Discussion:Armoiries de la Finlande

Armoiries « signées »

Je ne vois aucune justification au fait de remplacer les Grandes Armoiries de l'Empire russe qui figurent dans l'article par des armoiries signées « IGOR BARBE », comme s'efforce de le faire l'utilisateur... Barbe Igor (d · c · b). Merci à lui de ne pas insister. — Azurfrog ^{[नीले मेंढक के साथ बात करना]} 18 mars 2011 à 16:02 (CET)

Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire 1882-1917 (mass replacement)

On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982

http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F514_500_csupload_20087025.jpg%3Fu%3D3016084680

At the present moment is initiated his replacement to this picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire

THNKS!

Barbe Igor (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand (though your wording may be somewhat difficult to decipher at times ) that a number of minor inaccuracies may have been corrected in your file, as compared to the current image.

Problem is, we just cannot have here any file or image which is not copyright-free. Even the link to your own version below the current image in the article looks very much like spamming.

However, because you have started explaining the issue with some sources, we might consider including an external link (at the bottom of the article ?) explaining what mistakes have been corrected, with all due sourcing. But forget about including the image within the article. — Azurfrog ^{[नीले मेंढक के साथ बात करना]} 24 mars 2011 à 14:36 (CET)

TO AZURFOG (COOL) Tabled the issue of replacing the old bad on the new good! Hey, people! What do you decide?

Dear Azurfrog (cool) - people are so arranged by nature, are fighting for any occasion. I was happy with everything - even your article with the wrong and bad drawing. The question is - Who are you, that suggests to me – FORFET ABOUT INCLUDING THE IMAGE WITIN the article? Maybe you have more rights than I do - share, I probably do not know what else. Community without us you decide - CHANGE TO FIGURE new, corrected or not to change. And if you do not know what the picture that you protect painted during the PERESTROIKA (1994) - it's your problem. Listen to your colleagues!

Tabled the issue of replacing the old bad on the new good! Hey, people! What do you decide? Barbe Igor (d) 25 mars 2011 à 21:37 (CET)

I have provisionnally changed to the new version, since as a matter of fact the previous one did include a few mistakes (seven roses instead of eight, indeed). But this is subject to the hope that we don't have some later-on issues about copyright questions.
If the copyright is OK, then the new representation is also OK by me.

As for the reactions you have met with, they were due to the fact that signed coats of arms, logos, etc. under copyright, are highly unadvisable here, so much that everybody will delete them. The new version, under the proper licence (I do hope you are OK with this GNU Free documentation licence) and without a name on it, is quite good and a definite improvement. — Azurfrog ^{[नीले मेंढक के साथ बात करना]} 25 mars 2011 à 22:43 (CET)