Brugerdiskussion:Fry1989/archive1

But please refrain from editwarring. Knud Winckelmann 26. sep 2011, 22:18 (CEST)

Once again, please avoid deleting comments on talk pages - if you do not like the comments you should answer them rather than delete them, or you could archive the content. The comment above refers to actions in september 2011 like this. So the plead is justified even though you claim that you hardly are active here (see your edit history). --Arne (Amjaabc) 23. feb 2012, 09:14 (CET)

Hi again. I'm sorry if you feel this is silly, but that's how things work here on dawiki. As mentioned above, you can move things to an Brugerdiskussion:Fry1989/archive1, but for the sake of transparency, discussions should not be deleted. Regards Knud Winckelmann 23. feb 2012, 22:31 (CET)

There is no transparency problem. You asked me not to edit war because of a misunderstanding. I am not obligated to keep this here, and you're vandalizing my page by trying to force me to keep it. I am not a very active user on Danish Wikipedia, that's why I have a link to my English Wikipedia page. Stop forcing this on me. Fry1989 23. feb 2012, 22:34 (CET)

I'm truly sorry that you feel that way, but our local policy is a bit stricter than the one on enwiki and I'll have to ask you to please respect that. Regards Knud Winckelmann 23. feb 2012, 22:46 (CET)

Edits om Monaco

Hi. It seems that you and SanglierT disagrees on the graphic in this article. Please bring it up on the discussion page, these undescribed edits back and forth doesn't help. I've given SanglierT the same message. Regards Knud Winckelmann (diskussion) 13. mar 2012, 00:48 (CET)

He is trying to self-promote his creation. He has great skills and has added many wonderful additions to Commons, but his version of the Monagasque coat of arms has many problems, and he's trying to force them anyways. Fry1989 (diskussion) 13. mar 2012, 00:50 (CET)

I am going to say the same as Knud. It's problematic that this keeps going on, which is why a edit protection is almost eminent. So take the discussion on Monaco's discussion page, or else none of you will be able to edit the article. A solution must be found very soon. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 14. mar 2012, 08:04 (CET)

Since SanglierT wont answer your request for the differences between the two, I will explain. SanglierT's file does not use a Monagasque crown, and it doesn't look like the arms the way Monaco shows them. He is now trying to claim that the long-standing version is a violation of copyright. If he had any proof of that whatsoever, he could nominate the file for deletion on Commons, but has not chosen to do so. I have already dealt with two users who liked to promote their creation over another, it's called self-promotionalism, and is not a very good behaviour, especially when people disagree on which one to use. SanglierT has chosen not to discuss this with anybody (on any language Wikipedia or Commons), but to unilaterally replace the version that has been here since 2008 with his new one. Fry1989 (diskussion) 14. mar 2012, 08:07 (CET)

Edit war

Hello!

Since you and User:SanglierT insist on editwarring instead of using the talkpages, I have blocked you for a week. You both seem to be knowledgeable editors, so you really ought to know better than editwarring. You can reply on this talk page. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 14. mar 2012, 08:46 (CET)

If you checked the above discussion, it's already under consideration, this was unneccesary, and the fact remains he is the one making the change and he should have taken it to a discussion the first time he was reverted rather than trying to force his way through. Whether he likes it or not, his change is controversial. Fry1989 (diskussion) 14. mar 2012, 16:17 (CET)

I agree with Fry. Palnatoke, you could've just protected the article of Monaco instead, which I find a much better solution. Then they would both be forced to take the discussion on Monaco's talk page, as none of them would be able to edit the article further. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 15. mar 2012, 13:02 (CET)

Either of you could have taken it to the talk page. Neither of you did. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 15. mar 2012, 14:28 (CET)

They were just recently informed of the option. I doubt that they didn't know that they could do it, they were just trying to overpower the other, and in the heat of an edit war, people often lose their rational senses (no offense). I am still confident in that a simple protection of the page was the best option, so they would be forced to take the discussion there. We shouldn't risk scaring them away by blocking them when a far better solution was at hand. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 15. mar 2012, 15:23 (CET)

We're talking about users active since October 2009 and March 2010, respectively, and they have been having this edit war on several Wikipedias. They should know better. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 15. mar 2012, 15:43 (CET)

Of course, but still, I am not sure if this was the best solution. Everyone could make mistakes, no matter how experienced an editor one is; this is a good example. My suggestion would be to remove the block from both, protect the article of Monaco, and let them discuss it on the article's talk page. If this doesn't work, then blocking them would be a fine solution, since we will then know that they are out of reach. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 15. mar 2012, 16:43 (CET)

Since I can't reply, let me answer Palnatoke's question of which one is more correct here. There are only two ways of looking at it. SanglierT has based his version upon the blazon, which is the textual description of what the coat of arms is. Based upon that, you can basically make it look any way you want, as long as it follows what that text says. Whereas, the version that has been longstanding, and that I am trying to maintain, both follows the blazon, and the particular style that the Monagasque Gouvernment shows it. There are currently two factions on Commons. Those who believe they have the right to style the arms any way they want as long as it follows the blazon, and those of us who believe that we should not only follow the blazon, but try as best as possible (without infringing copyright) to reflect the emblem as it's armiger (the Government that it representes) shows it. That is what this is about. Fry1989 (diskussion) 15. mar 2012, 19:40 (CET)

This explanation has had me convinced that you are right. SanglierT has not replied yet, and I take that as if he does not care about finding a solution. Since he won't reply, he cannot come up with an argument to contest this, and this seems like an excellent explanation of the problem. Palnatoke, what do you think of this? I think that Fry is right, and that his version of the coat should stay on the article of Monaco. By the way, Fry, thanks for clearing things up. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 15. mar 2012, 23:48 (CET)

I tried to compromise with him on Commons, and to stop reverting his replacements all over projects, if he would make it more like the way Monaco's Government displays it. He feels that since he's following the blazon, even though his looks different, it is just as right as the other. But he has also talked about the old version being a copyright violation. There is no proof of that, and he hasn't nominated it for deletion, so I don't believe there's any truth to it. Fry1989 (diskussion) 16. mar 2012, 00:06 (CET)

Exactly - which is why I don't see why the old version can't be the one to stay. If he can bring up an argument that it is a copyright violation to contest this, then we will take it from there, but since he haven't even replied on his own talk page or here, or as you say, nominated it for deletion on Commons, I am sure that the old version is the one to stay. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 16. mar 2012, 07:40 (CET)