User talk:Kmhkmh

English: Welcome to the Commons, Kmhkmh!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Kmhkmh!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Right arrow1.svg was uncategorized on 9 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Odom cube2.svg was uncategorized on 22 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Dreiecksflaeche3.svg was uncategorized on 7 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Intercept theorem vectors 2.svg was uncategorized on 22 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Pythagoras through similarity2.svg was uncategorized on 4 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the same name as another file, which already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Hi Kmhkmh, du hast mit deinem letzten Upload eine zwar derzeit gelöschte andere Datei überschrieben, wodurch nicht nur die Edit-Histories vermischt werden, sondern auch die Darstellung in einer aktuellen DR verfälscht wird. Lade deine Datei bitte unter einem etwas abweichenden Dateinamen hoch. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Die Diskussion war doch abgeschlossen? Zudem verweist die verlinkte Vorlage auf keine gültige RL, wenn ich das richtig verstehe. Den Namen habe ich extra identisch gewählt, da die Datei im Wesentlichen dasselbe Motiv zur Verfügung stellt, ohne jedoch die in der LD diskutierten Probeme zu haben. Ein Problem sehe ich höchstens im Falle einer Löschprüfung, falls die wiederhergestellt werden soll. Gegen das Rücksetzen auf diese frühere Version habe ich jedoch keine Einwände falls das aktuell wird. Entscheidend ist das das Motiv in Commons zur Verfügung steht.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Die Diskussion ist insofern nicht abgeschlossen als bereits gestern eine UR (=LP) gestellt wurde und außerdem nun "dein" Bild in der DR angezeigt wird, was auf jeden Fall irreführend ist. Meine Empfehlung, dass du selbst ein anders benamtes Duplikat (die zu erwartende Fehlermeldung beim Upload kannst du diesmal ignorieren) hochladen solltest, diente (deiner "Gesichtswahrung" und) der Konfliktminimierung. Ich kann auch administrativ eingreifen. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Das eine LP gestellt worden ist, habe ich nicht gesehen. Dann habe ich natürlich nichts gegen eine Verschiebung einzuwenden und will diese nicht behindern. Allerdings verstehe ich die nun vorgeschlagene Vorgehensweise nicht ganz. Das Bild ist doch im Moment zum Split vorgeschlagen, d.h. wenn ein Admin das nun splittet, dann liegt es doch unter einem anderem Namen vor? Anders gefragt soll ich nun:

• ein LA auf mein Bild stellen und es unter anderem Namen erneut hochladen?
• einfach die Abarbeitung des Split abwarten?
• die bad name Vorlage verwenden?

--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Es würde ausreichen, wenn du einfach dieselbe Datei unter einem etwas abweichenden Dateinamen erneut hochlädst. Um den Rest kümmere ich mich dann schon. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK ich lade es dann unter dem Zusatz unter einem leicht anderem Namen erneut hoch.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

neuer Dateiname ist: Zensursula21beta.png. Bild ist noch einmal leicht verändert worden, daher bitte alte Version löschen oder als frühere Version einfügen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kollege Rehman hat die Trennung inzwischen vorgenommen und deine Bildversion in die History deines 2. Uploads eingefügt, wenngleich das für dich ggf. unsichtbar sein mag. --Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Achja könntest du mir bitte auch den Link zur UR posten, irgendwie finde ich den nicht.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hier: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Stasi-2.1-zensursula.png. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

danke--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Zensursula21beta.png

File:Zensursula21beta.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!

Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stasi-2.1-zensursula.png ist dir sicher bekannt. An der Lage hat sich nichts geändert. Die Grundlage ist nicht unter einer freien Lizenz verfügbar und die Bearbeitung kann das nicht heilen. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Vielleicht solltest du zunächst einmal informieren und die Lizenzen bzw. verwendeten Quellen genauer anschauen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bearbeitung eines urheberrechtlich geschützten Werks

File:Tazawako 589.jpg wurde als Urheberrechtsverletzung gekennzeichnet. Auf den Wikimedia Commons werden nur Dateien, die unter freien Lizenzen stehen, akzeptiert, das heißt Bilder und andere Mediendateien, die von jedem für jeden Zweck verwendet werden dürfen. Fotografien oder Bearbeitungen eines urheberrechtlich geschützten Werks unterliegen demselben Urheberrecht wie das ursprüngliche Werk selbst, weshalb auch diese Datei nicht als frei gelten kann. Für nähere Informationen lies bitte Commons:Bearbeitungen und Commons:Freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit). Fragen zu Commons können im Commons:Forum gestellt werden. Die Datei, die du hochgeladen hast, wird bald gelöscht. Wenn du der Meinung bist, dies sei keine Derivat einer urheberrechtlich geschützten Arbeit, erkläre dies bitte auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite.

also 589-592 see Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Japan--KTo288 (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use at other projects

re your question about fair use, just found this link meta:Non-free content.--KTo288 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for note. I might consider uploading it en.wp then, since there it is of value for illustrating 2 articles (lake tazawa and the deceased artist).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Hanfried Lenz.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hanfried Lenz.jpg. 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.

 

A.Savin 10:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

svgs with raster

Hello Kmhkmh,

some of the svg you uploaded contain raster elements. These are listed below.

• 
  Pythagoras through similarity2.svg
• 
  Schwerpunktberechnung1.svg
• 
  Dreiecksflaeche1.svg
• 
  Pythagoras through similarity.svg
• 
  Intercept theorem vectors 2.svg
• 
  Lineare funktionen3.svg
• 
  Odom cube2.svg
• 
  Lineare funktionen.svg
• 
  Mechanical Quadratrix or Quadratrixzirkel.svg

It would be really cool if you could replace these raster elements in the files.

Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

GeoGebra

Hallo, du bereicherst die Wikipedia mit wertvollen Beiträgen, und erstellst viele SVG-Grafiken mit GeoGebra. Nur mit der Kategorisierung scheinst du gelegentlich noch Schwierigleiten zu haben, und ein wenig habe ich bereits zurechtgerückt. Würde es dir was ausmachen, künftig nicht mehr in die Metakategorie Created with GeoGebra zu kategorisieren, besser sind sie in Valid SVG created with GeoGebra aufgehoben. Geht ganz leicht, siehe zB Ellipse conjugated diameter.svg mit der Vorlage {{Image generation}}: |Other fields={{Igen|GeoGebra|+}}. Sieht vielleicht umständlich oder kryptisch aus, ist aber sehr effektiv. Wenn es dir nicht gefällt dann setze zumindest das "v": {{Created with GeoGebra|v}}. mfg sarang♥사랑 06:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sarang: |Hmm, ich hatte den Zusatz "|v" in der Beschreibung in Valid SVG created with GeoGebra wohl überlesen oder die falsche Vorlage von einer anderen Datei kopiert.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Gibt es eigentlich eine einfache Möglichkeit die svg-Dateien auf Validität zu testen (siehe auch Abschnitt eins weiter oben)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Einfachere Möglichkeit - seit das tool dazu abgeschaltet worden ist geht es nur mehr mit dem W3C-Validator. Den aufzurufen gibt es allerdings verschiedene Optionen. Ich kann es direkt weil mein common.js das unterstützt. Kannst du dir natürlich auch einrichten, doch sind deine GeoGebra-Dateien ohnehin fast alle valide. Sonst ginge es noch indem einfach das GeoGebra|v dazueditiert wird und (vor dem save) mittels des erzeugten Link validiert wird; dann ist immer noch wahlfrei ob gesaved wird, ev. nach textuellen Korrekturen.

Generell wichtig: "invalide" heisst nicht "schlecht" oder "unbrauchbar", sondern lediglich dass der W3C-Validator formale Verstösse gefunden hat (oder zu haben glaubt). Viel schlimmer sind andere Eigenschaften wie zB eingebettete Rastergrafiken, aber das machen vor allem andere Editoren und GeoGebra wohl nicht. Die (In-)Valididät ist hier mehr ein Sortierkriterium minderer Wichtigkeit: es bringt nicht viel in die total überfüllte Kategorie Valid SVG noch mehr reinzustopfen, deshalb die vielen Subkategorien die eine bessere Übersicht ermöglichen, und auch eine gewisse Aussage liefern wie sehr die verschiedenen Tools verwendet werden. Gruss sarang♥사랑 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Die Bedeutung von valide in diesem Kontext ist mir schon klar. Mir geht es darum möglichst einfach erkennen zu können, ob die von einer Software erzeugte SVG-Datei valide ist, ohne dass ich per Hand die Validität überprüfen muss. Geogebra hat das Erzeugen von svg-Dateien wohl mehrfach überarbeiten und ältere Versionen waren wohl fehlerhaft bzw. erzeugten nicht valide Dateien. Nur kann sich in neuen Versionen ja auch in den ein Fehler einschleichen und das Konvertieren von 3D-Grafiken in Dateiformate ist derzeit noch recht "experimentell". SVG funktioniert da überhaupt nicht und selbst bei PNG stürzt er öfter ab als eine korrekte Datei zu erzeugen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ellipse def.svg

Hi Kmhkmh. Der Rahmen um „F₂“ ist wohl nicht Absicht, oder? Kriegst du ihn weg? --Leyo 06:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nein das liegt an der die ungewollt/unbemerkt eines Objekte markiert hat und sowas aus unerfindlichen Gründen in den svg-Export übernimmt. Ich schaue mal ob es sich korrigieren lässt - danke für den Hinweis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Indus_flooding_2010_en.svg

This message is regarding an image file you have uploaded, Indus_flooding_2010_en.svg. It shows the Siachen Glacier, which is controlled and administered by India, as a part of the Pakistan occupied Kashmir's Gilgit-Baltistan region which is incorrect.

— Deepak_HK「@talk」 11:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. The Siachen Glacier is not shown in the picture. The borders displayed in the graphic display borders you will find in most international maps.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Das Meckerproblem

Danke nochmals für deine Hilfe mit der grasenden Ziege. Ich habe allerdings deine Grafik ausgetauscht. Aufgrund der Schriftart hat eine Leserin die Eins zunächst mit L verwechselt (dummerweise ist dieser Radius auch noch links von einem eingezeichnet, der mit R angeschrieben ist, R wie "rechts"). Der Hintergrund ist nicht einheitlich weiß und wird auf meinem Laptop seltsam angezeigt. Und das Rot hat einen Himbeer-Touch und war nicht mit der anderen Grafik im Artikel identisch. Wenn du diese Datei löschen lassen willst, hätte ich nichts dagegen. Danke trotzdem! --Mnchnstnr (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mnchnstnr: Der unheitliche Hintegrund entstand durch das Setzen eines falschen Häkchens beim Abspeichern. Ich habe jetzt einmal den Hintergrund repariert und den Font gewechselt. Ob du es verwenden willst oder nicht ist dir überlassen. Allerdings wäre es schon sinnvoll, wenn du deine neue Grafik als svg zur Verfügung stellen könntest, da dieses das von WP präferierte Format für solche Zeichnungen ist (wegen der besseren Skalierbarkeit, die für die Anpassung an verschiedene Ausgabegeräte sowie für die allgemeine Weiterverwendung wichtig ist).

Löschen werde ich die Datei nicht lassen, da in Commons nicht nur Dateien stehen die in WP genutzt werden, sondern dort generell freie Dateien gesammelt, die bei Bedarf in anderem WMF-Projekten oder auch von Externen genutzt werden können.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Ich bin eine ziemliche Nuss in Sachen Grafik und SVG muss ich erst noch lernen. --Mnchnstnr (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Im Ideafall muss man svg beim Abscheichern nur auswählen. Ansonsten ein bekanntes freies svg-basiertes Zeichenprogramm ist de:Inkscape, eine relative einfache Möglichkeit exakte mathematische Zeichnungen (auch als svg) zu erzeugen bietet zudem de:GeoGebra.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wäre denn meine Bastelei File:Goat test.svg als Ersatz für File:Goat problem silo 4.png OK? --Mnchnstnr (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Auf alle Fälle, zudem benötigt svg-Variante auch gleich nur 1/10 des Speichers, was sich dann auch gleich positiv auf Ladezeiten des Artikels auswirkt, insbesondere bei Verbindungen mit geringer Bandbreite.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Number construction inverse

Servus Kmhkmh,

Number construction inverse

ein Vorschlag zum nebenstehenden Bild, wenn die Strecken ${\overline {AE}}$ und ${\overline {BD}}$ in der nebenstehenden Skizze in etwa gleich lang gezeichnet werden, ist die Darstellung leichter nachzuvollziehen. Im ersten Augenblich entsteht nämlich der Eindruck die Bezeichnungen der Skizze sind nicht richtig... --Petrus3743 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bei dieser Zeichnung hatte ich wohl einfach die Bezeichnungen in der Multiplikationzeihnung ausgetauscht, was in der Tat zu dem unschönen Effekt führte, dass man zwei sichtbar unterschiedliche lange Strecken mit der Längenbezeichnung 1 hat. Ich habe die Skizze jetzt durch eine exakte Konstruktion ersetzt, so dass die entsprechenden Streckenlängen nun übereinstimmen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Goldsberry.png

File:Goldsberry.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!

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Julia show torso.jpg

File:Julia show torso.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!

Magnus (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Wuhan World Trade Tower.jpeg

File:Wuhan World Trade Tower.jpeg 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!

--Baycrest (Talk) 16:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Game of throwns new7 one layer.svg

File:Game of throwns new7 one layer.svg 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!

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

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) 12:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Mons pubis.jpg

Yours sincerely, Genericusername57 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

When you make derivative works of CC-BY-SA licensed originals, you must credit the original author and preserve the SA license

I fixed the license and attribution of
File:The lemniscate sine and cosine related to the arclength of the lemniscate of Bernoulli.svg, File:The lemniscate sine and cosine related to the arclength of the lemniscate of Bernoulli 2.svg ,
File:The sine and cosine related to the arclength of the unit-diameter circle.svg,
File:Lemniscate constant as an integral.svg.
Please try to be more careful next time. If you are going around Wikimedia/Wikipedia making SVG versions of PNG images, pleas make sure to always credit the original authors. If you pass other people's work off as your own, that is plagiarism and often also copyright infringement.

(I also reverted your change to English Wikipedia; these SVG images are less legible and less attractive than the PNG originals.) –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 02:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Unfortunately the upload process doesn't allow to handle derivative work properly, so you need to add that afterwards. However that aside I don't think that such relatively simple technical drawings have a copyright issue. I didn't actually "vectorize" your images, but created new images from the scratch in GeoGebra and Maple.̃

I have to disagree with regard to the "less attractability or legibility" and the Wikipedia and Commons are quite clear on svg being the preferred format and that such drawings in a pixel based format like png or jpg are to be replaced by svgs. I don't want to engage in a petty dispute of whose pictures should be in the article, but if you want to keep yours there in the long run, you should replace them by your own vector versions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You actually did "vectorize my drawings": you copied the concept, layout, rough colors, text, etc. Which tool you used (whether Geogebra, Inkscape, some custom Javascript code, or hand-written SVG markup) is irrelevant. These are very obviously derivative works; as such you need to preserve the CC-BY-SA license and credit the original author. To do otherwise intentionally is both unethical and legally questionable. As a mistake it's really sloppy, far below the standard I would expect for long-term mediawiki/wikipedia contributors. Obviously I'm not going to sue you about it, but it's quite rude. Please don't make excuses. If you have replaced other PNG images with SVGs across Wikimedia commons, please go fix them. You left these particular ones is an unacceptable state, and if there are more like them it's a serious problem.

Wikipedia does not have any requirement for images of any particular type to use any particular format, and is quite clear that decisions are made by local consensus. The SVG push years ago in the project was an idealistic but misguided effort by a group of ideologues that focused on one arbitrary feature (image format) at the expense of any attention paid to other important image features such as legibility, nice typography, well chosen colors, clear antialiasing, and so on. The two big advantages to SVG are (1) it's easy to translate, for images which have English (or some other language) text in them, and (2) it doesn't have an issue of pixelation when rescaled to larger than original size. Beyond that the advantages are largely marginal, and PNG images are more than adequate for this use case, especially when created at reasonable initial size. Your SVG replacements are in my opinion very signifantly inferior to the originals, and not an acceptable replacement for English Wikipedia (I don't really care about German Wikipedia; do what you like over there). As a general matter, please don't replace PNGs with SVGs unless you are careful to make sure that the text doesn't look like crap.

All the best. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 07:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree here. I'm not aware of any change regarding the svg push and the 2 big advantages you've mentioned yourself still remain. That is, ideally in the long run all pixel based technical drawing should be replaced by svgs (assuming they provide the same visual quality). Emphasis on the condition in the brackets. Considering "legibility, nice typography, well chosen colors, clear antialiasing" is no argument against switching to svg, you can have all that with an svg as well. Now as I've said, if you feel the png versions are visual superior - fine - leave them in article, I personally don't quite see that, but that's a bit in the eye of the beholder anyhow.

I also have to disagree on the copyright issue with regard to simple technical drawings and what you tout a "concept" above are pretty much general properties of (any) technical drawing, that is illustrating an integral as colored area, drawing a lemniscate with different colors to illustrate arcsl and arccl and so on. Illustrating the same mathematical aspect naturally leads to similar drawings rather being a concept originating from an "original" drawing. Not to mention that your drawings of that sort are neither the oldest in Commons nor outside of Wikimedia, therefore I find this copyright argument coming from you frankly a bit rich. Having said that I don't mind your corrections and there's nothing wrong with linking to "original" or older versions. However I see no good reason for removing the templates from the "originals" as you've done for second time now. The general note to prefer svgs given the same visual quality still applies and users of files in Commons can decide for themselves if the visual quality is equal for their intended use or not.

As far as being "rude" is concerned, you might want to examine your own language and actions. Kmhkmh (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make your own technical drawings, go do it. Nobody is stopping you from coming up with your own new ideas and making drawings (indeed, that would be a much better use of your time). If instead you very closely copy other people's CC-BY-SA technical drawings, then you need to preserve the license and attribution. To do otherwise intentionally is profoundly unethical. What you should do here, instead of making excuses and digging in, is to apologize, promise to do better in the future, and immediately go fix any other messes you have made. As for the "templates": your replacement images are, to be blunt, significantly uglier. You basically copied the diagrams very closely except along the way you managed to make them gratuitously worse, with a poor choice of font, the same general idea of color but worse specific choices, worse choice of line style/weight, etc. The resulting diagrams are significantly less legible and less pleasant to look at. They are not adequate "drop-in" replacements, and these templates are inappropriate. Nobody should be encouraged to replace the PNG images with these alternatives. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 09:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Again I have to disagree and doing my own technical drawings anyhow. I'm fine with my ethics, but as I've suggested above, you may want to examine on your own. Other than that I suggest we'll leave it at "agreeing to disagree", because I doubt we'll find common ground here. Kmhkmh (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"may want to examine your own" – I don't have any idea you are referring to. Can you please be specific? I have not to my knowledge ever plagiarized anyone else's drawing and passed it off as my own.

"agree to disagree" – have you or have you not made precise copies of other png images without properly attributing them to the originals you copied? If you have, do you or do you not intend to go search and fix it? If you do not intend to go fix this kind of thing, that is a significant problem which compromises the integrity of the entire Wikimedia project.

inre templates: please do not restore these templates on images I made. They are not appropriate, and you edit warring about it would be abusive. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 09:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You may want to make up your mind whether they are "precise copies" or "look like crap", unless you're telling me now your "original" drawings looked like "crap". Other than that what said above with regard to technical drawings, mathematical concepts and copyright issues still applies. Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

They were clearly supposed to be copies; they were just unfortunately made with poor attention to detail by someone who didn't understand the original choices, and so accidentally contain a variety of gratuitous disimprovements which lead to a significantly worse result. That you apparently do not have the observation skill or good taste to notice the differences doesn't make them acceptable as drop-in replacements; that I personally find them unacceptable as replacements does not make them any less fundamentally copies. It would be a waste of my time, but if you really want I can try to go point by point through the various parts you messed up.

Here's what Wikipedia says: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work. Technical data is uncopyrightable, lacking creativity, but the presentation of data in a graph or chart can be copyrighted, so a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."

These images are very obviously derivative, not based on your own original ideas. In such cases it is a hard (legal and ethical) requirement to cite the original source and preserve the SA license. You can't just claim to be the original author or pick whatever license you want.

In the case that the original is not freely licensed, this kind of copying is straight-up copyright infringement and is disallowed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. People making diagrams which duplicate the (typically uncopyrightable) basic content of existing diagrams need to redraw them using their own creativity, making their own fundamental choices about what specifically to draw and how to draw it. Changing to e.g. an uglier font or color does not cut it for novelty. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 09:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

By all means, please describe in detail were my supposed copy messed up and why/where your choice of illustration of that particular mathematical concept is original. Kmhkmh (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The most disastrous one is

vs.

The field of view, layout, choice of what to draw, choice of red/blue/green/black as basic color categories were all copied directly.

However, you gratuitously switched from moderate and subtle to horrific radioactive colors and you completely screwed up the carefully chosen contour spacing (notice that none of the lines originally overlapped, and there was roughly even color throughout the image), and you made a poor choice of line widths. The mediawiki SVG renderer unfortunately makes a mess of antialiasing the lines (the poor mediawiki SVG renderer compared to (some) built-in browser renderers one strong reason to prefer PNG images to SVGs for anything that is going to be a thumbnail). The axis labels went from mostly legible (the 1s under the red curve were previously not great) to entirely illegible. You added x and y labels but the x is worthless because you can't even see it.

It's hard to even imagine someone thinking the second image is ready to be a drop-in replacement for the first. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 10:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you've picked this one, which I did not replace in the article nor is it among the cases you've complained above. Also I agree your version is better (the reason why I didn't replace it in the article). However this nothing but a straight forward maple plot of a family algebraic curves. Do you really want to make a copyright argument here? The (inferior) colors, distances and maybe the window size is pretty much the only thing you can modify here to assure "originality". Issues with the Wikipedia svg renderer for that particular graphic are a fair point, in particular for the Wikipedia article. However not necessarily a reason to replace the template on Commons, as the renderer issues may not exist or matter in other Wikimedia context and other uses of the Commons file.

I was actually hoping for detailed insights regarding the files you've listed above. Kmhkmh (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't originally notice this one because you didn't replace it in the article, only stuck the nonsense "everyone should use this improved SVG version" template on the commons page.

Yes the creative choices involved in making diagrams, even straight-forward diagrams, are copyrightable. If you copy them and claim the work as your own that is plagiarism. Even in cases where it's not worth someone's trouble to make a legal claim, it's dishonest and not acceptable for Mediawiki to plagiarize diagrams. When you find a diagram with a free license, that means someone else very generously donated their time to you and gave you explicit right to redistribute their work under the terms of the license. Taking liberties beyond that is extremely rude and a shitty thing to do; it's ridiculous to hide behind laziness and parsing out about how (un)creative you think the original work was, when doing the right thing instead is trivially easy in this case. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't like that comparison, take:

vs.

This one is also clearly an attempt at a close copy, and must be credited with the SA license preserved.

Here, the biggest problem is that the font size was decreased making the text substantially illegible at the intended thumbnail size in the replacement. Other than being too small the math formula is a wash (Desmos makes inline fractions too big and picked the wrong paren size under the root). The font used for the foci is horrible in the replacement. The font used for the axis labels is less legible (too bold and too small).

The red and blue colors chosen are more colorful (unnecessary and garish) and lighter (lower contrast, therefore less visible), which causes a particular problem for the text, especially in red; the color makes the red text significantly less legible. There's a weird unnecessary symbol stacked over the origin. The dots are too small and therefore much less visible. The line widths here are too spindly; in particular the dotted line is difficult to see, too thin with an inferior choice of stroke dashes. The lemniscate curve is pointlessly far from centered (putting the arccl text label to the right forces the lemniscate shape to be smaller to accommodate it; the previous label was carefully positioned to allow the lemniscate, an inherently wide shape, to fill the whole width of the image so it could stay as large as possible at any given thumbnail size). The arrows on the axes are unnecessary and I don't like their style.

Every change from the original with the possible exception of the relative size of inline fractions is in my opinion a disimprovement, and there's no advantage at all for this image to be an SVG unless someone wants to view this image at larger than 2000x1000 pixel size, which is a niche use not relevant to Wikipedia (but might be relevant to someone wanting to turn this into a poster or billboard or something). In a thumbnail (as most readers will experience the image) the original is very significantly better. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)