User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3

Please bring back the image, you are making a mistake considering that the pictire is covered by the Belarussian Presidedential copyright. Moreover, you do not prove anything, and your mere personal statement cannot be considered as any evidence at all. Please bring back the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The images were hosted before on en.wikipedia and here; the images are not free for commercial reuse and modifications, so we cannot host them here until it is clarified by the website of the President of Belarus. Until that clarification is issued, I refuse to restore the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How did you decide that a picture taken personally with a mobile phone and properly tagged with "self made" tag became subject to the Belorussian presidential copyright???--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And you changed the license over 2 months after you uploaded it. I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, the license was changed as the description page was automatically copy pasted from another image. That is why the proper license was indicated. Independently from what you beleive, you have not provided any proof of coverage of this image by the Belorussian Presidential copyright. Please, restore the image immediately.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please, restore the image. I recall you you have not provided any explanation and the mere fact that you do not like Lukashenko and Rotaru is not enough to delete the picture. Otherwise, pleased let me know where and how to complain of your actions.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, not liking Lukashenko and Rotaru and relying on rumours is more than enough for making complaints about these rootless presumtuousness deletions of properly and diligently tagged free for any usage images. You can rely on my support for fending off any similar and blatant POV. Bogorm (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zach! Would you do me a great favor and restore two images you deleted? I mean Image:Belorussiastampday5500rub1998.jpg and Image:Stamp of Belarus. Karvat V. N.jpg. The legal aspects for using stamps of Belarus in public domain are provided here: Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Belarus. Thank you. With kindest regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, that is news to me. When I previously had the Karvat stamp image on en.wikipedia under the public domain license, I was told by a Belarusian user that it wasn't (supposedly, the stamp was owned by a private company, thus copyright was held). Now I found the text that you pointed out to me, so I am going to restore those. Accept my apologies and I am glad you told me about this. Now I can use the stamps of the state symbols on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I appreciate your understanding and quick response. Best wishes, --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

But you evidently prefer trusting obfuscating rumours stemming from Bielorussian users, whose neutral stance to Lukashenko is not ascertained, to taking a look at straightforward terms of use written in fluent Russian and providing an extremely stringent and irrefutable fundament for the existence of the uploaded images here. Bogorm (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The images won't be restored, plain and simple. As I told you, other Russian websites had this same exact wording as President.gov.by and we deleted the images because they are not free for commercial use and not free to modify. Article 15 of the Belarusian copyright law says the right to restrict modification and commercial reuse is automatic and must be waived by the copyright holder. Since President.gov.by hasn't done so in explicit text, we won't take the images. Plus, who cares if they like Lukashenko or not, we have a job here at the Commons to provide free content. Images from President.gov.by do not measure up to our requirements, so off they go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

"we deleted the images because they are not free for commercial use and not free to modify" But you did not deign to explain with sourced material whether and wherefore you allegedly do not accept images which "are not free for commercial use and not free to modify" - so, would you like to deign to quote a single rule at Commons according to which such images are unambiguously deprecated? Bogorm (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Instead of a red link to the United States Postal Service, perhaps an inter-wiki link to Wikipedia could be added, as in United States Postal Service. I'm not an admin on Commons, or I would make the change myself. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is also another change I have to make too, so I am going to do that when I come home from work around 11 PM, Pacific USA time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:KHadr5.png" (Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission)

There's a reason people create notices and alert uploaders, rather than just randomly clicking "delete", there's a process to follow that improves the project, rather than just deleting shit. Please restore the image, and let me know which source/license or permission is missing (or all three?) and I'll add it. Sherurcij (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image will not be restored. The thing that was missing was author: we cannot use PD-US Army is we cannot identify the author. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zscout, I think a regular deletion request may be better now. Otherwise, I can see this going to COM:UNDEL, which isn't really the ideal way to assess the situation. I find the uploader's claims quite plausible. Legally, public domain works do not need an author and sometimes the author is simply unknown or under a publisher label (like "US Army"). This is not to say the deletion was wrong, it's just now I think we can benefit from some discussion. Rocket000(talk) 04:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh, too late. :) Rocket000(talk) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Explanation needed here. —Giggy 04:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have listed this file at COM:UDEL because I believe it should not have been deleted. Thank you. -Nard the Bard 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am going to echo the concerns of other contributors. Your deletion of this image without discussion seems highly irresponsible.

I was involved in the original discussion as to whether this image should be deleted. I made the effort to not respond in kind when the original nominator descended to leveling unsubstantiated allegations. I made quite a lot of effort to document the history of the photos taken that day. And I am extremely disturbed that you didn't look to see whether there had been a deletion discussion.

I suggest, in future, if you receive a request for deletion, via email, or on some other forum, that you advise the person with the concern on how they could formally initiate a deletion discussion here. I suggest this is absolutely required for the commons decision making being conducted in an open and transparent manner.

Just how often do you arbitrarily delete images based on anonymous complaints? Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The request of deletion of images wasn't present. It was a request to just look at the article, due to the number of pictures. So, as admin, I look and see what happens. So I notice the images were restored. Ok, so the issue is resolved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please advise whether you still regard deletion from the commons as a way to deal with a concern that an article on the wikipedia has too many images.

Isn't it correct that you did not even inform the uploader afterwards of your deletion?

You administrators are human. You are going to make mistakes. But, if you are going to exercise your authority in an open, transparent and responsibile manner I regard it as absolutely essential that you acknowledge when you made errors. If you don't acknowledge each of the very serious errors in judgement here, why shouldn't the rest of us assume you have every intention of continuing to act in the same way again?

1. Deleting images from the commons as a way to address someone's concern that a wikipedia article has too many images was not a responsible use of your authority. The number of images on a wikipedia article is an editorial decision that should be discussed on the wikipedia.
2. Once you come to the conclusion that deletion may be merited, failing to check to see whether the community has already had a discussion over the item is a very serious error.
3. Deleting an item, without prior discussion, should be reserved for emergencies.
   • In my opinion it is highly irresponsible for administrators to unilaterally delete items, and then fail to tell the uploader, or in the case of an article, the person who started the article. It is an offense to the rest of us who want to participate in a project with open and transparent decision making.
   • Assuming, for the sake of argument, the administrator had a valid justification, supported by policy, for exercising their emergency powers, they do a huge disservice to the good faith contributor, and to the entire project, when they don't inform the good faith contributor. When that good faith contributor isn't informed that one of his or her contributions has triggered an administrator exercising emergency powers then we should assume the good faith contributor will continue to make similar contributions which pose the same problem.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sherurcij left me a message which was for you in fact. See User_talk:Yann#Image:Med57th_July_22002_Citation_team.jpg. I think a proper deletion request might be needed here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Could you answer to Sherurcij or undelete the image please? Yann (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zscout, I restored this one as there was no indication Getty were the initial publisher of the image, but that they were instead a free distributor of it. See also the book originally cited in the upload log. There's still a few questions to hopefully answer here. —Giggy 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Same with Image:Bound, hooded captives, being flown to Guantanamo.gif. —Giggy 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Several other administrators have made clear to you that they disagree with your judgment in your series of deletions of images related to the war on terror uploaded by User:Sherurcij and myself.

I am mystified why any administrator who was committed to open, transparent and responsible exercise of their administrator authority would continue to delete these images -- without warning.

I know that administrators are authorized to delete images without warning -- when those images clearly and unambigously satisfy the speedy deletion criteria. Since other administrators made clear to you that they disagree with you I am mystifyied how you could possibly continue to regard these deletions as clearly and unambigously satisfying the speedy deletion criteria. I am mystified how you could think you were authorized to subsequently delete this image a second time, or to delete the related images: [1] and [2]

I am mystified why it hasn't occurred to you either:

1. ...try to initiate a civil discussion of your concerns on the images' talk page;
2. ...recuse yourself, draw the images to the attention of a neutral administrator, and walk away;
3. ...make an ordinary nomination for deletion, let the community weigh in and discuss your concern, and abide by the consensus reached;
4. ...let it go, and trust that if your concern is a serious one, someone else will notice whatever triggered your concern, and nominate that image for deletion.

There are some kinds of advice that come best from a friend. I am not your friend. I don't know you. I had never heard of you until recently. I am sorry that none of your friends has spelled out for you what I am going to warn you about here.

I think if your friends were paying attention, they might warn you that the way you have been exercising your administrator authority recently could be seen as a kind of personal vendetta.

I think if your friends were paying attention, they would urge you to take a break from deleting any images that are related to the war on terror.

I think your friends might also suggest you stop deleting articles without any warning unless you could defend those deletions as true actual emergencies, and use less extreme measures -- like simply raising your concerns on the images talk pages, and giving good-faith uploaders a chance to respond, when the image is not an actual emergency.

I am not telling you this to be insulting. I honestly believe your exercise of authority may trigger a review of whether you should continue to be authorized to exercise administrator authority, and that it is in your personal best interest to have someone give you honest feedback about how your exercise of your authority appears.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: I am not accusing you of carrying out a personal vendetta. I am not a mind-reader. I don't know why you are behaving this way.

I am doing my very best to extend to you the assumption of good faith. Frankly, however, your apparent unwillingness to engage in civil dialogue over your concerns places an enormous strain on my ability to extend that assumption of good faith to you. Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may remember this Commons:Deletion_requests/License_tags_of_russian_websites from some time ago. I would ask that you look at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#PD-RU-exempt_images_from_Kremlin.ru, as I believe your input may be useful in helping to determine whether Template:PD-RU-exempt is allowable for images and the like. Cheers, --russavia (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-YUL89YYZ (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-YUL89YYZ (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-YUL89YYZ (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-YUL89YYZ (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zscout370,

See this link (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-May/003772.html) which is from this page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Library_and_Archives_Canada).

--YUL89YYZ (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, that works for me. Quite a shame too, those were some nice images of the Order we had. At least we still got fair use at en.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag_of_Corpus_Cristi,_Texas.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also Image:Flag_of_Lubbock,_Texas.png, Image:Flag_of_San_Francisco,_California.png, Image:Flag_of_Saint_Louis,_Missouri.png /Lokal_Profil 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I knew this was coming. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-Nard the Bard 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephen_Harper_(Official_Photo).jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. abf /talk to me/ 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Authorization to use kremlin.ru Images under CC-BY-3.0 was obtained. See Image:Kremlin_authorisation-Russian.pdf and Template:Kremlin.ru for details. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw. I was a happy camper when I saw the OTRS ticket to allow us use of the images. Now, I have photos of Lukashenko to decorate our articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice. Medvedev is a known internet addict, so I am glad they took this step.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that I never saw a source giving Libyan flag that dark as the user uploaded. Even the flags that you can see on their embassies etc. are lighter though that's not much of a valid proof. But still I think we should use the lighter version.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image of mine was deleted. I can't see which one that was; could you verify that it was not some copyright paranoia that got it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The speedy deletion was due to this reason, "No FOP for sculptures in the U.S.". User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is the work considered PD-US-Gov if it was taken in a national park? -Nard the Bard 02:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only if the work was made by an employee of the Federal Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Teofilo (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of TheZachMorrisExperience. Can we keep any of those? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know my friend. Also, I find it wierd that someone whose username is the same as one of these projects is calling for their deletion. I know one deals with OTRS, and I am an idiot when it comes to the freedom of panorama. If that is one thing I have to study up on, it is that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the arguments for my change at the talk page before uploading the new image. Now you reverted the change and didn't answer to any of them. Generally I think using CMYK as source for colours should be avoided if there's Pantone or RGB values given since CMYK is meant for printing and converting straight to RGB results in overly bright colours. CMYK to RGB conversion isn't any simpler or more reliable than Pantone to RGB conversion because of different colour space and gamut so it cannot be more justified especially when everybody else thinks the colours now look wrong. In my opinion you haven't listened to other people's arguments and opinions but instead decided yourself what to do based on what you like. If we can't reach compromise, the colours of the original version should be restored until consensus is achieved. –Vzb83 (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I been personally told many times, when we started doing the SVG images, is that we first used RGB, then using CMYK, then Pantone as a last ditch effort. The original version is what I got before other people started to toy around with them. Plus, people decided before on other flag images to use what governments tell us to use for CMYK. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Send me the image from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry - no watermark.jpg? I want to fair use it on en wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

My @ is piokon at post dot pl in case you forgot. Btw, do you know why those were deleted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will email the photo in a few days. About the Gen Con images, they were tagged with "copyvio, derivative work: photo of a replica of the Star Wars droids." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

NaturesPlatform.com is my own website! I have donated the use of the image to the public domain. That image is all over the web by now. Please restore the deleted images. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)--Reply

Email, using your website email, to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org and talk with the folks there about the image restoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

MBisanz took care of everything. Thanks. --Jonathan108 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome. My suggestion is to send them an email first before uploading things if you own the material. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You guys were misled by the word 青. The official name of the flag is 青天白日满地红, the 青天白日 should be understood different. First and most importantly, the real meaning is not in the 'color', as explained in 林語堂:青天 [qing1tian1], n., (1) the clear, blue sky: 青天白日 in broad daylight; (2) as symbol of justice: 重見青天 regain freedom, freed from prison; formerly, address to judge: 青天大人. 青天白日, in the true sense of the word, was referring to the dark and oppressive rule of the Manchus; Dr.Sun Yet Sen, a revolutioary and one of the original designers of the flag, was fighting for freedom, the freedom of fresh sky and clear sun. Once we understand 青天白日 from this prospective, the answer is very certain. Sky Blue, is the answer. Not dark blue, certainly not black, which is the color I am seeing now on my monitor. OK guys? If no more doubts, please revert to the color used a few months ago. If you are a Chinese, you should know that Black flag is a symbol of death in China. Stop it now, please.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to mention 包青天, a famous TV drama enjoyed by all the Chinese all over the world. It is about justice, about righting the wrongs, not about color. Again we can come to the conclusion, the color? Sky Blue, there is no doubt.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your new upload, the dark blue is still too dark. Please try again, remember, Sky Blue is the key word. Make the blue color lighter, then it shall be alright.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only thing the new upload did was to reduce the code of the flag image. As I have told the other users, I know that the character is for sky blue (or cyan). I do have some flag books from Taiwan, so I can look at those and see what colors they use. Even if I do upload this new color, I expect to be reverted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to you user Zscout370 I did not know you are Admin. At the moment the blue looks OK on my monitor. The reason I used strong language is because with Chinese, the flag is always an emotional issue, especially ROC and PRC. It can be a live or die situation. At the moment it looks OK. Sky Blue may be not right, but dark blue is certainly too dark on my monitor. Thanks.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about the admin bit too much, and don't worry about the strong language. Frankly, I am an idiot when it comes to Chinese (but I am still glad that my knowledge of Japanese is helping to some degree). Anyways, what we try to do here with the flag images is to match them according to law. In the case of Taiwan, no law about the specific flag colors exist. An example of what I look for is here about Lithuania. As I mentioned on en.wikipedia,, Sky blue is close to cyan, which is what the Chinese Wikipedia has. On the documents related to the ROC Government, they just call it blue sky. I need to show you the two books that I got, but they mostly have drawings on how to make the flag, not the colors. A lot of the cloth flags I have is a dark/navy blue, with a medium shade a red. A 96x144 flag I got in the mail recently does have a light blue color, but not sure if it has faded in any way. Plus, I am glad that the flag of the Kuomintang has the same shade of blue as the ROC flag, so maybe that could give some help. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Kuomintang color and the ROC color should be the same, because they all came from the same original design. The only difference is in the length of the 12 sharp points.Will you teach me how to fix the software of Chinese territories map .gif's frame per second?Arilang1234 (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try. As for the length of the sun points, according to ROC Law, the ratio and size is still the exact same for the sun points. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

My flicker account is chinakorea55, where I have 5 or 6 images I would like to upload into commons, but I do not know how. Can you help me?Arilang1234 (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, me again. If you check my persona gallery , you can see I have uploaded a few images from Google images. I know I will run into copy-right question, but can I avoid this problem by digitally altering the original image somehow? Thank you.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, are you still want to talk about how to fix the flag? I'm waiting for your response.--128.208.37.186 10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do, just waiting for other folks to respond (and waiting for me to actually get some free time). December is going to be a busy month for me, due to finals in college. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Zscout370/Archive 3!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Image:John Lilly of Mozilla.jpg is uncategorized since 9 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lokal_Profil 18:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply