User talk:Pais/Archive 2
Image resizing.
The image used in anisotropic filtering was ALREADY fair use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anisotropic_compare.png it was ALREADY reduced resolution and comprised two screenshots and the resolution it used was of CRITICAL IMPORTANCE to the technical content it was showing for anyone clicking through. Now it has been diminished by your fiddling. I've already defended this image against resize and deletion but I can't be bothered anymore. I'm sick of doing work on Wikipedia only to have the entropy of wikifiddlers erase it. Revert the edit if you know how, I tried and it was gone in the preview. Dorbie —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC).
Hey. I've noticed you've been resizing lots of images, which is cool. If you're interested, there's this, a tool created to streamline the process. It should prove to be quite useful, if you like it. Thanks for all your hard work, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Pais. Delete it then. The article is about the author, not really about the book. Though the book might be mentioned, and covers are used to promote the book, I'm not willing to take this to the Supreme Court... I liked the Obama-related userboxes on your page, I'm surprised to see that there are still a few people with an independent mind on Wikipedia. Kraxler (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Arsenal FC.svg
Hello Pais. I just noticed that you are trying to replace the file File:Arsenal FC.svg with File:Arsenal FC.png. SVG files (which are vector graphics) are preferable to PNG files, which are raster graphics. See Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#Use_SVG_over_PNG for more details. I have reverted your changes and listed the PNG version for deletion. - Gump Stump (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, except that non-free images are supposed to be low-resolution only. If we use SVG graphics for non-free logos, they can be as large as anyone wants. The whole point of keeping non-free images low-resolution is to have them look like crap at high resolution, thus discouraging copyvio. Pais (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The file type (and the ease of creating a high resolution file from a low resolution one) doesn't really matter. Whether it's a PNG or an SVG rendered at 1000px, both are not complying with the Wikimedia non-free content policy. What matters is that any usage of any non-free content on Wikipedia is rendered at the smallest size possible while still being useful, regardless of file type. If someone chooses to download that SVG and violate fair use guidelines themselves, that is their choice and their responsibility. SVG files are much easier to edit, use, and store on Wikipedia, so they are still preferred, even for non-free content. - Gump Stump (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, good job with all the image resizes. There's a list of SVG image editors at List of vector graphics editors, many of which are free, if you want to try resizing SVGs. I use Inkscape, personally. - Gump Stump (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]
- Since SVGs can be rendered at any size, there's no point in resizing them. An SVG whose "nominal resolution" is 292×344 pixels is just as much or as little a violation of WP:NFCC#3b as one whose "nominal resolution" is 737×867 pixels. I've just been reading the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12#File:Man Utd FC .svg and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 33#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ? and it seems there is currently no consensus on the question whether non-free logos should be SVG or PNG, but I didn't see anyone suggesting that nominally "smaller" SVGs are better than nominally "larger" ones. The only consensus I did find is that if SVGs are used, they can't have more detail than would normally show up at thumbnail size in an article. Pais (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]
There is a point to resizing them, as you just said ("The only consensus I did find is that if SVGs are used, they can't have more detail than would normally show up at thumbnail size in an article"). That goes for the file page as well (see for exampleZooFari's comment at 17:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 33#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ?). SVGs have no inherent resolution, so what matters is how large they are rendered when used on Wikipedia. The policies are ambiguous, no doubt; but if non-free SVGs are acceptable, the way to best (i.e. most conservatively) comply with Wikimedia's non-free content guidelines is to never render non-free SVGs at high resolution, whether on the file page or in an article. - Gump Stump (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]- Sorry, I misread when you wrote "detail" vs. "resolution". Ignore my first sentence there. - Gump Stump (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since SVGs can be rendered at any size, there's no point in resizing them. An SVG whose "nominal resolution" is 292×344 pixels is just as much or as little a violation of
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:1965CCFC.jpg
Thank you for uploading
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 67.85.125.17 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned fair-use images
Hi, File:Are You The One? - EP.jpg, File:AoE3 Real-Physics All-in-One.JPG, File:AnitaMuiFinalConcert2.jpg, File:Animated Skull.JPG, File:AmenAndrewsVol5b.jpeg, File:AmenAndrewsVol5a.jpeg, File:AmenAndrewsVol4b.jpeg, File:AmenAndrewsVol4aVersion3.jpeg, File:Alzheimers Stack logo col.png, File:Alive cover.jpg, File:7376-HandbookOfPorphyrinScience.jpg, File:1993habs.jpg, File:1971 Topps Ed Stroud.jpg, File:1970 Topps Super.jpg, File:1970 Topps Greg Gossen.jpg, and File:The Purple Gang.jpg are nominated for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
some are red...
So are you going to create articles for any of these links or are you just hoping someone else will. A templete is not the place to permanently create red links.
- Does it make a difference? "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Pais (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jacob Black.jpg
Conflicted licensing on image File:1955_AMC_Rambler_American_brochure-interior.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Conflicted licensing on image File:1962_Rambler_ChampionPlug_MobilEconRun_AD.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Conflicted licensing on image File:1966_AMC_Ambassador_DPL_ADV-blue.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Anti-China_march_logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to
Please go to
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)