User talk:Bobrayner

Hello. You could also try my talkpage on en.wikipedia.

File:Black flag.svg

It's not really a "made-up" flag, it's simply packaging the historically well-attested dynastic color of the Abbasids, used in military banners etc., into a rectangular format. The rectangular format is quasi-anachronistic, but as long as people use such images in article infoboxes, File:Black flag.svg is greatly preferable to what was formerly often used, File:Abbasid_flag.png, which really was "made up"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as an image on Commons, it's not really "made up"; but usage of images like this on wikipedias is quite problematic, I fear... 12:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as people insist on using flags in infoboxes in articles about ancient and medieval empires, then File:Black flag.svg is the least bad option -- it's only the implication of a standardized rectangular shape which is anachronistic, while black banners are fully historical... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We know that there have been black banners in the past, but it's very difficult to have the confidence that some ancient empire's troops marched under a standardised black banner to each battle (where we use these images as flagicons on enwiki &c) because this is barely ever mentioned by secondary sources. So, the anachronism problem is a bit broader, I think. bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to the problem with "flags" based on the Catalan Atlas &c; the original cartographer tried very hard to fill in gaps on the map where they didn't have first-hand knowledge, and only just stops short of "here be dragons", but nonetheless modern-day editors have peered at the little emblems on the map, created flag pictures based on these, and then applied these flag pictures to articles involving ancient Asian and African empires which are incredibly unlikely to have flown exactly that flag. The Catalan Atlas has a little picture of Mansa Musa as a Europeanised king with a gold crown and sceptre; modern-day editors diligently follow in these footsteps. There's no source to support this stuff, but putting a "flag" on Commons seems to sidestep the usual requirement for content on wikipedias to be sourced. bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you've restored the text to Black flag.svg. Why? It is historically inaccurate to use the image to represent Abbasids, so why encourage it? bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- the Catalan Atlas relied on 2nd-hand and 3rd-hand accounts, but we know from Arabic sources themselves that black was the dynastic color of the Abbasids. The Abbasids didn't have rectangular national flags, but they did have black banners, and therefore as long as people insist on using flags in medieval infoboxes, File:Black flag.svg remains the least bad option (certainly much better than some other things which have been used in the past, such as File:Abbasid_flag.png). AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. There's a citation at footnote 8 of en:Black Standard,. whatever that's worth... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that it could be much worse :-) I merely disagree that the current situation is the least-bad option. If we didn't have text encouraging editors to use the image just like modern flags, then we might expect fewer editors to use the image just like modern flags. bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The text on File:Black flag.svg says directly "the concept of rectangular national flags did not exist during Abbasid times", so it seems to me that your quarrel is really with infoboxes. I have no particular intention of generally encouraging the use of modern flag-type images to represent the Abbasids, but only to channel users towards that particular file if something is to be used to represent the Abbasids in an infobox anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Map reverts

May I know why you reverted this map to version of Nikola Smolenski: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_of_Sandzak_within_Serbia_and_Montenegro.png As you are obvious supporter of maps which showing Kosovo outside Serbia, I do not see why you reverted that map to version which shows Kosovo inside Serbia. What is the issue? PANONIAN (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

---

I don't see any new consensus established there, so I will continue the previous consensus that was established for years. Nikola (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not create nonsense categories

Category:Historic maps of Serbia which you just created is a duplicate of this category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_history_of_Serbia Please do not create duplicates of categories which already existing. If you have problems with categorization of some files adress these issues on file talk pages. PANONIAN (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

eMail you sent to me

Hey Bob, I am currently busy with the preparation of the picture of the year contest (COM:POTY/2013) which is almost a fulltime job. If you need help, please ask another administrator. I regret that I cannot help here. Best -- Rillke^(q?) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK; thanks for replying. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Serbia Map.png

Please note that this version has to stay as is as it reflects the borders of 1/1995 during the en:United Nations Security Council Resolution 970. Once the Kosovo/Serbia situation has settled it should be moved to a better name and the modified map without Kosovo placed there instead. General Serbia usage of this map has already been changed to the variant image. --Denniss (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Leptis magna museum.jpg

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

Taivo (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't post my previous username due to privacy concerns. Oversight will be notified. Thank you. VS6507 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You merely renamed your account, so you have already left behind an obvious trail of evidence connecting your old account name to your new one. You can't escape your track record of sockpuppetry, canvassing, copyright violations and POV-pushing. Unless, of course, you start yet another account. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)