User talk:Joey-das-WBF
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
 Goodies, tips and tricks
 Made a mistake?
| |
| (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) | ||
--SieBot (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Please link images
[edit]
Hello Joey-das-WBF!
Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.
To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.
You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.
The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!
Thank you. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by MifterBot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Mifter) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by MifterBot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Mifter) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Redirect canceled
[edit]Thanks a lot for your effort in the field of flags. Just a notice: I cancelled the redirect from Image:Flag of Tachov.svg to Image:Flag of Soacha.svg and uploaded a separate version for Tachov, created by myself. IMHO each flag (however identical in appearance) should have its own description page as categories, explanations of the symbolics behing, dates of adoption of the flag etc. may differ. Also the completely strange city in name of the file could be pretty confusing. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I already asked on the WikiProject Flags what to do with flags that are identical in appearance but for different purposes/countries/etc. Sadly I found no definitive answer.
- But I agree that having no description for duplicate flags is confusing if not misleading. I just tried to weigh this against having duplicates that might be deleted without warning for being exact duplicates. Granted, one could cheat here with image sizes, colors, capitalization of color codes in SVG, etc. to prevent them from showing up as exact dupes. I'm just too lazy for that :D
- But I already decided to no longer redirect new flags that are already there. It's just that it's hard now to find the redirects I did again :/ – but they were just a few, a lot less than flags I made.
- But thanks for pointing me to it. --Johannes Rössel (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
TUSC token f000b92be542c913d3c104563d0c70ed
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Flags colours
[edit]Hey, i've seen you are using the colours we defined in a project of Wikipedia in Spanish. But I wouldn't call it "FIAV" colours, because the FIAV is a vexilological association, and they just created the letters code system to define colours for flags, not that RGB code colours. So, it is more like a Wikipedia colours for FIAV codes ;). I feel happy they are being used by other users, because there are a lot of work behind it; as you could see in the discussion, even if you don't understand spanish, is about how the simply colours were selected (an numeric RGB average of an enough sample of current flags) and then a derivative standard process for the other colours. Also, as we try to make works from a written reference, we made a convertion relation for nominal colours and Wikipedia/FIAV colours (that is because many legal texts of many spanish cities and towns the description of the flags use less technical words like "sky blue" or "marine blue"), so that convertion allows us to adapt that nominal colours always in the same Wikipedia/FIAV colours pattern. Hope it can help you in any way :) --HansenBCN (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Should be SVG
[edit]
Please be more careful when tagging images with {{svg|chemical}}. Only simple structural formulae, like this one or this one, should be recreated as SVG. Molecular models like this one or this one are best as PNGs; trying to recreate an image like that as vector artwork would give inaccurate results, not to mention a huge filesize :) Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as those also only contain of simple shapes, lines and gradients a accurate vector representation is possible. They do not exhibit self-shadowing, perspective view or other complex rendering effects. As for the file size, I doubt it'd be much larger as SVG. Although images like those may best be automatically generated instead of hand-drawn. I just lack the data for that. As of now, however, I agree that those can remain PNGs, probably there is noone who would volunteer to create them as vector image. --Johannes Rössel (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- My main concern is actually accuracy, as in the questionable accuracy of hand-drawing a replacement for an automatically generated image. (As for the complex rendering effects such as those you described above, most protein images feature them, although I've only seen one tagged with
{{svg|chemical}}so far.) Thank you for understanding, and keep up the good work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- My main concern is actually accuracy, as in the questionable accuracy of hand-drawing a replacement for an automatically generated image. (As for the complex rendering effects such as those you described above, most protein images feature them, although I've only seen one tagged with
| Image deletion warning | Image:Christian_morning_star.svg 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 image, 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. |
158.103.0.1 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
State Diagram for BGP
[edit]Hi Joey,
I am not sure if I am doing this correctly.
In reference to the BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) page I believe I noticed a mistake in the SVG state diagram for BGP. The arrow from connect -> idle should appears to be in the reverse direction. If this is not the case then it would not be possible to leave the idle state once in this state.
- Hello, I don't know exactly why the diagram is that way. I based the SVG on File:Bgp-fsm.jpg and I copied the arrows precisely as they were. But now as I read the text in the corresponding WP article, I agree that the arrow has to be reversed. I will change this later this evening (or go ahead if you want to do it). —Johannes Rössel (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Joey-das-WBF. Bitte kategorisiere keine hochauflösenden PNG-Strukturformeln in diese Wartungskategorie. Danke. --Leyo 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Already noted after your first deletion of that cat, since you helpfully included a link. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Category:SVG flags of municipalities of "xxx"
[edit]It could, but it is not necessary (I think), I created these categories based on the established names of categories that includes (flags of the municipalities in the department of "xxx"), but I did not know there was already a standard for svg categories, besides that I'm not sure how to rename categories on commons.
Shadowxfox (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Flags, PNG and SVG
[edit]Sorry mate, but I'm gonna continue. If you looked at the category Flag Images that should be SVG, it is BEYOND overcrowded, over 4000 images before I began. The majority can't be converted into SVG because the quality of them is so low that anyone wishing to convert wouldn't know what they're converting. An example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandeira_de_Cachoeirinha.jpg This category should be for flags that there is an actual want or need for SVG, and that have enough detail that you know what you are converting, not for every single flag that just so happens to not currently be in SVG regardless of it's quality in detail. Many others should be converted to PNG first, or simply upgraded to PNG without the need for an SVG version. Fry1989 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- And where's the exact difference in providing a PNG version, then? Provide a similarly low-quality and low-detail image, just with another extension? That's kinda ... futile as well. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- PNG versions of low-quality JPEGs and GIFs can be immensely superior in quality and detail. Not every flag needs an SVG, infact probably many shouldn't be in SVG for different reasons. Fry1989 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- May I kindly refer you to Commons:WikiProject Flags? Read up on the goal of that project and think again what you've been doing. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Flag of Nairobi.svg
[edit]Even if most of what you say is correct, removing authorship information about earlier versions of a file and substituting your own name in its place is not generally considered to be a class act or gracious maneuver. If you want to disassociate your name from a file version which you consider to be of very low quality (and which your own file version is not derived from), there are better ways to do that... AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Noted, but one nagging question remains: So what's the usual way of doing this, then? Naming the file »Flag of Nairobi (better version).svg« would be idiotic; I can't rename the old one (which I didn't even know about when writing the new SVG). And—just out of curiosity—what is it with people replying to messages on my talk page when the originating message was somewhere else? I mean, I have a watch list; I notice replies. Or is that just official policy to make conversation more cumbersome than it already is (which I may easily have missed since I'm not reading the Commons namespace that much). —Johannes Rössel (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- The main way is to upload under a new filename (but probably not with a possibly subjective and self-promoting name like "better version"; instead just suffix "new", or rearrange the elements, so that it's "Nairobi flag" etc. etc.) -- then your image is separate and unlinked with the previously existing file. If the old one is of very low quality, it can then be deleted by a normal deletion nomination process, and your image now stands alone. When you uploaded the new version of File:Flag of Nairobi.svg, then you would have gotten a "do you want to overwrite the previously-existing image?" warning, and at that point would have known that an image under that name already existed on Commons. (If you chose to suppress all warnings, then you have responsibility for the fact that you didn't receive a warning.) People respond on your user talk page to comments you left on their user talk pages because that's the way it's done 99% of the time on English Wikipedia, and the way it's done more often than not here. AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- A name like »Nairobi flag.svg« would go against the conventions established by WikiProject flags. SVGs flags should be available with their names in the form »[flag title] of [entity] [(additional remarks)]« where [flag title] can be one of several things, depending on the usage of flags. I've uploaded images not conforming to that before but back then I didn't know about it.
- I did get the warning and looked at the existing file; the warning said that it was ok to upload over an existing image with a higher-quality one (essentially this is the same process as »Upload a new version of this file«, just a bit more elaborate when going through the basic upload form). Still, a new name would have to go through a delete and rename cycle before the new image has the proper name (provided the old one was in fact of low quality and can be deleted) but it might be as good as it gets. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
SVG template
[edit]I haven't known. Thanks --Magul (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:BSOD_Windows_3.11.png
[edit]
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:BSOD_Windows_3.11.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
–Tryphon☂ 11:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
PNG file size
[edit]Hi Joey,
Thanks for your hard work in reducing the file size of some of my PNG uploads.
How do you do it? Can I save you some effort by uploading more compact PNGs in the first place?
Cheers,
Ben (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I use [optipng](http://optipng.sourceforge.net/). I won't make it a regular thing, though. It was just that I ran it over all PNGs in my cleanup directory for Commons and there happened to be a few old ones that went down in size. The two pictures I compressed were pictures I edited quite a long time ago already and made the background transparent; that's why they were caught with the mass-compression. There also seem to be bots for that; if you take a look here you'll notice that User:Pngbot does that too, even (semi-)automatically. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much for the information.
See you around.
Ben (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I think the flag of Gembloux is not the right one.
- Gironné de douze pièces vert et jaune chargé au centre de l'écu de la ville is the heraldic description of the flag of Gembloux. (source:Armoiries communales en Belgique, Tome I page 374)
- Best regards 91.180.126.57 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Conversion of 3D renders to SVG?
[edit]Hi Joey, I see that you've tagged File:Manual transmission clutch First gear.PNG (and the series) for being better as SVG, rather than PNG.
I understand the benefits of SVG for using the resultant images, but I'm not that familiar with its capabilities as a format and was wondering if you might know something about them. For a good 3D render like this, as opposed to a bad render like this File:Manual transmission First gear.PNG, a lot of the useful 3D appearance of it is because the colours are subtly shaded and do indeed show the 3D nature of the shafts and gears quite well. If this was converted to SVG, can SVG still display this same subtlety, or would the colours lose out and tend to become "blocky"?
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware that it was a rendered image (though now that you mention it, the Goraud shading is apparent). However, yes, in this case I am fairly sure that SVG can adequately represent the image. I might not be able to do that (I'm not much of an artist, as you can see from my uploads, I concentrate on other kinds of images), but the render there essentially only consists of simple shapes and gradients which are fairly easy to faithfully recreate in SVG. There are some excellent 3D SVG diagrams that still exhibit their 3d-ness pretty well, such as File:Joy.svg, File:Receding glacier-en.svg or File:Camara de fotos.svg. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the 
→ Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]
|
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Anatoliy (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
|
|
File:Flag of Mistrato, Risaralda.svg 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. |
Hosmich (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:TawantinSuyu Suyukuna.png
[edit]
|
| This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:TawantinSuyu Suyukuna.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:TawantinSuyu Suyukuna.png]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Yours sincerely, 1989 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|
|
File:Flag of Útica, Cundinamarca.svg 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. |
Lepsyleon (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Flag of Bolivar (Valle del Cauca).svg
[edit].svg){kind=link}
|
|
| This media may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Flag of Bolivar (Valle del Cauca).svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
|
|
File:Flag of Aubange.svg 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. |
Les Meloures (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 |
File:ILOVEYOU Virus Screenshot.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
17jiangz1 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
File tagging File:ILOVEYOU Virus Screenshot.png
[edit]|
|
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:ILOVEYOU Virus Screenshot.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ILOVEYOU Virus Screenshot.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request. |
SCP-2000 12:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Shrinking from 69 KB to 7 KB and using real line-segments for what is intrinsically a line-segment diagram is great! I see one factual change that is probably incorrect. I placed an annotation in the current image. Look at that location in the previous revisions to see the difference. There are some other 3D hinting problems that persist from the original (not getting worse). Let me know if you'd like a reference for the full 3D detail...it's quite an unusual structure to try to represent! DMacks (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Eep, you're right. I totally missed that one. This was not very easy to redraw either. I'm probably also not the best person to tackle structural formulae, since I'm not a chemist; I just happen to know enough SVG to be dangerous and thought, »Well, can't be that hard to redraw those«. Well, I learned quite a bit what the different lines actually mean, but I probably still couldn't reliably generate a good structural formula from something I see in a different kind of diagram. But if you have actionable (to me) suggestions on how to improve the 3D hinting, I'm all eyes. (And on a random note, I've shrunk it down to 4.5 KiB now, because, well, why not ;)) Johannes Rössel (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick-fix. That particular chemical's 3D structure is quite complex ([1] is a VR model, but I think it also is a mirror-image of our commons diagrams). I'm a chemist not a graphic artist and I don't dabble much in SVG. There's not a great perspective that I have yet found to let one see all the details well:( Will think about it a bit and see if I can conjure some at least incremental improvements. DMacks (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg)
This flag you made. Where did you come with that timeline? It's was not the official flag of that Ethiopia between 1975-1987, a discussion has been started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Ethiopia feel free to join. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- As can be seen in the history of that page, it's a vector redraw of a JPEG flag originally. Typically when redrawing raster images as vector images I retain the original file name, especially if it's already in the preferred format for that kind of image. With most of my vectorized images I concentrated on the image, and not so much on whether the image itself was factually incorrect. Apologies on that part. Johannes Rössel (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg&type=revision&diff=38332190&oldid=35858019&diffmode=source){kind=link}
- Okay thanks for the clarification. Good day Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you created the svg file for that flag @ File:Flag_of_Moncagua,_El_Salvador.svg. I'm concerned about its authenticity and verifiability, which I haven't been able to confirmed through my search in RS. An IP that has been vandalizing pages in eswiki has utilized that flag in our of their edits. Could you please provide a RS that justifies the origin of the flag and its local use? thank you. Nacaru (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning. I don't think I've ever created flags from external references and sources. Most, if not all, of my SVG flags are based on a raster image originally, in this case File:Flag_of_Moncagua,_El_Salvador.png. For the simple purpose of making a vector version of images available I didn't habitually check external sources whether it's authentic or not. If it is deemed incorrect or similar, feel free to delete. I'm not particularly attached to 300 bytes of SVG ;-). Johannes Rössel (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|
File:Flag of the Mayan People.svg 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. |
Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|
File:Flag of Luxembourg and France.svg 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. |
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]|
|
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Strukturformeln
[edit]Hallo, danke für die SVG-Optimierungstätigkeiten. Ich hatte eben File:Hydroxyfumaric acid.svg und File:Hydroxymaleic acid.svg auf die alte Version zurückgesetzt, weil die Doppelbindungen so nicht korrekt sind (im Kohlenstoffatom treffen alle Bindungen aufeinander, so sieht es bis auf den Verlauf fast eher wie Einzelbindungen zu verschiedenen Kohlenstoffatomen aus). Ich sehe jetzt, dass das bei einigen anderen deiner Bildvarianten genauso ist (File:Propanil.svg, File:Silver oxalate.svg, File:Phenacyl group.svg, usw.). Könntest du dir das vielleicht nochmal anschauen? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, scheint so eine stilistische Eigenheit von dem Werkzeug zu sein, mit dem ich das gezeichnet hab. Ich glaube, das war SketchEl. Ich weiß nicht, warum das bei anderen besser ist. Vielleicht habe ich das jeweils nachbearbeitet. Tatsächlich habe ich das eher als Grafikaufgabe gemacht und habe nicht viel Ahnung von Strukturformeln, ging allerdings davon aus, dass, wenn ein Werkzeug genau für sowas da ist, das hoffentlich auch korrekt darstellt. Ich kann das aber beheben. Johannes Rössel (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)