User talk:Spartan7W

File:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg

Please remember to edit SVG files using a text editor. The file size should always remain at 39 KB. MB298 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: Why is this? I see no rules outlining this. I used Inkscape, which is of course a recommended SVG editor for the Wikimedia areas, is it not? I see no reason why the file size has to be that number, the Democratic map isn't, the 2012 GOP map is 101 and the 2008 is 99. Spartan7W (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teoamez: @Jc86035: It's been generally established that the Republican map file size should be 39kb, and using text editors will keep it at 39kb. MB298 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: No, you haven't told me why. There is no discussion here to establish that. There is no discussion even created for that file. There is no discussion on the primary talk page. I use Inkscape, which is among the recommended SVG editors by Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with Inkscape. There is no harm done by a larger file size, because there's been a 101 sized file for the GOP 2012 race for years. Spartan7W (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W and MB298: Essentially, Spartan, you're doing it wrong. I'm not sure how you did it using Inkscape, but you keep uploading needlessly large files that, although SVG files, are basically – if you look at them in a text editor – very large bitmap images sandwiched inside one tag in an SVG (instead of a collection of different lines and areas, similar to how HTML looks). It's like drawing a circle using straight lines on a very large sheet of graph paper instead of using a pair of compasses. They may be SVGs, sure, but that's not how SVGs are supposed to work. In addition, making SVG files like that reduces the output quality on the actual Wikipedia articles. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 11:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

None of these maps is a bitmap. I have never uploaded a bitmap. I edit the map file to change a state color, with inkscape, and upload it. It is downloaded, opened, edited, and saved as a SVG. I have never uploaded a bitmap, period. Spartan7W (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Inkscape is good for many SVGs, but editing it with Notepad or TextEdit will keep the file size at 39kb. MB298 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is 39 so vital to you? You give no reason whatsoever. The Democratic map is more than 39, the 2012 maps are more. They are all SVGs. You have an arbitrary number which you do not support in any way with any rationale. Spartan7W (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're making editing more onerous for the rest of us. We don't edit with Inkscape, and frankly it's not easier or desirable for almost anyone but you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal problem. Inkscape is listed atop the list of SVG editing software HERE. Now, nowhere in that the Help:SVG does it say this map has to be 39mb. Nor does it say there is any appropriate file size, other than its overall resolution, which the files I create satisfy. Nowhere does it say I cannot use inkscape or any other program which I use. Nor does it prevent you from doing the same. In fact I see no reason why I cannot edit with Inkscape, which is a simple and quick process, and upload. I violate no rules or guidelines of the commons. The size of 39 is arbitrary. My files are not too large, they harm nothing, they do exactly what they are meant to do. I don't know how you edit your SVG files, but there is no reason I cannot use an editor, and its product, which is suggested by Wikimedia. Are you going to complain about Gage's files being 41MB? Spartan7W (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W, MB298, and Jc86035: Hi everyone, there are many reasons to keep file sizes as small as possible, the one that fits better in this case is that a small file loads faster than a big file. Remember that most people in the world don't have a fast connection and a 2x+ bigger file might take many seconds more to load. As there seem to be only advantages in having small files, there is a paragraph in the SVG help page: Help:SVG#Tidying_up that suggests to reduce file size and another Help:SVG#Plain_SVG,_compressed_SVG,_generic_specifications that points out the problems when saving files with Inkscape or Illustrator. Yes, the size of 39 KB is arbitrary because we didn't get to a smaller one, if someone gets to 30 KB I'll be happy to keep that size as reference. That said, everyone is free to upload a file with the size he wants as everyone is free to reduce the size of such file. As soon as I have time, I'll try to reduce the size of the other primary maps.--Teoamez (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W, MB298, and Teoamez: There's nothing wrong with using Inkscape, Spartan, but it does blow up file sizes a bit. What you did, however, is not what usually happens with Inkscape. Maybe it's the way you saved the file, but if you zoom in to your upload of the map on 10 February, it's pixelated because it is just one giant bitmap in an <image /> tag. That doesn't usually happen with SVGs. Anyway, it's much more efficient, particularly for simple SVGs like this one, to change <path id="MI" fill="#D3D3D3" ... /> to <path id="MI" fill="#283681" ... /> instead of going through Inkscape (and automatically adding unnecessary attributes and line breaks). Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 12:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Mike Huckabee for President No1.jpg

File:Mike Huckabee for President No1.jpg 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Revent^talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

New Johnson Weld 2016 logo

I was wondering if you can find a way to upload the new Johnson-Weld Libertarian campaign logo so that we can update Johnson's campaign article. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:BLM Letterhead.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:BLM Letterhead.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

CoolCanuck ^eh? 16:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@CoolCanuck: I don't need permission. I filed the license under the grounds of "PD-textlogo". This is as clear a case as any of an image which doesn't meet the threshold of originality requisite for copyright protection. Spartan7W (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It can't be licensed under creative commons, then. --CoolCanuck ^eh? 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@CoolCanuck: Yes, it can. There are tens, hundreds of thousands of files under the criterion of "PD-textlogo". That is literally the point of the license. If an image does not meet the threshold of originality, i.e. consisting of text, simple shapes, and colors, it is not subject to copyright. The BLM logo is a yellow background with black text and a black box. That is far below the threshold of originality; even recognizable logos like Best Western or Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign logo do not meet the threshold for subjection of copyright. If no positive copyright status belongs to an image, it can be on the commons. All files on the commons must be free of copyright, and thus in public domain. This image doesn't meet the aforementioned threshold, it is public domain, it remains on the Commons. Spartan7W (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Issue 1: You claim you are the author of the image. Is this correct? Issue 2: If you are not the author, you can NOT release under the creative commons license you have on that page. Even if you are the author, it can't be protected under CC. It's too simple. The image you uploaded cannot be protected by copyright, nor creative commons. I think you're mixing Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons. The solution is to remove yourself from the author, and remove the CC license. Keep the pd license. You can't have both. Thank you. --CoolCanuck ^eh? 00:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't notice the CC license has been removed. Thanks. I will remove the notice. --CoolCanuck ^eh? 00:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@CoolCanuck: Yes, while uploading it I must have accidentally provided a dual-license. The PD-textlogo was there to begin with, and prudent, but the CC-4.0 was erroneous and I understand your concern. Spartan7W (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump-Pence logo

Hey there old friend, it's been awhile, how have you been? I was wondering if you can upload the new Trump-Pence logo, when you can, so I can update his campaign and other articles about Trump's Pence VP announcement. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Once we have a little while to see how its used first. I can't find any reasonable-quality file of this new logo yet, it doesn't appear on the Trump or GOP convention websites as of now. I only want to provide a quality version of this file, which is copyright-free due to the threshold of originality. Spartan7W (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Pope Francis with Congress 2015.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Pope Francis with Congress 2015.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Pence Oval.png

File:Pence Oval.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 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Brianga (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Trump Transparent.png

You edited this file page, of your own upload, to indicate that INeverCry had reviewed it's license. This is grossly inappropriate behavior (INC did not review it) and even if you were a license reviewer they are prohibited from reviewing their own uploads.

The file itself is fine, once correctly reviewed, but when you uploaded (and reviewed) it you used the wrong license (it's CC-BY-SA-2.0, and you claimed CC-BY-2.0). Things like this are why we have license review. Revent^talk 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: I didn't realize this. I simply transposed the description from an identical file, with a background, to use here. I didn't pay attention to that review box. Spartan7W (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Fair enough, sorry if I seemed 'bitey' but I'm sitting here reviewing the backlog of edits that hit the 'not a license reviewer' edit filter. I actually searched the wiki (after commenting here) for other occurrences of that same source URL, and found where INC had made that same mistake on another image from there, so I kinda figured it out.

FYI, the 'better' way to do it is just to make sure the 'full' image from Flickr is on Commons, and use {{Extracted from}} as the source. If you do it that way, you don't need a license review. Alternatively, you can upload the complete image, wait the five minutes or so it takes the bot to review it, and then overwrite it with the modified image....that might not work if the complete image would be a duplicate, though, depending on how you upload. Revent^talk 23:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)