User talk:Ponor

The File:ARPES constant energy map near Fermi level given in analyzer angle - polar angle units.svg contains raster elements

The SVG image ARPES constant energy map near Fermi level given in analyzer angle - polar angle units.svg you uploaded contains embedded raster graphics^[1] and is now listed in Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes. If appropriate, please replace the raster graphics with vector graphics. You can either upload an improved version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take this message personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Andel (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andel I don't understand, why would you delete these files? Data presented in these are pixels, so no vector format. I could save as vectors, and those would be tens of MB files, and still pixelated vector rectangles (as pixels). Or I could save as png, in which case axes and text would scale badly (but no one would delete the files). Sorry, deleting these files doesn't make sense. They can't get any better, and I've spent hours making them. Please undo. Ponor (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ponor. I'm not intending to delete your files, I just want to encourage you to not mix raster and vector graphics. As you state, vectors and raster graphics have different advantages, but mixed files don't combine those. In your case, when the data is anyway pixelated, a high resolution raster graphic is the format of choice, since there is no advantage when text can be scaled but not the image. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Andel. Thnx for your message. There's a very obvious advantage of bitmaps embedded in SVG:they can be edited, translated to other languages, parts of them can be reused etc. Also, when scaling, text and annotation lines will be scaled exactly for the intended resolution (bitmap text and thin lines are especially bad when it comes to scaling), every time. If I saved bitmap pixels as svg, every pixel would be a rectangle described by many lines of svg code. I provide the best possible bitmaps, put them in a layer, and they scale as they should - like bitmaps, ie interpolated. SVG rectangles would simply become larger rectangles. I'm OK with having any label on my files, you guys do your work. It's not nice to see that pictures of such a quite quality get 'bad svg' label, but that's Wikipedia's problem, not mine. Nothing personal, no hard feelings! Regards,

Ponor (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The File:Graphene moire on Ir(111) - schematic.svg contains raster elements

The SVG image Graphene moire on Ir(111) - schematic.svg you uploaded contains embedded raster graphics^[2] and is now listed in Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes. If appropriate, please replace the raster graphics with vector graphics. You can either upload an improved version or simply allow the file to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take this message personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Andel (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ponor, Also in this case, I'm not suggesting to delete the file, but not to mix vectors and raster graphics. Such geometrics pattern can be perfectly represented with vectors and are then losslessly scaleable. Cheers, --Andel (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this one, Andel, in that all these 'atoms' can be vector circles. Unfortunately, the bitmap is the only file I have because, back then, it was easier for me to code in povray. Is this worse then vector-only? It is. Is it better than bitmap only (including text) ? It is as well. Cheers, Ponor (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Radius_vector_-_position_vector_-_ortsvektor_-_radijvektor.svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Radius_vector_-_position_vector_-_ortsvektor_-_radijvektor.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 {{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. 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!

Please don't claim vectorizations as own, please name the pngsource.

-- — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JoKalliauer: my file does credit File:Plaatsvector.png as "inspired by" in its Summary at commons. Maybe I haven't done it properly, IDK. The images are similar, but not the same. And this is pretty much the standard way of showing the radius vector. So what do you want me to do? Thnx, Ponor (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I corrected it. The template {{Own}} should only be used if you did not use any work from others. I hate wrong own-claims, because compared to naming (illegal) sources, it is almost impossible to check. You correctly mentioned it, just at the wrong place (otherwise I would not have known.)

I just noticed it because {{Own}} did not agree with "Inspired by " (and the files are imho juridically too similar to call it own).

In this case it is not a real problem, because the picture is maybe below the Commons:Threshold_of_originality and therefore public domain.

I used many templates, and they are very confusing and "impossible" to remember. For future: Instead of {{Own}} use Inspired by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plaatsvector.png or in the source-filed similar.

It is important that this is in the source-field because those fields are scanned by bots, e.g. https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en is used for generating correct attributions.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Understood! Still learning. All the templates were added by the upload tool, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to these (and to find out how to do things properly would take me a few... days?). My intention was upload this as a replacement file to the original png, but then I needed different labels in the article I was working on and I uploaded it separately. Thanks for your help. Ponor (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Church of St. Nicholas at Nin, Croatia (11th century) Crkva sv. Nikole kod Nina (11. stoljeće) - europeana.eu 22 69244 CC.jpg

Copyright status: File:Church of St. Nicholas at Nin, Croatia (11th century) Crkva sv. Nikole kod Nina (11. stoljeće) - europeana.eu 22 69244 CC.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Church of St. Nicholas at Nin, Croatia (11th century) Crkva sv. Nikole kod Nina (11. stoljeće) - europeana.eu 22 69244 CC.jpg. 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 06:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

intermediate result for phab

I rerun the tests with 512px (that are CPU-times not wall-clock-times)

	librsvg	resvg	Inkscape	batik
time featured-collection (512px)	4m 28,886s	1m 15,307s	5m 9,164s (2m 27,598s)	10m 8,168s
time resvg-collection (512px)	6m 13,054s	2m 35,135s	38m 5,628s (17m 8.889s/ 2m 22.970s)	63m 36,648s
time w3c-collection (512px)	14m 43,146s	1m 12,591s	21m 14,825s (4m 13.46s)	29m 46,446s

Differences to you:

• I start and exit inkscape for every image (`inkscape "$file" -w 512 --export-type="png"`), which is (for inkscape) very time-consuming, it is imho [it is done currently on WMF-Servers], @Gilles I'm not shure if it is a good idea to keep inkscape open (e.g. hangs) .
• I measure the CPU-time (and limited to one CPU), not the real wall-clock-time.
• I excluded one image [clutch.svg (featured)] (Inkscape hangs), so in my case only one featured image fails in Inkscape (and no other), in your case 16 different images test-suite fails.

As discussed with you, you excluded images that fail after a long time. e.g: Inkscape in the resvg-collection (my times)

• with restarting for each image needs about 38minutes
• without restarting every time: 17minutes, and
• with removing [images] (as you did) 2minutes.

So how to limit maximum time (before success/chrash) should be depending on the time-out-limit, see T200866

---

I thought we might should discuss it outside together to keep the bug-discussion short (less question more clear answers), to change the render to something with a better svg-support than librsvg.

I would like to answer asap, to keep the confusion-level low, so I will update the text above. If you like we can e.g. skype or zoom or phone,... .

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 09:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

e.g. File:test_suite_resvg_e-feImage-016.svg renders 6m 56,771s (Cpu-time) before failure  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Sure, @JoKalliauer: I agree - it's better to discuss this issue elsewhere. Thanks for reaching out to me. I'd separate the problem of failing conversions from run-time measurements because the failing files would be known at upload and would never have to be converted by inkscape en masse. Also, while the other collections are good for bug fixing, I prefer real-life samples when deciding which converter(s) to use. Having said that, how many authors would you say the Featured svgs come from? (I don't know the answer and am lazy to check, just curious if you happen to know) If it's a small number, than we're testing on a small number of editing habits... maybe a more random sample would be better. IDK.

I checked the Featured collection again, on my 4-core Intel Core i5 (2015) 8GB RAM laptop with Fedora 33 installed using two commands:

> time cat all_svgs | inkscape --shell
real 1m24.791s
user 1m58.832s
sys  0m1.435s

> time for file in *.svg; do inkscape $file -w 512 --export-type="png"; done;
real  2m29.141s
user  3m1.803s
sys   0m8.811s

All produced pngs looked fine (even though it's hard to say if something is missing or wrong in those). I agree, file Cone_clutch.svg is weird. I was able to open it in Inkscape (GUI), and was able to save it as another Inkscape svg, but when I tried other svg options GUI would just hang. It got converted using inkscape shell, but the other command failed ("More than 32 iteration while updating document..." - I wish I knew what that meant).

As for the failing files: I found the ones causing problems in the first iteration and excluded them from the list for others. This thus simulates the failing conversion at upload (one-time event), and no conversion by Inkscape later on. Do other converters ever fail? In my view, it's just the matter of some simple scripting to see which files got converted (i.e. produced a png). Other libraries? I would not know how to set those up, maybe you can help: which programs (rpm?), which commands? We can continue by email, if you wish. I'll try to answer as soon as I have my answers ready. Calls might be a bit more challenging, but are possible too. Ponor (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding failing, how I counted time is (now) explained at User_talk:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites#time-out-limit.

Regarding installation/commands will be soon at User:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites/scripts, basically librsvg should be on fedora already, resvg needs to be compiled from https://github.com/RazrFalcon/resvg/, batik can be downloaded from https://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/download.html

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites/scripts is how to install.

Only two files "infinitely" hanged, see User_talk:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites#cite_note-1 (one inkscape,one librsvg), all other file I counted the time.

chashes you have to check on your own in the subpages of User_talk:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites e.g. librsvg: File:W3C_SVG_11_TestSuite_struct-use-12-f.svg, resvg: File:W3C_SVG_11_TestSuite_struct-frag-04-t.svg; the images with black background in User:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites/all_Images

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify which images you removed; mine are in User_talk:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites#cite_note-1

I will publish the text above today.(So I use phab-code) — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: These are the files that caused inkscape to stop running with segmentation fault, or enter a loop with warnings like "Requested update while update in progress, counter = ....":

• e-feImage-015.svg, e-feImage-016.svg, e-feImage-022.svg, e-image-034.svg, e-use-028.svg, e-stop-007.svg, e-stop-008.svg, e-stop-009.svg, e-stop-010.svg
• animate-pservers-grad-01-b.svg, color-prop-01-b.svg, pservers-grad-18-b.svg, struct-image-12-b.svg, styling-inherit-01-b.svg, svgdom-over-01-f.svg Ponor (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

For your information, three related bug-reports:

• https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/1568 : e-stop-007.svg, e-stop-008.svg, e-stop-009.svg, color-prop-01-b.svg, pservers-grad-18-b styling-inherit-01-b.svg,
• https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/1627 : Cone_clutch.svg
• https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/1642 : e-feImage-015.svg, e-feImage-016.svg

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

File:40-Argo-Navis-Constellation.PNG

File:40-Argo-Navis-Constellation.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!

✗plicit 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Cloning

Hi Ponor, accidently I saw your contribution. May be that it's now out of your focus; but when you need some information, you may look at category:SVG_simplification_by_cloning#Cascaded_cloning where facts about casceded cloning are collected, and many examples can be found. -- sarang♥사랑 10:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking of my talk page on HR

Hi @Ponor - as recently elected administrator on Meta:Croatian Wikipedia I would kindly ask you to unlock my Talk page there at HR.
I asked this from HR:Admin:Koreanovsky who did that, thinking that he did it by mistake as an oversight - not understanding my statement well, but ... based on his reply after and highly cynical use of phrase: »prošla baba s kolačima« (The old lady with cakes has already passed by) now I think he actually wanted to use the Talk page block as a punishment. I hope I need not to elaborate that such thing is against good practice and blocking policy on Wikipedia (at least on EN:WP:Block), if Wikipedia in Croatian language would have blocking policy at all. --Zblace (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC) minor corrections --Zblace (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ponor could you please unlock my talk page so I can make a request to HR Wikipedia admins in regards to my block? Zblace (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Gentle reminder as I see you were on Commons, but did not react...so a ping @Ponor:  ?! Zblace (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

!

Da ti se ne petljam previše, umjesto ovoga rekoše mi da ide ovako, čisto da ne bi dobio po prstima kao i ja..-- Ma▀▄Ga 15:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pisalo se u isto vrijeme. :D :D :D-- Ma▀▄Ga 15:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Nema na čemu. Ma▀▄Ga 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Greta Thunberg mural in San Francisco - 2023.jpg

File:Greta Thunberg mural in San Francisco - 2023.jpg 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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: no FoP in the USA Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : C.Suthorn.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Zemljopisne karte

Gledam malo ovaj predložak, i koliko mi se čini, ne postoji mogućnost izrade karte s proizvoljnom rutom, ili četvore oči ne vide očito? Ma▀▄Ga 20:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dubrovnik 2016-05-26 DSC06251 view from the wall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --D-Kuru 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dubrovnik 2016-05-26 DSC06252 view from the wall.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)