Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 5

"Greater Albania"

This is a map that purports to show the percentage of the population that is Albanian in Albania and some districts of neighboring countries. A major dispute has broken out over this file regarding the use of grey to color areas of the map corresponding to Greece on the grounds that there is "no official data" for the number of Albanians living there. While it is true that the Greek government does not collect data on ethnicity, "no official data" is not the same as "no data at all". There is plenty of data, for example from Ethnologue [2] and Le Monde Diplomatique [3], and many other sources. All these sources show the same thing: Hardly any Albanians in northwestern Greece (and for good reason: they were expelled at the end of WW2 for collaborating with the Axis), yet the Albanians editors insist on the use of grey and keep parroting the "no official data", "no official data" mantra ad nauseam. The reasons for this are obvious: The shade of grey used is about equally dark as the shade of purple used (for areas >50% Albanian), and as a result it makes "greater Albania" look bigger. It is also used for POV-pushing by insinuation, as "no official data" is nice and vague and certainly preferrable from a nationalist point of view to 0-10%. It is also used to score points against the Greek government. However, this is not how we do things here. There IS plenty of non-official data, and it all shows that Albanians in those areas now shown in grey are very very few, for sure less than 10%. For example, in one of the prefectures shown in grey, there are only 3 Albanian-speaking villages, and though they know this full well, the Albanian editors insist on the use of grey. Using grey on the grounds of "no official data" is deliberate withholding of information from our readers, as data does exist even though it might not be official. In addition, the title is highly POV and irredentist and needs to be changed to something more neutral like "Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries." The discussion at the file talkpage has gotten bogged down mostly due to persistent WP:IDHT and trolling on the part of some editors (some of whom are topic banned on the subject from en.wiki), and any outside mediation would be greatly appreciated. Athens2004 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that this map adopts double standarts: On the one hand claims that Albania is entirely inhabited by Albanians: based on a 1989 census in Albania: a highly questioned census conducted by a tottalitarian regime (Albania until 1991 was under a communist/stalinist regime [[4]]). On the other hand it ignores reliable material such as Monte Diplomatique and other sources, like this one [[5]] p. 1617. About nw Greece I have to agree with Athenean: there is plenty of research that shows that ethnic minorities are a small (for sure far less than 50% as stated) part of the population.Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My bigger concern for this map is it's tittle. "Presence of Albanians in "Greater Albania"." The term "Greater Albania" is of course a nationalist term like "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Greece". The name of this map must change! It should be called "Presence of Albanians in Balkan states" or something like that. Sources for this map are also problematic. There are 4: The forgotten minorities of Eastern Europe: the history and today of selected ethnic groups in five countries
Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society
; Österreichisches Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut (1989) Atlas of eastern and southeastern Europe, Österreichisches Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, p. 59 ISBN: 3443285260. CIA Factbook - Greece

Almost all the above sources can't back the claim for the figures.

To sum up, the tittle mast change and reliable source mast be found because the map as it is now it is only a personal work with no real value.Seleukos (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Change the title Seleukos and Athenean change Florina to white, but these are the only sourced changes.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just Florina. What about Kastoria? There isn't a single Albanian village in the entire prefecture. Athens2004 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What's really wierd is that although the map of monde diplomatique is confirmed by the entirety of the rs material (some additional example that support the same view: [[6]][[7]]) the typical Pakapshem (indef blocked in English wiki)- Zjarrithouehs team is still trolling without using precise arguments in order to claim ethnical purity... Alexikoua (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:DraganKitanoski and maps of Macedonia

I don't know whether and how this is actionable, given that Commons follows different policies than the other Wikipedia projects, but the sole contribution of this user consists of maps on the Macedonian issue ([8]), including several maps supposedly showing the distributions of ethnicities per village/town in Greece based on no or dubious census data (no census or publication is named, and he lists himself among the sources), old ethnographic maps with annotations and comments of the kind of "notice the presence of Macedonian Slavs/Bulgarians inside what today is Greece. Where are they today?"([9], [10]), and this incredible proposal... The titles of the maps are also indicative of his view that he has to push "the truth"... No one is trying to disprove or dispute the presence of numerous Macedonian Slavs inside the borders of modern Greece, but the way he tries to "prove" this is extremely adversarial and more suited to the typical Balkan propaganda website or blog. That's of course leaving aside the issue of original research and copyright violations in several of his maps. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Overwriting own uploads with improved versions

I have just received block warnings (User_talk:Shyamal) for apparently not following guidelines while reverting another users reversion of my changes and would appreciate comments on some of my recent actions here. I am regularly in the need of making corrections to my own SVG creations and apparently the new modifications to the guidelines Commons:Avoid_overwriting_existing_files seems to be suggesting that corrections need to made as derivatives. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the warning was for edit warring, not for your interpretation of the proposed guideline. My main point is that you need to talk about it and resolve the situation before reverting. 99of9 (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. personally I support COM:OVERWRITE, and your suggestions regarding SVG images should be taken there for discussion. Historical images are a different case, and that is where I saw the edit war: File:Seitz9FaunaIndoAustralicaPlate39_gyas.jpg. --99of9 (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir map

The author of map File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map.svg is opposing change in map colors, though it contradicts two well used maps File:China Tibet location map.svg and File:India_location_map.svg. A third opinion would help. Avoided blue (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoid overwriting existing files and avoid edit wars. Feel free to upload an alternative version under a different name. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is because the said filename is used as locator map in 100+ pages. Used in a template so cant help. Avoided blue (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is precisely because it is widely used that you should not overwrite it. The file in question is currently used on Assamese, Czech, English, Finnish, French, Hindi, Nepali, Oriya, Western Panjabi, Russian, Tamil, and Urdu Wikipedias. If you overwrite the current image with a different one, the texts that refer to the image might not make sense. Unless you are epically polyglottal, I assume you have not verified that. As I said, feel free to upload an alternative version under a different name, and then discuss which one to use on each relevant template and/or page on each relevant Wikimedia project. Don't use Commons to make editorial decisions for other projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I have uploaded both versions under different names. But my version is supported by one more user in commons talk page, so i will revert it to my version. The name country-state-locator is standard name for templates across, so it will have to be overwritten. Avoided blue (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which part of Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files is it that's still unclear? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV: Sino-Indian border disputed.

Nichalp

User:Nichalp modified some map to show the Aksai Chin as a disputed region, but they never shows South Tibet as disputed region, nor does they show ROC-India disputed region. They claims they is NPOVing the map, but obviously they is adding pro-Indian claims. What can I do? --虞海 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Which map? Where? When? I do not see any files uploaded by that user in approaching two years ... Special:ListFiles/User:Nichalp  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It was File:LocationBhutan.png, I've reverted it. 虞海 (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

General issue

• Nowadays, most maps in Commons show Aksai Chin as a disputed region but leaving South Tibet a “Indian territory”. It's severely biased. We should change the state. --虞海 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Aksai Chin is inhabited by Uyghurs, Purik Tibetan and Tajiks (Pamiris); while South Tibet is inhabited by Moinbas and Lhobas (incl. Adi and Mishmi). These peoples have long connected with either Tibetan or Han Chinese, but with no connection to India until recent 100 years. --虞海 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing the fact that India does not border with Aksai Chin (de facto), I think we should count Taiwan-India (ROC-India) border dispute inside. The ROC does not border with some disputed region, either. Why do you “love” India but ignore the ROC? --虞海 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• That is: since we have claims such as “ceded by Pakistan, claimed by India”, we should also have claims such as “ceded by P.R.China, claimed by ROC”. --虞海 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Such unneutral maps are still majority in Commons, what can I do? --虞海 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Fry1989 over File:Northdakotastateseal.jpg

Resolved

User:Fry1989 keeps uploading an unsourced/unlicensed image over a public domain image. Fry1989 insists the image is PD and keeps reverting the change back to the PD version.--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, although the user still seems to have a gross misunderstanding of copyright law or perhaps just a disregard for it.--Svgalbertian (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The non-free/unsourced version still needs to be deleted though... –Tryphon^☂ 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We have the same problem with most the images in Category:US state seal from usembassy.de. Over time they have been overwritten by various users with images they find online. Fry1989 also overwrote File:Marylandstateseal.jpg & File:Hawaiistateseal.png, but still still have a bunch bad overwrites from User:Avala and other users. If an admin has some free time to go through them that would be great.--Svgalbertian (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Fry1989 have been deleted by Túrelio.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms

Because I do not want to enter in edit warring conflict (or anything similar) and I really do not see any possible solution in this dispute I will like to ask for yours decision. To make long story short I can say that for me everything has started after my demand for revert and file protection

In table it is possible to see about what there is agreement between me and account Starčevićanac created to dispute my earlier file changes. Complete discussion it is possible to read on file talk page.

Both Coats of Arms are having own copy on commons, but it is not possible to deleted this version because it is must popular on every wiki project (possible reason is right name ?)

Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms

For first Red square	For first White Square
Oldest official Coat of Arms	Both are used
It is official in 1526/1848/1918/1945/1990-today	It is official in 1868/1941/4 months in 1990
White can't be used because it is symbol of bloody fascist puppet state	White must be used because it is symbol of first free elections (winners of elections)
Croatia official position (law)	In the Yugoslav wars part of Croatian soldiers have used first White Square

To again make long story short I am 100 % sure that it is against rules to represent fascist or nazis symbol on commons like Historical symbol of any state (croatian official position and all other evidence are not important), but I will accept any administrator decision.--Rjecina2 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is needed for decision I can tomorow add links with thinking of Serbs, Slovenes etc... about first white square ? All in all this disputed is possible bombshell for exYugoslav edit warring.

About this request I have informed all editors which have been active in dispute [11] [12].--Rjecina2 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"bloody fascist state" - same old story. I'll return to that later. The first Croatian chequy style CoA had the first white square. It was made in 1495, predating the version with the first red square for thirty years. But that's less important. The real problem is this: the disputed file was made on 30 March 2006. It had the first red square. On 14 January 2008, the file was replaced by a version with the first white square. Shortly after, an identical version with the first red square was uploaded. From that day on, there was a version with the first red square, and a version with the first white square, both to be freely used in any wiki project. The version with the first white square was used on Croatian Wikipedia in the Croatian CoA article where it was used as a first CoA of the democratic Croatian government (which it was for four months). The file remained there, untouched, for the next three years, until Rjecina2, without thinking, reverted it to a version with the first red square. By doing that, he damaged several articles on Croatian Wikipedia, Bosnian Wikipedia, and English Wikipedia. And when I reverted the file back to the version with the first white square, to fix the damage which Rjecina2 made, he reverted it back, and asked User:High Contrast to lock the file, claiming that the file was vandalized. The file is now locked for a month.

True, the file was vandalized, but the vandal is Rjecina2. And now, to keep the version which he favors, he claims that the first white square on the Croatian CoA represents the fascist puppet state, though he knows that the CoA with the first white square was invented long before the WWII. The CoA of Hitler's Croatian allies had the first white square, true, but it's design was quite different from the disputed CoA. The CoA of Hitler's Croatian allies is banned in Croatia, but the use of the Croatian Historic Coat of Arms with the first white square is allowed in Croatia, which Rjecina2 deliberately doesn't say here. Therefore, I'm asking administrators to revert the file Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg to the version with the first white square, and to protect the file from possible future vandalizations by Rjecina2.--Starčevićanac (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Croatian law about Coat of Arms is saying:"The coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia is the historical Croatian coat of arms in the shape of a shield with a checkered pattern of twenty-five alternating red and white (silver) fields, with the first field in the upper left corner of the shield being red".--Rjecina2 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Since both CoAs were used numerous time through the Croatian history, both versions are Historical coats of arms. So, if you wish to use the version with first red square, you have it, but the file in dispute must be reverted to the version with the first white square, to fix the damage which you made.--Starčevićanac (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong but in my thinking it is rude to revert links which I have added on 18 July without writing anything more to do earlier text !?

Now I must take more of space in this dispute to add links for other commons copy of coats of arms. This is copy with red first square and this is white.--Rjecina2 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is church of St. Mark in Zagreb. The roof was built during period 1876- 1882. That is much before 1941.

• 
  The church.
• 
  Roof.
• 
  Wappenrolle Österreich-Ungarns nach H. Ströhl [1]

See the works:
Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, nr. 2, pp. 731.-760., 2004
Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli, Alfa d.d./Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb, 2010, ISBN 978-953-297-230-6.
That will be enough. Kubura (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also rude to call some Coat of Arms "fascist" when you know that it isn't, Rjecina. And it is also rude to stubbornly continue with this charade, when you know that there can be only one conclusion.--Starčevićanac (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Kubura in answering call for help from Starčevićanac [13], but nobody is disputing fact that coat of arms with first white square has been official between 1868 and 1918.

There is no need for me to say again Historic Coat of Arms of Croatia law definition....

File Flag of Croatia.svg is indefinitely protected [14] because of cross wiki vandal (user:Rainman aka Imbris [15] aka Bugoslav [16]). Now after my revert of that cross wiki vandal in file Coat of Arms.svg , newly created account has started this dispute and now even coats of Arms will be indefinitely protected. All of this is sad so from now I will not write new comments, data and etc to this discussion --Rjecina2 12:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both, with red or white chequer first are Croatian historic COA, used for centuries before 1941., and should be used freely. The nazi/fascist puppet state of NDH's COA is the one that has U with the Croatian pleter around the U and both of it on the top of the COA that starts with white chequer first. [17][18][19][20] [21] Also both red and then white first was used by Royal House of Karadjordjevic even during WW2. [22]--Rovoobo (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rjecina2, if you wish to accuse me that I'm a sockpuppet of Bugoslav, say that loud and clear. But we know that this is just another of your attempts to slip away from the responsibility of the damage which you made on several wikipedias with your blind reverts. The file Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg should be reverted to the version with the first white square, and indefinitely protected from you and your followers.--Starčevićanac (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As for calling for help, I haven't done anything that you haven't done also, Rjecina2[23]!--Starčevićanac (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland.svg

I have made a request for the above file to be renamed as it is incorrectly named which was turned down, I then added the duplicate template as it is the exact same file as Ulster banner.svg, this was also turned down with the admin asking me to start a discussion before anything happens with it. My reasoning for the change is that it is not the flag of Northern Ireland and its current title is misleading, this source under section 5 shows that this flag has no official status and is not the flag of Northern Ireland. It shows that title used by the UK government is also the Ulster Flag. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to bring this issue if not could someone point me in the right direction, thanks. Mo ainm (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested this discussion because I'm unsure which version to keep. Technically File:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg and File:Ulster banner.svg are identical, current versions have been uploaded at the same day. I don't want to start a war by deleting the "wrong" file ;-) axp_de^Hello! 18:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: The source given above reads "Ulster flag". axp_de^Hello! 18:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass taggings

An ongoing discussion about "machine gun tagging" by an editor was begun, but with only a few comments. Some more feedback would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)