Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:24, 29 October 2022

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир|year=2024|month=September|day=13}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир}} at the end of today's log.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир

These are totally fake flags without any historical backing and absolutely no reliable sources supports their appearance, thus they are not useful for an educational purpose. It is absolutely clear that every piece of these flags are fake and were created by uploader Лобачев Владимир. Wikimedia Commons is not COM:NOTHOST and we are not allowed to upload fake things and label them as "real". User Лобачев Владимир clearly wants to defeat the purpose of this project and should be presented with strict sanctions for his disruptive activity. ---- Pofka (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basis for the reconstruction is given in the description of each flag.

The descriptions of the flags of the voivodeships are taken from the armorial Kasper Niesiecki.

The coats of arms are depicted in Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1588, as well as on the seals of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).

The presence on the flags of the Chase is mentioned in Statute of the GDL of 1566. In the “Description of European Sarmatia” by Alexander Gvagnini (1579) about the banners of the Novogrudok Voivodeship, it is clearly stated that we are talking about the state emblem of the principality (lat. “Vexillum bicorne rubei coloris Stemmate Magni Ducatus, in campo albo insignitum in bello gestat”). The same phrase is quoted in the Polish edition of the Description in 1611 by Martin Paszkowski (Polish “Chorągiew o dwu rogach masci czerwoney taż co y Wielkiego X. Litew: Mąż zbroyny na koniu białym z miczem...”). Thus, the Pahonia was a symbol of statehood on its banner.

An example of a voivodeship flag (Troksky) and a county flag (Grodno) are given in the book Herby Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. T. 4, „Pasy lite, ozdoby, chorągwie i proporce”, 1905.

Also, the colors of the flags of the voivodeships were printed on 1918 postcard.

Voivodeship flags are already present on Wikimedia Commons, as a reconstruction without citations: File:Banner of Viciebsk Voivodeship.svg, File:Banner of Miensk Voivodeship.svg. Based on the flag of the voivodship, there is the flag of Samogitia - File:Flag of Samogitia.svg. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The frame and the name of the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania (IOANNES CASIMIRUS DEI GRATIA REX POLONIAE MAGNUS DUX LITHUANIAE) were removed, as they were taken from the site of reenactors without reference to an authoritative source. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this, drawings of flags were used without any justification and references to the writing in authoritative sources. Their form is taken from the flags of the Teutonic Order during the Battle of Grunwald.

Here are some flags of the Teutonic Order:

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the image File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg, there has already been discussion about deletion. See File talk:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg. Keep --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Лобачев Владимир: Provide historical sources which includes such design of Lithuanian flags. Teutonic Order flags are not related with Lithuania. Otherwise, all of them should be deleted because they have no educational value and are nothing else than your personal fantasy. Your arguments how you restored 16th century Lithuanian flags colors based on a random Belarusian postcard from 1918 is an absurd (there is no proof that author of this postcard knew the authentic colors) and only testifies that these flags are imaginary and have absolutely no educational value. The 1905 book is not much better for verification purposes and includes only two flags.

Furthermore, the horse riders colors are totally random. You said that you based Lithuanian coats of arms on files in categories (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4), however all files in these categories are colorless, so it once more testifies that you colored the Lithuanian coats of arms randomly, based on your personal taste. Moreover, these horse riders are clearly computer-generated and were not taken from authentic sources. Here are authentic flags from the 15th century (pay attention to the horse rider's colors):

On the contrary, your fake creations reminds LEGO toys instead of authentic reconstructions based on historical sources. In this case COM:NOTHOST rule must be enforced to prevent such purposeful manipulations which have no educational value and only causes harm to users by confusing them. Not a single piece of these flags is authentic. -- Pofka (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the form of banners of the voivodships of the Commonwealth in the 16th century:

Here is the form of the military banners of the Commonwealth in the 17th century:

File:Polski kawaleryjski sztandar.jpg

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a description of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1:

Mąż zbrojny w szyszaku (Petrasancta przydaje srebrny) na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym ; w prawej ręce jaka miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyžami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Kiev Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):

Województwo Kijowskie, że się pomieścić może z starostwem swojem jużem namienił wyżej. Za herb nosi anioła bialego w czerwonem polu. Paproc. o herb. f.718. Gvagnin w Kronice Ruskiej fol. 24, powiada że chorągiew jego zielona o dwu rogach, w polu czerwonem, z jednej strony pogonią Litewską, z drugiej strony Niedźwiedziem czarnym, w polu białym naznaczona, atoli co się tycze pogoni pomylił się Gvagnin. Bielski fol. 9. krom anioła z jednej strony chorągwi, który w jednej ręce miecz goły, nadoł końcem spuszczony, w drugiej pochwy trzyma: na drugiej stronie, przywlaszcza mu Niedźwiedzia w bialem polu, u którego noga lewa przednia trochę do góry podniesiona.

The banner of the Kiev voivodeship was green and had two horns Source: Stefan Kuczyński. Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje. 1993. S. 97. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Duchy of Samogitia from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):

Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają.

Example 3. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Vilnius Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):

Herb województwa tego z jednej strony chorągwi czerwonej pogonia, jakom ją wyżej określił, z drugiej strony kolumny albo słupy, o których gdzie indziej mówić się będzie. Tegoż samego herbu i powiaty w tem województwie zostające zażywają, tylko że chorągwie powiatowe o jednym końcu, województwa chorągiew o dwóch.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Brest Litovsk from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):

Herb tego wojewódziwa Pogonia zwyczajna (bo też do prowineyi należy) tylko że ubior błękitny na koniu i na rycerzu , w polu czerwonem. Paprocki fol. 718.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical accuracy is an issue, but they are educational and I see no copyright problems. How to use them on Wikipedia can be discussed there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with the reconstruction of Lithuanian historians from Samogitia. The difference is small.

See Edmundas Rimša Atrėbutika (lt) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanian version (second) uses authentic Coat of arms of Samogitia (see: File:Grand Coat of Arms of Samogitia.svg), while the one uploaded by Лобачев Владимир uses a self-created fake bear. Moreover, it uses text "Zmudzka", which is non-Lithuanian word, but a Polish/Russian word meaning Samogitia (in Lithuanian it is called Žemaitija). The flag is 100% fake and as already stated previously – has absolutely no educational value, especially when a much more authentic version exists in Commons. By the way, the usage of a Polish/Russian word on a Lithuanian flag reminds some kind of political aims and violates WP:NPOV as no valid sources supports such claim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: In polish it will be "ŻMUDŹ" or "WOJEWÓDZTWO ŻMUDZKIE", if using adjective. But not "żmudzka" - this is russian. Author don't know lithuanian and polish as well, he is writing in russian using latin script. Hoa binh (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoa binh: Yeah, probably this is fake Russian language used on flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Total propaganda. I request to put an end to Лобачев Владимир's actions which clearly violates good-will. -- Pofka (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fake. There were no historically any signs at the flags. And in which language are this sings? Trocka, Witebska - this is not polish language (Witebska WHAT? Trocka WHAT? This is only single adjective without a noun, totally nonsense in polish). Author don't know polish language, this is russian language write in polish alphabet - it's even gramatically incorrect, voivodship was MIŃSKIE, not MIŃSKA - mińska is in russian. Hoa binh (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoa binh: Exactly. Even the names on these flags are totally random and were never used in reality (this is some kind of pseudo Russian language), which once more confirms that these files has absolutely no educational value. By the way, user Лобачев Владимир is already well known for aggressively trying to Russify various topics of Eastern Europe. This is certainly one of these examples. -- Pofka (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete of course. They have no educational, nor any other value except personal - therefore they should be kept personal. It is a clear violation of COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST. This user Лобачев Владимир is even aggressively pushing his fake flags to historic pages claiming they areal (!!). For example he aggressively pushed his anime phantasy flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1792.svg) as a flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litevsk%C3%A9_velkokn%C3%AD%C5%BEectv%C3%AD, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Ducado_de_Lituania, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%8B%E9%99%B6%E5%AE%9B%E5%A4%A7%E5%85%AC%E5%9B%BD, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand-duch%C3%A9_de_Lituanie, https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groothertogdom_Litaue to name just a few. It is a disgrace and corruption of Wikipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Chorągiew Trocka:

Chorągiew Grodzienska:

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- No, no, and no. Someone has put in his book image of Grodno Voivodship military standard (not "flag"!) and put there explanation, that this is grodzieńska, id est: "Flag of Grodno Voivodship". This is just informational sign in the book, not part of the flag. Single "grodzieńska", "trocka" etc. doesn't has any sense in polish. You don't know polish language and making errors. Hoa binh (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scientific Polish source using such words.Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje, Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993, S. 190:
    Chorągwie trocka i grodzieńska tę czerwoną, tylko województwa trockiego i jego mają płachtę niebieską...
    Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly: CHORĄGWIE trocka i grodzieńska - it means "Flags of Trock and Grodno". Single trocka and grodzieńska are just adjectives, and doesn't has any sense without a noun. So, as you show us, you don't know polish language. And you don't understand, what is written in this book. That's all, causa finita. Hoa binh (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Formally, these are not flags of voivodships, but banners militia of the nobility of the voivodeship (en:Pospolite ruszenie). They were used only during the war. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      All he does is creates fake flags with fake texts without any educational value and tries to pollute this project with them. Clearly malicious activity. Knowing this case, his upload history of various coats of arms raises strong further concern how much harm he has already done to this project. I suggest permanent IP BAN. -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Pofka: Yes, we need sanctions for russian missinformation in Wikimedia. We should ban Лобачев Владимир immediately. His boss Putin want to teach Ukrainians about ukrainian history, he want to teach us Polish and Lithuanians about history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No way. There he wrote, that Samogitian bear is Kiev bear. Hoa binh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Hoa binh: Exactly. He is clearly working for the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian structure and spreads Russian propaganda, false information on a daily basis in Wiki projects. -- Pofka (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST Gdarin (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No historical value, no educational value, might be by mistake taken as an illustration in wikipedia article or wikidata item. Paelius ~~discussion~~ 17:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Gdarin and Paelius. Nadzik (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chorągiew Grodzieńska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu grodzieńskego).
Chorągiew Słonimska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu słonimskiego).

Chorągiew grodzieńska. 1615
Chorągiew słonimska. 1588—1633

Chorągwie powiatu grodzieńskiego i słonimskiego z 1 poł. XVII w. Muzeum Wojska Polskiego w Warszawie, nr inw. 24254, 24255 (The banners of the Grodno and Słonim poviats from the first half of the XVII century. Museum of the Polish Army in Warsaw, No. 24254, 24255)

See Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1764-92

Original
Vector version

Here is the original from the heraldic book. Next is the vector version. If someone draws closer to the original, I will only be glad. Isn't vectorization forbidden on Commons? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)

The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai voivode district.

Source: REBORN AFTER DESTRUCTION. Dedicated to the Flags of the Lithuanian Army (vdkaromuziejus.lt). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remove those fictional flags. These flags are intended to imitate modern Belarusian state symbolism and are in conflict with the basic rules of the heraldry tradition system. The blason of coat of arms says exactly how the Lithuanian coat of arms looks like, regardless of whether deviations have occurred, however, deviations are not suitable for presenting any state symbolism. It is worth mentioning that Лобачев Владимир also inserted into several wiki-projects that Belarusian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the "Slavic paganism" was it's the main religion which is completely untrue-evident hoax. If the "Slavic paganism" were practiced at such a late time, there would be archeological sources and artifacts of it in medieval Lithuania, but they are not and especially Slavic religion was extinct. It is clear why these changes have been made when they lack any sources. All these edits are to represent the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the primary ethnic Slavic state and the predecessor of modern Belarus, which means they are not for educational purposes, but for the needs of Belarusian nationalist propaganda to rewrite Lithuanian history. I think such attempts are a threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, you refer to my wrong political position, which is the reason for deleting files? And the sources describing the flags and their image in solid sources, as well as the preserved originals of the historical museum, do not play a role. Did I understand correctly? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, here are two images:
Original from the Polish Army Museum
My drawing

Do you doubt that such a flag exists in the museum, or that my drawing clearly distorts the original? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about this flag of Grodno powet. Note that I do not mention Grodno powet anywhere in my comment, so why do you mention it? I write especially about your flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which you insert in many articles as a state flag, even though it contains obvious deviations from the heraldic model (red or white Vytis instead of blue etc.) which was introduced by Jagiellonians, but imitates the symbolism of modern Belarus, therefore this file

is not suitable for use as the state flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This your answer about flag of Grodno powet is intended to divert the topic although in my post it is clear what I mean. What do you say to why you prefer this flag instead of others? Because it suits to your national/ethnic attitudes as well as other your edits that add Slavic language and the Slavic paganism? To present medieval Lithuania as Slavic?! Dragovit (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's another example: the militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship. I redid it.

Description of banner 1: The coat of arms of the Trakai Voivodeship was the Lithuanian Pogonią in a red field. Based on the color of the banner, the Voivodship parliamentary uniform was created, which was a scarlet robe, green lapels and a white jacket. (Source 1)

Description of banner 2: The banner of the Trakai Voivodeship with two horns contains the coat of arms of the Grand Duke of Lithuania: an armed man on a horse with a sword, in a red field. (Sourse 2)

Source: National Museum, Warsaw

Source: Lithuanian National Museum of Art

Reconstruction of Lithuanian explorers (source)

Updated version

Are there any complaints about this image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, as you said it's a "militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship", if that's true, that's enough, because "militia banner" means it's not a real flag. Military nor personal banners are not state flags and cannot present a state, region or district, they're just banners of some troops or belongs to a person, that's all, so the names of these banners (not flags) are at least inaccurate and misleading, also you present them incorrectly. User Hoa binh says the same thing. These banners contain names and titles (Sigismund III, duke of Lithuania) and apparently belongs to one monarch although in their names are political entities like voivodeships with use since the Middle Ages, which does not make sense, it's weird. Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that "flag" should be replaced with something else. For example, "standard" or "banner". The Russian Wikipedia article and category has been renamed. But here, until the end of the discussion, I cannot rename the files. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pay attention that user Лобачев Владимир continues to upload new versions of these files with significant modifications. This only proves how fake these images really are. -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This allegation is an attack on an objectionable participant. I ask administrators to pay attention to unfounded accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)

Here is the description of the flag in Russian sources:

Образованное в 1506 году Витебское воеводство имело на своем гербе образ воина на белом коне в шлеме с поднятым над головой мечом и щитом с шестиконечным крестом, так называемым "Крестом прп.Евфросинии Полоцкой". <...> О том, как выглядела витебская хоругвь во второй половине ХVI века, можно узнать из книги итальянского волонтера Александра Гваньини "Хроника Европейской Сарматии". Он служил в витебской крепости с 1569 по 1587 г.г. Ротмистр Гваньини писал: "Стяг, на конце раздвоенный, зеленого цвета с гербом Великого князя в белом поле". Однако витебская печать 1559 года — всего лишь за 10 лет до начала службы итальянского волонтера ? имела образ Спаса нерукотворного. Расхождение символических образов городских хоругви и печати позволяет усомниться в том, что "Погоня" была древним городским гербом.
Source: Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание (geraldika.ru)

После административной реформы 1564–1566 гг., когда возникли воеводства, каждое из них получило из великокняжеского скарба (казны) знамя определенного цвета с изображением государственного герба. Известно, что воеводство Полоцкое имело знамя желтое («сикоража»), в белом поле Погоня; воеводство Новогрудское — полосатое («пелистое»), в белом поле герб; воеводство Витебское — зеленое, герб в белом поле; воеводство Берестейское — голубое («блякитное»), в красном поле герб; воеводство Минское — «гвоздиковое» (нежно-красное), в белом поле герб; воеводство Мстиславское — желтое знамя, в «чирвоном полю» герб. Имелись также и знамена поветов, городов с изображениями Погони.
Source: https://news-21-by.turbopages.org/turbo/news.21.by/s/society/2009/10/12/381215.html

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources. Turbopages? Really? -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link contains excerpts from an article by Mikhail Tkachev, a Belarusian historian, archaeologist, local historian, heraldist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Lecturer at Grodno State University. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source with likely distortions. There is a clear consensus that all these flags you created are totally fake and has no historical value. You was the only one who requested to keep it (by the way, voted in favor of yourself twice, but probably that's the way of authoritarian democracy). -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a reliable source with likely distortions." Personal opinion, not based on anything. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for mass-deletion of these images imho. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. A considerable subset of these images is in use on the projects today, so they have to be maintained. I did not see a reason to only delete some of them, but you are welcome to nominate the unused images again, so another admin can make an additional decision. --Ellywa (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир|year=2024|month=September|day=13}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир}} at the end of today's log.

Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир (2)

Created after the initial rejection to stop this disruptive user:

He also uploaded even more worthless modified versions to these older files above. For example, see: this file which has 10 different versions of which 6 versions are completely different from each other. This is a perfect illustration how fake and how worthless these files really are.

The clear majority of the community, including Polish Wikipedia administrator, said at Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир that these files should be deleted and presented valid arguments because they have ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE. I request for a review of this decision by other administrators. Ellywa declined to delete them just because they are used in multiple projects, but they are so widespread NOT because they have any value, but because of the aggressive policy of the uploader Лобачев Владимир to insert these worthless flags into many wiki projects everywhere. Removal of them results in intensive day-to-day edit warring with the uploader and it is impossible to remove them with the intervention of the administrators in all the wiki projects as it requires long explanations in tens of different languages. The job must be done here because they violate one of the main Commons' rules: COM:NOTHOST and that is more than enough. The only way to stop this Russian propagandist bad faith edits, uploads is to delete all of them and to block him because this Russian user is using Wikimedia Commons as a platform to spread fake news about other countries national symbols, flags and the recent Ellywa's decision only encouraged him to create more of these fake flags and to pollute the Wikimedia projects with them. Seeing what is happening in Ukraine, Russian propaganda about other countries should be met with strict sanctions. Please show him that the Wikimedia Commons is not lawless and that bad faith edits, uploads are not welcome here. Pinging other users who also said that these files should be deleted: @Микола Василечко: , @Hoa binh: , @Ke an: , @Gdarin: (Polish Wikipedia admin), @Paelius: , @Nadzik: , @Dragovit: . Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries. Pay attention that real and truly valuable flags, banners cannot have 6 completely different versions uploaded in a short period of time. That is a clear proof of WP:HOAX and bad faith (violation of Commons:Assume good faith). ---- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources for each flag are given in the description of each file. These are historical works of Polish heraldists and modern research in Polish, Belarusian and Russian. Moreover, one historical banner of the voivodeship is available almost in its entirety in National Museum of Lithuania, and the full banner was reconstructed by Vytautas the Great War Museum:
The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum
Updated version

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For many voivodeship banners, articles have been created in the Russian Wikipedia, where all sources are listed in detail. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pofka:
Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries.
I ask the administrators to stop such baseless accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: Can't find any previous discussion on this. Help me? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum
Updated version
Falsification

Falsification!
The shape of the horse is wrong: legs, head, tail.
Not such a knight: sword, head, armor.
Not the blanket on the horse.
This is not a scientific copy, this is the author's vision. And this is not what was in the original! Fantasy!
Others are probably the same fictions and fantasies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you draw a rider and a horse better, I will only be glad. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banner of Vitebsk powet (1609–1618):
Original
Vector drawing
The rider is taken from here

If someone draws better, I will be glad. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a drawing! It is the copying of the wrong horse and rider that led to the falsification of the flags! If you can't draw, don't make fake copies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I draw your attention to the fact that until the 19th century there were no reference images of flags and coats of arms. Description (blazon)) was considered the main one. And each artist painted the flag or coat of arms in his own way, strictly following the description. Therefore, the height of the raised leg of the horse or the length of the sword is not significant. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here you need to understand the difference in the image of a banner based on a picture and an exact copy of a specific picture. I didn't try to make a 100% copy of the drawing. This is only a general idea of the banner of the voivodeship, based on existing images and descriptions. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg

File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg (here the second version was uploaded just in order to purposefully erase one of the main national symbols of Lithuania: Double Cross of the Jagiellonians on a blue shield)

The coat of arms or the Jagiellonian Cross has changed throughout the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At first, his lower crossbar was larger, he was golden and he was located on a blue shield. Later, the crossbars became equal in length. Then the color of the shield turns white, and the cross turns yellow or red. Even later, the shield becomes red, and the cross becomes white or yellow (silver or gold). Although the coats of arms of the Polish nobles and armorials often retained the early colors (golden cross on a blue shield).

Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg
From Armorial Lyncenich. 15th century
Coat of arms on the gravestone of Jagiello. 1435
Fragment of the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1416
Fragment of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1536
From Stemmata Polonica. 16th century
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555
From the coat of arms on the gates of Vilnius Gate of Dawn. Late 16th - early 17th centuries
Coat of arms from the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1764

Bernhard Karl von Koehne clarifies that during the time of Kasper Niesiecki (the author of the drawing of this coat of arms), the rider's shield was red. At the same time, Bernhard Karl von Koehne claims that the blue shield was the main color for the rider.

Even in the Republic of Lithuania there were different versions of the coat of arms

1940
1990
1991

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reply of Лобачев Владимир is a proof of his mass manipulation and purposeful falsification of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. All files he purposefully listed here are inaccurate interpretations by the authors or his own falsifications. The Coat of arms of Lithuania did not change over the years and always had a blue shield with yellow or gray cross. See this gallery:

Flag of Vytautas, 1416
Flag of Jogaila, 1416
Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty, 1440
1492
1548
1555
1550-1609
1601-1700
1764-1795
1793
Banner with emblem of November Uprising, 1830-1831
Since 1918
Since 1991
Authentic coat of arms (with blue shield) on the wall of Wawel Castle in Krakow
On the wall of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow
Coat of arms of John III Sobieski crowning the royal chapel in Gdańsk
Authentic coat of arms of Augustus II the Strong, 18th century
Ceremonial (coronation) sword of Stanisław Augustus Poniatowski, who was the last Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland in 1764-1795

Simply compare 1416 flags with the sword from 1764. Here is a proof how Лобачев Владимир falsified one of the main elements of the coat of arms, but if you check the upload history of these files nominated for deletion you will find much more random falsifications, interpretations that even contradict each other. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banner of Vilnius Voivodeship

Banner of Pospolite ruszeniu of the Vilna Voivodeship in 1615.

SOURCES

In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodeships on the front side of the banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia" (Дубенецкий Н. Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание – ru).

Original-pl: "Woiewodztwo Wileńskie vżyma Pogoniey z iedney strony na choragwi/ a z drugiey strony słupow/ iest choragiew czerwona/ o dwu koncach / barzo wielka. Sa też w tym Woiewodztwie cżtery powiaty dosyč niemałe: iako Osmanski/ Welkomirski/ Braclawski/ y Lidzki/ z ktorych kazdy ma choragiew swa z osobná/ lecż o iednym koncu tylko." (Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597)

Translation: Vilnius Voivodeship had Pahonia on one side on the banner / and on the other side Columns of Gediminas / red banner / double-ended / very large. There are also four good powiats in this voivodship: such as Oshmyansky / Vilkamirski / Braslawsky / and Lidsky / of which each has its own separate banner / with only one end.

Vilna Voivodeship. ... on one side of the red banner - Pahonia, on the other - Columns or Pillars (Wincenty Sarnecki. Obraz stosunkow zachodzacych miedzy Polska Litwa i Rusia, 1869, P. 77).

Kasper Nesetsky in Roll of arms (1728) describes the coat of arms Pogonya as follows: "In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross." (Niesiecki К. Korona polska przy złotej wolności…. — Lwów, 1728. t.1. — 692 s.). B. Köhne specifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Кёне Б. В. О литовских гербах / About Lithuanian coats of arms, 1847 — С. 224).

A characteristic feature was the designation of the povet or voivodship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. Source: Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok : 2018, P. 496 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banner of Duchy of Samogitia

Two sources about the banner are given in the file description. I can explain in more detail here.

A white cloth with two braids, having on one side the Chase - the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield, and on the other - a rising black bear in a silver (white) collar on a red shield - the coat of arms of the Duchy of Samogitia. (Source).

The Pahonia in the Roll of arms of Kasper Nesetsky (1728) is described as follows (source):

Original-pl: Mąż zbrojay w szyszaku na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym; w prawej ręce miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyżami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.

Translation: In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak (helmet) on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross.

B. Köhne clarifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Source)

In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodships on banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia". (Source)

Alexander Gvagnini reports that the voivodeship usually has the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Pursuit on a red shield on a white banner with two braids.

Original-pl: Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają. (Source 1, Source 2)

Marcin Bielski in his "Polish Chronicle" (1597) and Bartosz Paprocki in his book "Coats of Arms of the Polish Knighthood" (1584) report that on one side of the gonfalon there is a Chase, and on the other side there is a rearing black a bear in a white collar, in a red shield, as a symbol of his land. A similar description of the flag was repeated by Kasper Nesetsky in the 18th century. (Source).

A characteristic feature was the designation of the voivodeship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. (Sourse)

A similar reconstruction, but without indicating the territory and the name of the monarch, is given in two sources: vexillographia.ru and zemaitiuzeme.lt.

All known images of banners from 1609-1618 have inscriptions with the name of the monarch and the territory.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the end

Keep There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. Also, I don't think the clearly bad attitude of the nominator should be encouraged by deleting the files. It seems like they nominated them for deletion as a way to grind an axe more then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: "there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime" no there is no evidence. These files are a pure imagination/falsification of the same uploader. See example by Микола Василечко above. If anyone will be allowed to create flags about other countries without any historical backing then we will soon turn this valuable project into a comedy. But that is exactly what this user is trying to do - to defeat the purpose of Wikimedia, Wikipedia in presenting actually valuable, educational content. National symbols is not a toy, therefore mass falsifications should not be tolerated. Check how many times he modified each of these files in a few months by drastically changing symbols, figures, texts, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uumm yeah there is. The drawings are based on real flags. Also, none of the flags I checked are being used on Wikipedia. So your assertion that these somehow defeat the purpose of Wikipedia is obviously hyperbolic nonsense. Same with calling them "mass falsifications" or saying that their existence will turn the project into a comedy. There's a whole category of unofficial flags, Category:Special or fictional flags, that literally no one cares about except for a couple of fringe fear mongers who can't seem to make a real argument for why the flags are an issue. So they just attack the uploaders and play into fake panic about Russian propaganda or whatever. IMO these are no different then fan art.

You could do exactly the same fear mongering, war drum beating about an image like Air Rush.jpg and how it's spreading false information about My Little Pony or whatever and that the uploader is anti-My Little Pony troll that should be blocked for mass falsification of My Little Pony characters or whatever. No one gives a crap about fan art being hosted on Commons though. Let along does My Little Pony fan art make Commons look like a comedy. With fictional flags specifically, there was an RfC about it awhile ago and there was zero consensus that they shouldn't be hosted on Commons. Same goes for the "propaganda" argument. Plenty of things that could be considered propaganda are hosted on Commons. Again, no one cares and it's not really an issue.

Personally, I could give a crap myself if Commons host "propaganda" or not, but there'd have to be a better argument about why such things should be deleted then conspiracy theory laden tirades about Russian trolls or whatever. I think your getting into some extremely questionable territory by going on propaganda witch hunts though. It could set a extremely bad precedent if files were deleted simply because someone thought they were misinformation. Really, Commons is better off as a project if it stays natural on such issues. It's the job of a file host to fight, or take sides in, ideological nationalistic wars. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that we should ignore one of the main rules of the Wikimedia Commons COM:NOTHOST which clearly states that "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection". I see absolutely no possibilities to use fake flags, coats of arms for an educationally useful purposes. Uploading such files only does harm to the project. Sorry, but I have nothing else to discuss because I respect rules and according to this rule it is not allowed to pollute Wikimedia Commons with trashy files. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection." My bad, I didn't know these were photographs of someone's vacation. Those kinds of blatantly wrong and bad faithed statements are exactly why I think the images should be kept. There's zero reason anyone should side with your opinion if you can't make a reasonable argument and do so without using obvious strawmen. Same goes for the nonsense about the images causing harm and polluting Wikimedia Commons with trash. You can yell such things into the void all you want, but you've provided zero evidence that the files cause any harm or are trash. So why I should care? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: I combined the second DR with the first. No need for a new name and I deleted the addition "(continues his dirty work)." Please remember to assume good faith. Ellywa (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin statement here (see above) that these are "fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST" is clearly an authoritative neutral opinion regarding this problem. It should not be allowed to pollute Wikimedia and other Wikipedia projects with trashy files and cause edit warring in every of these projects when somebody tries to remove your fake files. Your decision to keep these files encourages the uploader to cause even more edit warring in other wiki projects and to continue polluting the Wikimedia Commons. Please strongly reconsider your initial decision or another administrator reading this please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics. -- Pofka (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Лобачев Владимир: Without wanting to take a position between you, I will only explain the position of Commons and our rules. Commons is a repository for files. On Commons, we do not decide whether an image is correct or not, whether it is fantasy or real. That should be done on the projects. An admin like myself can delete images that are out of scope per COM:SCOPE, or images which are not educational useful. If an image is used on the projects (and there is no problem with the copyright or privacy) we will keep the image. A discussion of correctness of images should take place at the projects, e.g. Polish, Russian etc. Wikipedia, because on these projects the experts work together to obtain consensus. Currently, many images on the list are in use. On Russian WP, there even exists an article about one of the banners, ru:Полоцкая_хоругвь. Why is it not deleted if - as you say - it is a "fake flag"? Finally, if the uploader appears to be a problem-user involved in editwarring op Wikipedia (I did not check this, and I will not, it is not my task), a solution should be found on the Wikipedia, not here. So please solve the problems on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics (Pofka)

I ask the administrators to take action to restrict me from unfounded accusations and unethical behavior of this user. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed here by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin that your are an offender, so there is no need to falsely pretend a victim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this whole thing just comes off like a bad faith, TENDENTIOUS attempt to get your way by using Commons to skirt around Wikipedia policy. You should really just deal with this on their end instead of trying to use Commons' deletion process as a way to win a disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

these are based on real flags in the meantime this isn't true. Bordure is imaginary, same with the text "Sigismundus..." and "Mińska..." they are taken from completely different flags, banners of so called "wojsko powiatowe", as the name itself suggest these were flags of regiments (not lands!) from powiats (not voivodeships!). Emblems and colors are based on rather vogue descriptions. Flags that are based on primary sources shouldn't be allowed, only those based by reconstructions made by professional historians or vexillologist should be allowed. Literally Wikipedia is the only place you can find maps like this. Marcelus (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the rules for writing Wikipedia articles. But here we have to rely on the rules of Wikimedia Commons. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negative educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Лобачев Владимир is great-russian propagandist. All this flags are ahistorical fakes. They were not flag of voivodships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commolwealt. But Лобачев Владимир is still uplodading them with many new variants and puts them on Wikidata (like here), so then he can say that "there are in use". Hoa binh (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoa binh: I have given below some sources for files reconstruction:

Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566
Alexander Guagnini
Marcin Bielski
Bartosz Paprocki
Kasper Niesiecki
National Museum of Lithuania
Vytautas the Great War Museum
Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego : spisy : w X t. / Inst. historii Pol. akad. nauk ; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa, 2003–2022

Can you name the authors and research papers that dispute the sources cited? Or give a different description and drawings of the banners of the voivodeships? I hope you don't act like in the Polish Wikipedia, where they simply asked the administrator to remove the page with my arguments. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page didn't have any value, and you know it. You are creating talk pages with gallery of multiple of yours graphics, without any commentary or with commentary from Google Translator, which doesn't have any sense. Why, for what? No one knows. Hoa binh (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand correctly that you do not have counter-arguments based on scientific sources? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source where we can find such a flag of let's say Vilnius voivodeship? So far you are giving primary sources that don't even have images of the flags Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your example from Wikidata is based on an actual flag design. Sure, it's not a 1/1 recreation of the original design, but it's not ahistorical fake propaganda by any means either. There's nothing with creating an SVG image of a flag when the original is low quality or otherwise hard to make out. The amount of personal attacks the uploader has received for doing so is rather extremely ridiculous. It would be a BS standard if no one could make a drawing of a flag without being accused of being a Russian propaganda peddler or whatever. Obviously there should be actual evidence to that being the cases besides just "Their spreading propaganda by recreating a flag as an SVG file." Especially if it's going to be used as a justification for deleting the images. Seriously, the whole thing is completely absurd. I could make a much better argument that this whole thing is being fueled by bad faithed Russiaphobia. Viciously attacking someone simply because they are Russian and trying to get their files deleted for the same reason has to at least go against https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-discrimination policy if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You know, it's absolutely true that this file has several uploaded versions different from each other. And at all times, the description of the file has stayed the same. No source has been brought to justify each of these different versions. It seems to truly be fictitious fabrications. Fictitious flags are allowed in Commons as far as I know, but if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. At least some of them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. Shouldn't that be Wikipedia's thing to do deal with? Like would we seriously delete an image just because "So and So Rando Vexillology Blog" is miss-using it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another option would be going through 30 Wikipedia projects and starting discussions in each one of them to remove the images this user is adding. But understandably that's not the most desirable thing to do for anyone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the material was collected, more and more nuances became clear. Therefore, changes were made. For example, it became clear that banners changed over time. Therefore, I decided that it is necessary to specifically indicate in what period of time any image existed. Most of all, including visual material, was for the period of the Russian-Polish war of 1609-1618. When enough material had accumulated, the last edits were made and articles were created indicating all sources: ru:Виленская хоругвь, ru:Витебская хоругвь, ru:Жемайтская хоругвь, ru:Киевская хоругвь, ru:Новогрудская хоругвь, ru:Полоцкая хоругвь, ru:Трокская хоругвь. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is one of these:

1. You hadn't read the source fully but still uploaded a work based on it, and as you later continued reading it you realized your work was inaccurate and had to correct it. Several times, and starting from November 2021 to July 2022.

2. You found new information with other sources, but did not add them into the file or in the edit summaries when uploading the new versions. Therefore, the source in the description that you gave and is still there, "General view of the flag as described by Kasper Nesetsky", is wrong and outdated and only valid for the first version or versions.

Neither favors your credibility as an editor here in this case. Although I might have understood it wrongly. Correct me if such is the case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's figure out the banners in more detail. Take, for example, the Trokai Voivodeship, whose banner of 1615 has survived, although not in full.

We know a description of the banner of 1566 from Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566), another description of 1578 (Alexander Guagnini), and other image of banners of two Lithuanian museums (National Museum of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great War Museum).

Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566: the banner of the voivodeship is blue, the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is located in a white shield.

There are several old heraldic sources of 16-18 centuries, where similar descriptions of the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are given, several is known: Marcin Bielski (Kronika polska, 1597), Alexander Guagnini (Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, 1578), Bartosz Paprocki (Gniazdo cnoty, 1578), Kasper Niesiecki (Korona Polska, 1738).

Kasper Niesiecki is based on a description of the work of previous authors. The most detailed description of the banner of the Trok Voivodeship is given by Alexander Guagnini 1578: The banner was a two-sided rectangular panel of azure fabric of thirty-five ells with with two braids. The front side depicted the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield. All versions (all new file versions) are fully consistent with this description. But the banners continued to change.

National Museum of Lithuania has the preserved part of the banner. Based on the preserved part and description of the heraldic literature of the 16-18 centuries Vytautas the Great War Museum made reconsotation.

In order for the banners of all voivodeships of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to be comparable (on the same date), they are all now made in the reconstructed form of 1615 (Polish–Muscovite War (1609-1618)).

We cannot say that one of the heraldists of the past was wrong, since this is not in scientific sources. To say that the previous versions did not match the descriptions of heraldists is also impossible.

If there is a desire, you can study modern Polish studies in 10 volumes - Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa (Województwo Trockie XIV-XVIII wiek, V. 2). -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather hyperbolic. I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 Wikipedia projects. Maybe four or five at the most, but it's not like there isn't just as many or more deletion requests and AN complaints about this already. Personally, if it were me I'd just deal with it on Wikipedia's end since it's not like someone can't just do an un-deletion request if this turns out to be nonsense or the files can't alternatively be uploaded to Wikipedia. More so because there's already multiple administrators who are saying they won't delete the images if they are still being used on Wikipedia. There's no way your going to be able to edit war the files off the various projects so they can be deleted without it eventually turning into an RfC or ANI complaint. Not to mention this is an ongoing, recurring problem anyway. I'm sure you'd agree that going through this same nonsense every time someone uploads an image of a flag isn't a functional way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's several ways to do it. We could at least get from this deletion request to mark certain files as inaccurate or fictitious. That way nobody in those Wikipedias could defend the use of these files as they would have these tags. This would save several discussions and make editors more prone to your suggestion of going throughout several Wikipedias as there'd be less work to do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Although I think it also needs to be dealt with on Wikipedia's side at some point, but at least that would settle things on Commons end in the meantime. I would also suggest doing an RfC about fictional flags to finally put the issue to rest on Commons' side, but I think there was one recently that people are already ignoring. So I'm not going to waste my time on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about how hoaxes are handled on Commons, but I recognize many trustworthy editors from Polish Wikipedia in that deletion discussion. It seems extremely likely to me that this images are, in fact, mislabelled to the point of being hoaxes or outright fabrications Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adamant1, There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a zero evidence they are based on actual flags. If they are imaginery they should be renamed and moved to proper categories Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus There's images of real flags that the PNGs were based on all over this deletion request. Just to give one example of the many that have been provided, File:Flag of Grodno powet (1413-1795).svg is obviously based on File:Chorągiew grodzieńska.JPG. Anyone can look at Лобачев Владимир's flags and see which original flags they are derivatives of. Really, claiming that his drawings of the flags are completely made up and/or otherwise fictional is just bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic sources and depictions in the two museums are listed above.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Лобачев Владимир I am asking for the source of for example Vilnius voivodeship flag. And no, a primary historical source isn't enough (either way none of the sources mention bordure or any text on the flag), I need actual vexylology book that clearly says that this flag looked exactly that. Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597, Niesiecki K. Herbarz Polski. Tom 1, 1839 — S. 134; Łopatecki K. Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok 2018, P. 496;

Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can not read this things, you are still puting here titles of works in polish, but you can't read them and understand. You are using translator while you are writing in Polish Wikipedia, and what you are writing, don't have any sense in Polish ("Jaki jest winowajca wizerunków historycznych herbów?" - no sense, this is not polish language). You don't know polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian... But you are want to write polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian history by your own. In russian, of course. Hoa binh (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niesiecki and Boniecki are primary sources. I was asking about the secondary source which that provides exact same reproduction as yours. The fact that you refer to Łopatecki's book shows that you do not know the Polish language and do not know what you are talking about. It's a book on the "pospolite ruszenie" and it talks about the flags used by troops called up from the powiats. There is nothing there about what the banners of the voivodeships were like. A voivodeship ensign is not the same as a powiats troop ensign, are you able to understand that? Voivodeship flags were kept in the treasury and only used for special occasions - rulers' funerals, coronations etc.Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The flags that became the model for these reproductions are not voivodeship flags, but the flags of the troops of the so-called 'powiat troops'. These were troops called up by local sejmiks to defend a territory or for a war expedition when the nobles themselves had little desire to fight or found themselves too weak. The first such troops in the Grand Duchy were appointed for Sigismund III's Moscow expedition, which is why his name and titulature are there. As for what the voivodeship banners really looked like, two of them have reached our times: the Bełz and Poznań banners. As we can see, these are simply the coats of arms of these provinces without any additions. Thank you and I would ask you not to publish the products of your own imaginationMarcelus (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are talking about the banners of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. And we are discussing the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They are not necessarily the same. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to me how much leeway people on the delete side give each other to be wrong things. But then their more then willing to fly off the handle about nationalist propaganda spreading or whatever if someone on the keep side so much as gets a fact even slightly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived, so these are closest to the orginals Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived Doesn't that just bolster the idea that this doesn't really matter since there isn't a 100% historically accurate way to draw the banners in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Some authentic banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania survived (see: 1, 2) and they differ in colors, details. We cannot simply create random images of the non-surviving banners without any historical backing because such creations by Commons users are simply worthless and violates the COM:NOTHOST rule as they have no educational purpose. By tolerating such an absurd we will come to a point when somebody will be creating medieval flags with Mickey Mouse. -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2) and in the third (see: 3) he described it as "Principality of Lithuania and Russia" (use translator for this one). We all know that Russia is a state which counts its history only since the second half of the 16th century (see: Tsardom of Russia) and Muscovy (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to Ruthenia (present-day Belarus and Ukraine). Moreover, he removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3, as well as 4, 5, 6), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of propaganda troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. His actions have clear bad faith aims and they are not random mistakes. There is another a bit similar nomination (see: HERE) in which he also aggressively try to distort the Lithuanian symbols by falsely presenting a Belarusian city coat of arms as the Coat of arms of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- When arguments come to an end - attacks on the user begin. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image does not bother anyone--Mar545 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 456: / Line 456: @@
 *{{Comment}} User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the [[w:Coat of arms of Lithuania|Coat of arms of Lithuania]] and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "''Russian coat of arms''" (see: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.jpg&diff=683328311&oldid=683328124 1], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich._Retouch.jpg&diff=683329108&oldid=683329075 2]) and in the third (see: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.png&diff=683774058&oldid=683774043 3]) he described it as "''Principality of Lithuania and Russia''" (use translator for this one). We all know that [[w:Russia|Russia]] is a state which counts its history only since the second half of the 16th century (see: [[w:Tsardom of Russia|Tsardom of Russia]]) and [[w:Grand Duchy of Moscow|Muscovy]] (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to [[w:Ruthenia|Ruthenia]] (present-day [[w:Belarus|Belarus]] and [[w:Ukraine|Ukraine]]). Moreover, he removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.jpg&diff=684477015&oldid=684476744 1], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.png&diff=684476951&oldid=684476946 2], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich._Retouch.jpg&diff=684476514&oldid=684476512 3], as well as [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.jpg&diff=684905958&oldid=684901937 4], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.png&oldid=prev&diff=684905768 5], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania_from_the_Armorial_Lyncenich.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=684905958 6]), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of propaganda troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. His actions have clear bad faith aims and they are not random mistakes. There is another a bit similar nomination (see: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_with_clearly_misleading_names HERE]) in which he also aggressively try to distort the Lithuanian symbols by falsely presenting a Belarusian city coat of arms as the Coat of arms of Lithuania. -- [[User:Pofka|<span style="color:#fdb913;"><strong>Po</strong></span><span style="color:#006a44;"><strong>fk</strong></span><span style="color:#c1272d;"><strong>a</strong></span>]] ([[User talk:Pofka|talk]]) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 ** When arguments come to an end - attacks on the user begin. --[[User:Лобачев Владимир|Лобачев Владимир]] ([[User talk:Лобачев Владимир|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
+*{{vk}} This image does not bother anyone--[[User:Mar545|Mar545]] ([[User talk:Mar545|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:24, 29 October 2022

Contents

Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир