User talk:Emc2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Please stop adding images to my gallery that I did not create. — Omegatron 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had to orphanize those pictures (since they're redundant to the SVG versions), and I didn't actually look at the contents of your gallery page. Please note that those images are going to be deleted anyway. --Emc² (Contact Me Nuvola apps email.png) 12:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
They're not redundant yet. The SVG replacements are inferior as small thumbnails, there are no SVG replacements for the other images in the series, and both BJT symbol NPN.svg and BJT symbol PNP.svg are broken at anything other than full size (there should be an arrowhead on both). This fanatical replacement of PNG images is getting annoying. — Omegatron 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps they're not, but I found them on the Redundant category. Actually, me and Red devil 666 are trying to delete as many PNG versions as possible, and since you're an admin you may easily understand that deleting redundant images is fully compliant with commons policy. --Emc² (Contact Me Nuvola apps email.png) 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the sound of that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with PNG images, and there's no reason they should be replaced without actually checking to see if you're improving the articles. Obviously, if the SVG is superior in a given instance, the PNG should be replaced with it, but there's no reason to replace "as many as possible". They should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the people who work with them and put them in articles. Instead of rampant deletion of PNGs, why don't you notify image authors and users on talk pages that the SVGs are now available for their use? They can decide if the replacements are actually better. — Omegatron 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, redundant images are not supposed to be deleted, according to Category:Redundant. They should be replaced by the red X image. — Omegatron 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the arrows in the image that weren't displaying properly and replaced the PNGs on en.wikipedia. — Omegatron 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundant PNGs[edit]

Hi Emc2, regarding your comment deleting redundant images is fully compliant with commons policy. - this is true but only in the case of FULLY REDUNDANT images. Similar but not exactly the same images are not fully redundant. No one should be forced to be convert to SVG. Please don't change uses of PNG images to SVG images. By all means let people know the SVG exists, and give a link on the PNG image page to the SVG one, but DON'T force anyone to use SVGs by making mass changes. It is extremely unpopular and counter to the aims of Commons, which is to provide an image repository for all Wikimedia projects. If people want to use out-dated formats, we should let them. We are in no danger of running out of disk space so there is no urgent rush to convert quickly and delete all the PNGs. If the SVG is actually an equivalent or superior image, people will naturally migrate to using it over time. In the meantime, may I suggest you save your activities for more urgent tasks, such as orphan or untagged images. Regards, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pfctdayelise, you just said let people know the SVG exists, and give a link on the PNG image page to the SVG one, but DON'T force anyone to use SVGs by making mass changes. This may be a good way to work, but think about Image:Copyleft.svg. It was really better than the PNG one, even scalable! The problem was, that it was used by more than 100 pages. Giving the link to any of them would be simply impossible! So I decided to make mass changes, and I orphanized it in about one hour. The same for Image:Baustelle.svg, just think that PNG one was used about 70 times only on (no templates, manually included), therefore I worked as a "human bot", and substituted 'em all. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes you may be right, but SVG version are often better that PNG ones, and mine is usually a good way to work. Perhaps I should be more careful when orphanizing PNG versions, and sometimes I should only give the link to the vectorial image and wait for an answer. However, thanks for your suggestions. --Emc² (Contact Me Nuvola apps email.png) 10:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response. When I said "let them know" I didn't mean you should go and write on 100 talk pages: but put a link from the image description page to the new one (or leave it tagged "redundant"). Then when local project people see that, if they want to update it, they can. No, it's not a very quick process. But there's no rush, is there?
The two images you give are easy examples. But often mass conversions were done when it was inappropriate. For example with flags and coats-of-arms, when the two images had significant differences (different shades, different details). To you and me or any technical person they might seem like insignificant changes, so who cares if we change them? But to people writing articles who might care a lot about the subject, they sometimes see it as a desecration of their national flag or an uglier version. Sometimes images were substituted when the supposedly "same" image was frankly not the same, and was missing parts! Sometimes it is necessary to keep a PNG, for example to make tiny flag icons (apparently the SVGs don't look very good when they're so tiny). Now, I never checked that thing about the tiny flags out. But it's enough for me to know that a local project wants to keep it, therefore we keep it. The only overriding jusidiction Commons has is on copyright violations. You said SVGs are often "better" than PNGs, and I agree, but it is a subjective matter to determine that. It's a matter of opinion. Therefore, we shouldn't be enforcing our opinions on the local projects. It really, really pisses them off and since one of the most central goals of the Commons is to serve the local projects, that's not good. In the past it led to local projects threatening to stop using the Commons and just use local uploads. Obviously this is an extremely bad situation we want to avoid.
So I think the easiest thing to do with these is just leave them marked as redundant. Who does it hurt to have multiple copies? Trust me, there are more useful things you could be putting your time and efforts to! :)
Let me know what you think. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Donc, per il voto in spagnolo io avevo scritto semplicemente {{contro}} e credevo fosse in italiano... La motivazione del mio parere sfavorevole è che ha fatto così pochi edit negli ultimi mesi che non mi sembrava adatto a fare l'admin. tutto qui... e poi, sono per forza tenuto a dare spiegazioni sul mio parere??? Bye

About the vote expressed in spanish, I just wrote {{contro}} [italian for "against" NbEmc2] as I thought it was in italian... The reason for my vote against him is that he made so few edits within the last months that I don't think he's suitable for the sysop role. that's all... besides, am I really forced to give explanations for my opinion??? Bye, --Broc 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:London-NaturalScienceMuseum.jpg[edit]

Hi Cool Cat, I've just uploaded this picture under a wrong filename, which should be in fact "London-NaturalHistoryMuseum.jpg". Could you please rename it for me? Thanks in advance! --Emc2 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears issue has been taken care of? --Cat out 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Inkscape screenshot.png[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Inkscape screenshot.png 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Damian Yerrick () 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sourdoughbread.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sourdoughbread.jpg, 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:Sourdoughbread.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

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.

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!

shizhao (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)