, there was already multiple discussions on Wikipedia where people said they didn't think the flags shouldn't be in the articles. Even if there wasn't the discussions though, the image wouldn't have been removed from the article if you had of just sourced it in the first place instead of forcing someone else to do it after the image was removed. It's not on me that you decided to repeatedly obfuscate about over multiple months and discussions instead of just doing the basic level of work required for something to be included in a Wikipedia article. My guess is that you didn't even know the image exited and it wasn't the basis for your hoax flag anyway. Which is why the color is different. The fact that someone found an image of the "flag" being used in real life months after you created the hoax image doesn't this whole thing any less of a dishonest hoax on your part. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't sourced it right now, it was in the description of the files for months in the cases I've seen. You probably don't know how Wikimedia works, if people in Wikipedia WikiProject discussion says that some symbols shouldn't be in some infoboxes of a specific country, that have no influence on files located at Wikimedia Commons. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always going to be someone else's issue then yours. Anyway, in the last comment you said I removed the imaged from Wikipedia even though it was sourced by Mdaniels5757. Now your saying something about Wikimedia Commons. Your clearly just ranting about random, pedantic nonsense to deflect from the broader issue that you falsely claimed these are "official flags" when they clearly aren't. Be my guest and provide a source for where the the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc uses the "flag" in File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg. I'm more then willing to strike that or any other image from the deletion request if you can provide evidence them being officially used by the organization that your claiming they are being used by. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think that historians got the looks of some organizations and political parties existed in the 19th century? They got it sourced from historical photography where are people using them, thats how. When there is a authentic university source, which depicts a photography of official seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc in a building which is a property of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, that have there a flag which is according to heraldry banner of arms of the offical coat of arms of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, can you please tell me, how that is not officially used flag of the organization? I really don't get it. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the organization or political party. A lot of the times the flags still exist and there's evidence tracing them back to the official organization. That said, no historians are treating recreations of flags based on images of people using them as "official flags" of the parties anyway. At least not that I'm aware of. Most, or all of the time, recreations are based on images taken from official party photographs. In the case of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc you'd have to agree that the heraldry banner of arms of the offical coat of arms is different from your version of the "flag." If you want to call your version official, cool. I do wonder what your opinion would be though if I cropped the right half your image, uploaded it, and called it the "official flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.". Would mine be the "official flag", would yours be, or essentially anything derived from the original coat of arms is an "official flag" just because the uploader says it is? Like if someone were to upload a 10 by 10 pixel image of the a red triangle with a white background on it is that an "official flag" of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc just because they say it is and it's loosely based on the coat of arms? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure that you are the right one to do the schooling about heraldry. Heraldic banner of arms of the official coat of arms of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, which is defined by the escutcheon of the heraldic achievement is abolutely correct and identical with the flag. If you would have: "cropped the right half your image, uploaded it, and called it the official flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc" I would marked it with a template as FAN FICTION flag and do absolutely nothing with it. ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The escutcheon of the heraldic achievement is abolutely correct and identical with the flag. Really? So images in this this category are exactly the same as your flag? Anyone can see that they are different. Just because you cropped the red triangles from the coat of arms doesn't make them identical images, obviously. Which is why I asked you if I cropped your image in half would that be an "official flag." I don't see why your cropped image of the original coat of arms would be an "official flag", but my crop of it would be FAN FICTION. Either cropping the coat of arms and calling the cropped version an "official flag" is FAN FICTION or it isn't. You can't have it both ways were your cropped version of the coat of arms is the legitimate "official flag" but no one else's is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? What is chopped? You want a lesson on heraldry? OK. If you have an example of coat of arms and your assigment is to make a correct banner of arms, you would take a coat of arms like this

, and your result will be depicted in a flag like

. ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? What is chopped? Is your "flag" not essentially a crop of the middle of the coat of arms? The only difference I can see between your "flag" and the part of images like this one with the red triangles is that yours only includes the red triangles and doesn't have the black lines around them. That doesn't mean your "flag" isn't cropped from the coat of arms though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should go on Wikipedia and learn about heraldry. There is a heraldic rule, that heraldic field in a flag is without the bounds that can be depicted in the coat of arms, which is correct in any implemented depicted version in the emblem field. ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is that the rule? I assume if it was the "rule" you'd just cite it instead of handwaving that I should look through Wikipedia to find it. That said, it doesn't negate the fact that if I cropped your image in half it would still "a flag without the bounds that can be depicted in the coat of arms" and therefore an "official flag" if I was going by your standards of what makes something an "official flag." Although even you agree that cropping the coat of arms and calling it an "official flag" is FAN FICTION. So I don't really know what your arguing about. It seems like we both agree that your crop is FAN FICTION. I don't see why it wouldn't be if we were going by your own standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. If you would have cropped flag in half, you would have disrupt the practice of heraldic depiction managed by the national authority of heraldric committees of continental heraldic tradition, which determines flags aspect ratio. In case of this jurisdiction is managed as 2:3. This flag is oficially used. it was also seen on the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc. Origins of the coat of arms associated goes in history up to 13th century, thats not a fan fiction, maybe for you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't provide a link to the Wikipedia article talking about the heraldic rule you claim exists then? Not surprising really. Anyway, I'm done with the discussion. We will have to agree to disagree about it. There's still plenty of other images that I nominated for deletion that aren't sourced and probably never will be regardless. I think the fact that a few are "sourced" means the ones that aren't should be kept. Like I said in ANU the complaint, I'm fine withdrawing the nomination if you want to walk back your claims that they are "official flags" and put the images in the category for fictional flags. Otherwise, I'll leave this up to others to decide. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by discussing it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Mostly, the ones that were sourced or in use. Deleted the unsourced and unused ones. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 ----
 '''Deleted:''' These all appear to be 20th century recordings. As the nom says, the recordings have a copyright and it is very unlikely that any of the copyrights for the recordings have expired. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . . <small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]])</small> 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
+: I am very worried about your acting here. Why did you deleted recording which are subject of national copyright exempts and even recording of United States Navy Band? What a mindfuck. --[[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{delf}}
+{{delf}}
-----
-I am very worried about your acting here. Why did you deleted recording which are subject of national copyright exempts and even recording of United States Navy Band? What a mindfuck. --[[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
+{{delh}}
 === Files uploaded by [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ThecentreCZ|contribs]]) ===
@@ Line 81: / Line 82: @@
 BTW, I'm aware that some of these images are being used other projects, but at least from what I can tell ThecentreCZ is the one that added the images to the articles in question and they seem to have done so fairly recently. So I don't think that should impede the images being deleted since it's clear ThecentreCZ created the flags for the purposes of spreading hoax images and has done just that by adding them to Wikipedia articles. An image being in use doesn't necessarily stop it from being deleted if it clearly violates the guidelines. In this case, at least NOTHOST if not others.
-* [[:File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Estonia).svg]]
+* {{strikethrough|[[:File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Estonia).svg]]}}
-* [[:File:Flag of the Estonia 200.svg]]
+* {{strikethrough|[[:File:Flag of the Estonia 200.svg]]}}
 * [[:File:Flag of the Left Alliance (Finland).svg]]
 * [[:File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Romania).svg]]
@@ Line 110: / Line 111: @@
 ::I'm not really sure what your talking about since I'm not involved in Wikiproject politics and don't edit Danish Wikipedia articles. Nor have we ever gotten in a dispute involving either one. At least not that I'm aware of. Otherwise be my guest and peovide some diffs. In absensce of any though your comment is clearly just a continuation of the dishonesty you displayed in the ANU complaint. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 :::It is obviously not really possible to discuss with you well, although I am willing to. I want proper normal Commons user to discuss with, what would be a path to reason. Thank you [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:Some of these are sourced, and some are not. Here are the sourced ones
+:* {{vk}} [[:File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Estonia).svg]]: [https://p.ocdn.ee/59/i/2023/4/10/5be1rmue.r5x.jpg]
+:* {{vk}} [[:File:Flag of the Estonia 200.svg]]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20230411082856/https://p.ocdn.ee/59/i/2023/4/10/efubxfwx.k1n.jpg]
+:* {{vk}} [[:File:Flag of the Social Democratic Party (Romania).svg]] per [[:File:Mitingul Electoral al Aliantei PSD-UNPR-PC, Baia Mare - 14.05 (11) (14461830171).jpg]]
+:* {{vk}} [[:File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg]] per [http://archiv.zurnal.upol.cz/nc/nomobile/zprava/clanek/cyklus-prednasek-pripomene-obnoveni-olomouckeho-biskupstvi/]
+:* {{vk}} [[:File:Flag of the Brno University of Technology.svg]] per [https://www.facebook.com/studentivut/photos/a.631365106986340/4917265318396276/]. (This one was not originally sourced, but was sourced by individual request.
+:* {{vwk}} [[:File:Flag of the Communist Youth Union (Czech Republic).svg]] per [[:File:Komunistický svaz mládeže - schůze mladých komunistů.jpg]], not sure about the bottom text though.
+:I'm not sure what to do with the unsourced ones, given that this user uploaded confirmed flags too. I would lean towards, per [[COM:AGF]], {{vk}} '''all if''' the user confirms that all of the flags are used as flags in real life.
+:—&#8205;[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Mdaniels5757|contribs]]) 20:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::My bad on the ones that are sourced. That's what I get for using the visual editor and doing it when I was busy with other stuff. I did check a good portion of them though and at least the ones I checked clearly aren't sourced. As a side to that, I wouldn't normally be against keeping the ones that aren't sourced as a presumption of good faith, but ThecentreCZ has repeatedly said in multiple places that the flags are "official" when they clearly aren't. So there's zero reason to assume good faith that there's sources for them. I don't think evidence of people using the images in real life proves anything in that regard either. Like with the image of the Dutch Parties "flag", for all we know the person could have printed the image off of commons and made paper flags out of it. That doesn't make it any less of a hoax though. Let alone an "official flag" of the Dutch party like ThecentreCZ has repeatedly claimed. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:I can also provide sources for a couple of these flags
+::* {{vk}} * [[:File:Flag of the Left Alliance (Finland).svg]]: per [[:File:Left_Alliance_at_Helsinki_Pride_2023.jpg]]
+::* {{vk}} * [[:File:Flag of the SYRIZA.svg]]: [https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1210372/tsipras-insists-on-showdown-with-pm/]
+:[[Special:Contributions/24.39.70.130|24.39.70.130]] 18:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
+Again this one is wasting time again, he is already removing these even the exact double sourced files marked by Mdaniels5757 from all Wikipedia language variations by saying in summary its "''hoax by the creator in-order to spread misinformation''". He exactly knows how flags uploaded on Commons are normally sourced and out of thousands of flags here he accidently chooses only mine uploads. Is he going to nominate for deletion all of them? --[[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:{{tq|He is already removing these even the exact double sourced files marked by Mdaniels5757}} I removed the image from Wikipedia before Mdaniels5757 sourced it. So I don't know what exactly you think that proves. That said, there was already multiple discussions on Wikipedia where people said they didn't think the flags shouldn't be in the articles. Even if there wasn't the discussions though, the image wouldn't have been removed from the article if you had of just sourced it in the first place instead of forcing someone else to do it after the image was removed. It's not on me that you decided to repeatedly obfuscate about over multiple months and discussions instead of just doing the basic level of work required for something to be included in a Wikipedia article. My guess is that you didn't even know the image exited and it wasn't the basis for your hoax flag anyway. Which is why the color is different. The fact that someone found an image of the "flag" being used in real life months after you created the hoax image doesn't this whole thing any less of a dishonest hoax on your part. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::No he didn't sourced it right now, it was in the description of the files for months in the cases I've seen. You probably don't know how Wikimedia works, if people in Wikipedia WikiProject discussion says that some symbols shouldn't be in some infoboxes of a specific country, that have no influence on files located at Wikimedia Commons. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::It's always going to be someone else's issue then yours. Anyway, in the last comment you said I removed the imaged from Wikipedia even though it was sourced by Mdaniels5757. Now your saying something about Wikimedia Commons. Your clearly just ranting about random, pedantic nonsense to deflect from the broader issue that you falsely claimed these are "official flags" when they clearly aren't. Be my guest and provide a source for where the the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc uses the "flag" in [[:File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg]]. I'm more then willing to strike that or any other image from the deletion request if you can provide evidence them being officially used by the organization that your claiming they are being used by. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::How do you think that historians got the looks of some organizations and political parties existed in the 19th century? They got it sourced from historical photography where are people using them, thats how. When there is a authentic university source, which depicts a photography of official seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc in a building which is a property of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, that have there a flag which is according to heraldry banner of arms of the offical coat of arms of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, can you please tell me, how that is not officially used flag of the organization? I really don't get it. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::It depends on the organization or political party. A lot of the times the flags still exist and there's evidence tracing them back to the official organization. That said, no historians are treating recreations of flags based on images of people using them as "official flags" of the parties anyway. At least not that I'm aware of. Most, or all of the time, recreations are based on images taken from official party photographs. In the case of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc you'd have to agree that the heraldry banner of arms of the offical coat of arms is different from your version of the "flag." If you want to call your version official, cool. I do wonder what your opinion would be though if I cropped the right half your image, uploaded it, and called it the "official flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.". Would mine be the "official flag", would yours be, or essentially anything derived from the original coat of arms is an "official flag" just because the uploader says it is? Like if someone were to upload a 10 by 10 pixel image of the a red triangle with a white background on it is that an "official flag" of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc just because they say it is and it's loosely based on the coat of arms? --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::I am not exactly sure that you are the right one to do the schooling about heraldry. Heraldic banner of arms of the official coat of arms of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, which is defined by the escutcheon of the heraldic achievement is abolutely correct and identical with the flag. If you would have: "''cropped the right half your image, uploaded it, and called it the official flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc''" I would marked it with a template as FAN FICTION flag and do absolutely nothing with it. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::{{tq|The escutcheon of the heraldic achievement is abolutely correct and identical with the flag.}} Really? So images in this [[:Category:Coats of arms of bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc|this category]] are exactly the same as [[:File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg|your flag]]? Anyone can see that they are different. Just because you cropped the red triangles from the coat of arms doesn't make them identical images, obviously. Which is why I asked you if I cropped your image in half would that be an "official flag." I don't see why your cropped image of the original coat of arms would be an "official flag", but my crop of it would be FAN FICTION. Either cropping the coat of arms and calling the cropped version an "official flag" is FAN FICTION or it isn't. You can't have it both ways were your cropped version of the coat of arms is the legitimate "official flag" but no one else's is. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::What are you saying? What is chopped? You want a lesson on heraldry? OK. If you have an example of coat of arms and your assigment is to make a correct banner of arms, you would take a coat of arms like this [[File:Coat of arms of Malta.svg|30px]], and your result will be depicted in a flag like [[File:Flag of Malta.svg|30px]]. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::::{{tq|What are you saying? What is chopped?}} Is your "flag" not essentially a crop of the middle of the coat of arms? The only difference I can see between your "flag" and the part of images like [[:File:COA bishop CZ Kravar Ladislav.png|this one]] with the red triangles is that yours only includes the red triangles and doesn't have the black lines around them. That doesn't mean your "flag" isn't cropped from the coat of arms though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::::You should go on Wikipedia and learn about heraldry. There is a heraldic rule, that heraldic field in a flag is without the bounds that can be depicted in the coat of arms, which is correct in any implemented depicted version in the emblem field. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Where exactly is that the rule? I assume if it was the "rule" you'd just cite it instead of handwaving that I should look through Wikipedia to find it. That said, it doesn't negate the fact that if I cropped your image in half it would still "a flag without the bounds that can be depicted in the coat of arms" and therefore an "official flag" if I was going by your standards of what makes something an "official flag." Although even you agree that cropping the coat of arms and calling it an "official flag" is FAN FICTION. So I don't really know what your arguing about. It seems like we both agree that your crop is FAN FICTION. I don't see why it wouldn't be if we were going by your own standards. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::No, it is not. If you would have cropped flag in half, you would have disrupt the practice of heraldic depiction managed by the national authority of heraldric committees of continental heraldic tradition, which determines flags aspect ratio. In case of this jurisdiction is managed as 2:3. This flag is oficially used. it was also seen on the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc. Origins of the coat of arms associated goes in history up to 13th century, thats not a fan fiction, maybe for you. [[User:ThecentreCZ|ThecentreCZ]] ([[User talk:ThecentreCZ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::So you can't provide a link to the Wikipedia article talking about the heraldic rule you claim exists then? Not surprising really. Anyway, I'm done with the discussion. We will have to agree to disagree about it. There's still plenty of other images that I nominated for deletion that aren't sourced and probably never will be regardless. I think the fact that a few are "sourced" means the ones that aren't should be kept. Like I said in ANU the complaint, I'm fine withdrawing the nomination if you want to walk back your claims that they are "official flags" and put the images in the category for fictional flags. Otherwise, I'll leave this up to others to decide. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by discussing it though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+----
+'''Kept:''' Mostly, the ones that were sourced or in use.  Deleted the unsourced and unused ones. --[[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
+{{delf}}

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:37, 4 October 2023

Contents

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

Commons:Deletion requests

101% copyright free files

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:37, 4 October 2023

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

Commons:Deletion requests

101% copyright free files

Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search