File talk:Arms of the House of Savoy.svg

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

Discussion continuing from AN/U

Please discuss problems here on the file talk page. Penyulap ☏ 12:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
problem with the file has been solved. Penyulap ☏ 22:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion to both Fry1989 and Maxxl2

[edit]

I think people don't loose sight of last suggestion to both Fry1989 and Maxxl2 on user problems board. Thanx. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

First let me answer Túrelio's question on my talk page. I think it's very obvious this file was extracted from Katepanomegas' File:Great coat of arms of the king of italy (1890-1946).svg. But it is also extremely obvious that despite the bad faith accusations by Maxxl2 and some established user who is such a coward he has to hide behind his IP address, I had absolutely no intention of "stealing" another user's work and passing it off as my own. Use a little common sense you two, do you really think if that was my intention, I would have included Katepanomegas' attribution license and hotlinked his original file?? Why would I give obvious evidence the arms are from another file if I really wanted to make it look like they were my own? It's because I'm not a thief, and I'm not trying to pass it off as my own, and I'm most certainly not a coward! If you have a problem with my uploads, come talk to me about it and I'll most likely be very receptive to your concerns, and the worst thing I would have done is say I disagree and that I won't change it. But no, you people chose to come at me from the start and attack me and accuse me of bad intentions and lies, and I have no obligation to be nice to people who attack me like that. Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fry, I've never passed any accusation on you nor had any bad faith. It's just the case of others and what they've to say. Plz do not use words such as "coward". Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to Maxxl2 who initiated these accusations of thievery, and to whoever is operating the IP:86.195.82.92, who IS a coward because his recent words have shown he is an established user hiding behind his IP instead of using his real acc oount. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you. Fry for your latest edit of this file. Hope that settles the whole issue. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It is not true that you have included Katepanomegas' attribution license and hotlinked his original file. You uploaded the file 03:05, 2 February 2013 as your own and no original source was mentioned. Eight hours later i found out that this file was extracted from Katepanomegas original and cleaned the code but didnt alter the description. I was waiting for your reaction to correct the ownership and license according the true source you used. Nothing happened from your side. Two days later an IP corrected the description in a proper manor mentioning Katepanomegas as the true author. At about the same time i asked you at the english WP about the matter. Your reaction was the threat in summary of your revert. That means: not you but the IP included the correct license and hotlink at first, which you reverted minutes later. Even until now you are not capable, knowledgeable or willing to state the true source with a link, the true, genuine author and your minor technical action which was performed in the most diletantic way possible. I understand you as a very experienced user here and really dont understand what your motives are to disrespect a departed user that isnt able to protect and defend himself. As you know Katepanemogas left here because of the permanent vandalism and disrespect of his artistical contribution. I hope you will be fair enough to correct the facts in the descriptions according the rules and common practice. --maxxl2   - talk 20:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IT IS TRUE, I did it on the Aosta-line and the Genoa-line shields as soon as I uploaded them and I replicated it on Prince of Piedmont shield and this one shortly after, so don't talk about things you don't even understand. I don't give a damn why Katepanemogas left Commons, it wasn't because of me, he and I never had a problem with eachother or any negative interactions, and I WILL NOT have you accuse me of bad intentions. Can you read my mind? No! So don't try and pretend you know whether or not I intended to pass off one of his works as my own, which is patently false! I did nothing to disrespect him, and if he felt that way, he could come back and say so himself, he doesn't need some hyper-sensitive troll to speak on his behalf. If you don't stop accusing me of deliberate harmful intent and "disrespecting" another user, I will re-open the AN/U board and have your accusations dealt with because they are false and I will not allow myself to be subjected to them! Fry1989 eh? 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, finally you made it as wanted. --maxxl2   - talk 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to do was ask me about it and to change it a certain way, not make scurilous lies about me!!! I didn't do it for you and you can shove your gratitude up where the sun don't shine. Fry1989 eh? 22:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


File size

[edit]

It's slightly grotesque that this visually ultra-simple file is over 1 meg in size! AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can scrub it without chopping off the upper end and changing the white cross so it no longer reaches all the way to the top as Maxx12 did, be my guest. Fry1989 eh? 06:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can see any difference on the thumbnails, but I'll wait until the upload war settles down. If you had a little more expertise and intuitive feel for the SVG format, you would hesitate before uploading a 1-megabyte file consisting solely of a basic white cross on a red shield... AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I'm not going to allow you to criticize me for filling a hole in missing content! I may not have the expert abilities to draw everything from scratch like some of our more prolific contributers, but I have the ability to edit an SVG file and extract elements, which is what I did. I find this obsession with file size way overblown and ridiculous. Some people here seem to be more concerned about how tiny they can make the file size, then with the quality of the image. I have no such problem, and I wont allow it to be forced upon me. If you can make the file smaller without breaking elements or chopping off parts, do it, but don't try and criticize me just because I'm not as obsessive with file size as some people. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the passion for shaving off every last byte of filesize can sometimes morph into an obsession pursued more for its own sake than for the purpose of improving Commons content (1). However, it still remains the case that clean SVG files are better than SVG files filled with unused and useless code, and someone who had a real command of the SVG format and even a minimal degree of pride in their own skill or craftsmanship would not have uploaded a file where a megabyte of cruft overwhelms a minute amount of functional code. You seem to be a more "prolific uploader" than I am, and I am not at all a freehand-drawing-from-scratch artist of the Sodacan type; however, I take responsibility for the SVGs that I significantly edit meeting minimal quality standards. I'll fix it, but there wouldn't be much point for me to try to do that until the edit war settles down... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let me phrase it another way -- if you regularly upload to Commons a significant number of edited versions of SVG files originally authored by other people, then if you have any real interest in doing things reasonably well, you're naturally going to be led to some degree into the technical side of SVGs (looking "under the hood" into the contents of SVGs as raw text files), and not just leaving everything 100% up to Inkscape (or 100% up to Adobe Illustrator). The reason for this is that if you leave everything 100% up to Inkscape, the results in many cases will be far from optimal, and every now and then they will be downright absurd. You've been doing a little better in recent years in less often bloating up SVG file sizes by 100% or more just to change one specific color etc., but in too many cases you still seem to remain rather incurious and complacent about what's going on under the hood -- which leads to absurdities such as a 1-megabyte file consisting solely of a basic white cross on a red shield. AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, learning and experimentation, .. Good. Windoze and commercial software,... BAD! Bad Boy ! :D
That's what commercial bloat-ware is designed to do. I blame it on bill grates. why doesn't he ever get targeted in an airstrike ? why is it always heroes like Assange ? More proof democracy is not what is written on the box. Penyulap ☏ 12:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Fry1989 uses Inkscape, which has definitely has some problems (which in many cases its developers don't seem to care too much about), but is open source. Adobe Illustrator has other problems, but has nothing to do with Microsoft. If Microsoft makes any SVG-editing software, it isn't used by many contributors to Wikimedia Commons. And Assange was a lot more admirable when he was focusing on a broad range of transparency issues, and hadn't yet developed his narrow-vision monomaniacal obsessive hatred of everything connected with the United States, or his personal messiah-persecution complex. He's done a good job of gaining personal publicity for himself, but a poor job of making Wikileaks be an influential organization in advocating for its professed goals. Not that any of this has anything to do with File:Arms of the House of Savoy.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was picking up the synonyms for microsoft, i.e. "bloating up SVG file sizes by 100% or more just to change one specific color" and "a file where a megabyte of cruft overwhelms a minute amount of functional code." that's pretty much the reason you need to outlay hundreds on new hardware and so on to run commercial crap, that's it's purpose, to get $500 so you don't need to send a sms.
Yes Assange bringing the public the images that make them want to vomit and lose their appetite for supporting war, collateral murder, and due process by airstrike and so on and on is offtopic, along with the government of Ecuador helping spread the persecution complex to the 99% outside the windows of the embassy. Like the 911 article, there are some things you just shouldn't mention on any wmf project or File_talk:Arms_of_the_House_of_Savoy.svg either. agreed.
Come to think of it, seeing as I have nothing at all to say about the file right now, I won't say a word. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anonmoos thank you, you have reduced the size without distorting or breaking anything. Fry1989 eh? 21:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Arms_of_the_House_of_Savoy.svg&oldid=90754231"