File talk:Wikisource-logo.svg

Protect the image

Please protect this image, as it's the version of Wikisource official logo which should be used. – rotemliss – Talk 15:13, 13 July YGe* Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Invalid

The Sourcecode of this logo is invalid[1]. Please correct it or add a Template:InvalidSVG.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Repair suggestions based on prior fixes by Rillke for similar issues with Creative Commons SVG logos:

1. in SVG source line 1 remove standalone="yes", this file does not contain a homebrewn standalone DTD
2. in SVG source line 12 replace "inkscape.sourceforge.net" by "sodipodi.sourceforge.net" for the URL of xmlns:sodipodi
3. in SVG source line 18 replace "1.0" by "1.1" to get a supported SVG version
4. on the protected file page add {{validSVG}}
5. on this talk page in this section disable or remove {{invalidSVG}} and {{edit request|technical=1}}

–Be..anyone (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Edit request}}

 Done, thanks for helping out! Best regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed license

Please see discussion here Commons:Village_pump#Wikisource_logo. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Replace with optimized

{{editprotected}}Replace with File:OptiWikisource-logo.svg. Palosirkka (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry many users have concerns about your optimization (read your user talk page). Wikimedia logos do not need to be optimized and most are not under free licence (which means you should not modify it). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

add category

{{Edit protected}} Please add Category:SVG Wikisource logos. Thanks! :) --관인생략 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Source part should be left not center. —User000name 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a weird user template, do you suggest to subst and fix it here? The page should get a {{Protected file}}, the SVG should be protected, and the meta-data file page could be unprotected. It confuses me when you create an "edit request" section without {{edit request}}: the latter would put this page in a tracking category watched by (some) admins (sometimes). For {{edit request}} the request should contain all info needed for an admin to decide and execute the request in less than, say, 30 seconds. Otherwise the request procedure is just too horrible, and protected pages end up as "never changed" junk (= dead, folks interested to change it would just fork it in an unprotected page.) Be..anyone (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)