User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 22

File:Hood River Road Trip Documentary (15689847688).jpg

File:Hood River Road Trip Documentary (15689847688).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!

— Ipoellet (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Índio do Río Uaupés by Décio Villares 1882.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. --Hubertl 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Gracias amigo!!! --Ezarateesteban 22:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

De nada :) --The Photographer (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Por qué hay desabastecimiento en Venezuela.ogv, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Por qué hay desabastecimiento en Venezuela.ogv has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Borrado de archivos

Hola

Por qué pediste el borrado de File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg y de File:Regiones naturales de Venezuela.png ? Si bien la base fueron archivos de venezuelatuya, el trabajo completo disponible para commons era mio, y estos incluso tenían entre las fuentes los archivos originales que me sirvieron de base, pero para nada eran el mismo archivo.

--Shadowxfox (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Era un trabajo derivado de una imagen no libre, es decir, los archivos que te sirvieron de base no eran libres. Fijate aquí hay otro trabajo en donde la persona dice que él hizo todo el trabajo entero él mismo, yo creo en tus palabras pero está esto otro usuario quién dice que todo lo hizo él también. --The Photographer (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pues viendo bien que el archivo base, que era el del escudo de Venezuela, ha tenido tantos problemas por derechos de autor, creo que no me opondré a su borrado. Buscaré una imagen libre o una fotografía histórica de ese escudo, lo vectorizaré y lo subiré siempre y cuando disponga del tiempo para ello. --Shadowxfox (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Se me ocurre que podría ayudarte a buscar esa imagen libre. Te recomiendo interpretar tu mismo el blazón y desarrollarlo tu, yo he perdido mucho tiempo haciendo trabajos basados en otros que resultaron no ser libres y por ende vi perdido mi trabajo. Un abrazo --The Photographer (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why so many photos without categories?

Please add categories to your photos here Category:Files uploaded by The Photographer needing categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

PDF vs SVG

I really hate to say it: There is no way my diagram would get featured regardless of format. Opponents do not find it attractive aesthetically. But just put the compelling issue aside (even though I really take their POV gravely). There are numerous good reasons I exported the PDF from my SVG source for presentation. If you bother to check the SVG source description page you should know that I hand-coded it without the aid of Inkscape for avoiding all the unnecessay Inkscape/Sodipodi metadata, they always present even if you save as "Plain SVG", it is a mile away from being plain in my opinion.

Wikimedia uses LibRSVG for rendering SVG into PNG on-site which is quite different from most browsers and Inkscape, but RSVG has so many flaws and bugs, the ones that directly affect my diagram are: lack of text on curved path[1]; texts render poorly when it is rotated or scaled, text would appear bumpy; lack of desired typefaces on-site which matters aesthetically.

You may argue that I could convert the text to path in Inkscape for consistent rendering result, problem is this would make it difficult for others to modify the text. You may retort that I could upload 2 versions of SVG, but another issue is the conversion by Inkscape bloats the SVG file size tremendously. I tried and the resultant size of my SVG diagram is over 1 MB from the original 50 KB. In comparison conversion to PDF by RSVG-Convert (free application) is only 104 KB because it is smart enough to share the path data of the exact same glyph. If the vector version is not meant to be edited again, then PDF is an obvious choice for me, thanks to Wikimedia for accepting this file type. Lastly many famous transit agencies publish their transit diagram in PDF, including en:Transport for London for their prestigious en:tube map[2], it is a globally accepted practice.

Anyway thank you for voting support in the first place. I thought that was just an act of sympathy because it was so obvious it would get all the downvotes no matter what. Not to mention there is no topological transit map featured on Commons whatsoever. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand how complex it is to make a map like this, I worked making maps from source and in my last map took me three months to do so. The problem you mention the text, is something that I myself have suffered in the flesh. I play with the fonts until I get how to sort the text, in a certain way that does not deform. mediawiki has great technical problems since WMF diverted the current philosophy project to unwillingly become a kind of facebooka and it has delayed major technical improvements. I invite you to add a formal documentation in this case to Librsvg bugs. The best way I've found is to turn the text into a path (Ctrl + C on Inkscape), however, this text can't be edited because it's not a text actually. You could add another SVG "Source" file without text into paths. FPC section is mainly photographers and they really do not care/underestand about how SVG patenrs/standard work, wow factor is more visual, however, is taking a discussion about it right now in the discussion page for FPC. --The Photographer (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Again the file size is my major concern for not using Inkscape's conversion to path because the PDF version by RSVG-Convert is much smaller and more importantly, consistent. Inkscape as of v0.91 does not render my hand-coded SVG files consistently which I always preview in Firefox and SVGCheck on WMFlabs during production, tspan is one of the major offenders of Inkscape's inconsistency. This is not ideal if I have to double-check the details everytime I open my source SVG in Inkscape for conversion to all path. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Another (rather deadly) issue of converting text to path is that the text can no longer be selectable when viewed in real-time or searchable by search engine (Google can search text in SVG if it contains real text). There is a way to overcome this issue but not without tricky manipulation in the SVG source code. No one (at least the other vector graphic experts on Wikimedia) would bother to go through such trouble to maintain neat yet searchable text in their SVG. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I know this problem and I underestand it perfectly. You could open a phabricator and I will follow the ticket. --The Photographer (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless Wikimedia can arrange an expert to take over RSVG from GNOME (obviously a pipe dream), all the reported flaws and bugs would unlikely get fixed in the near future.[3][4] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I used your arguments to make a phabricator, if you want you could follow it. --The Photographer (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied to T40010 due to merger by Aklapper. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ready, merged --The Photographer (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parc du Bois-de-Coulonge, Quebec, Canada.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  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont de L'Aqueduc.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 --Michielverbeek 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cimetière Saint-Charles de Québec, Québec ville, Canada 08.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  Support Good quality. --Commonists 19:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont de L'Aqueduc.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  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cimetière Saint-Charles de Québec, Québec ville, Canada 04.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  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Promenade Saint-Charles 02.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 --Michielverbeek 05:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cimetière Saint-Charles de Québec, Québec ville, Canada 07.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 --Llez 05:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Park Anse-à-Cartier.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  Support Good quality. I like it, but I would improve white (or green). --XRay 06:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Make the sky more white? --Wilfredor 02:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Not the sky more white ... Improving white means the image becomes more brighter. Grayscale or black-and-white development often means to have the gray tones from black to white. The image contains black, but IMO the white part should be improved. --XRay 10:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)  Support But: Second view: It's OK for QI. Some improvements are possible, but for QI OK. --XRay 10:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Promenade Saint-Charles 06.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 Are these actual colors? Looks manipulated. --Discostu 22:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC) The light and colors was altered to show a dramatic scene --Wilfredor 20:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)  Support I like the choice of emphasizing the complementary colours of the main subject and its surroundings. This makes the subject stand out and the scene more interesting. Given the 40 MP resolution, sharpness is acceptable throughout the frame, in my opinion. --Lion-hearted85 12:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Huawei P30 Pro.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 Some fringes left at the top. --Ermell 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC) it's a slight shadow of the same phone --Wilfredor 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)