Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, HLHJ!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

blankingEdit

Hi HLHJ, please don't blank category pages. If you want an empty category to be deleted add {{speedy|empty}} on top of the page, that's the easiest way for us to handle it. Thank you. Regards, --Achim (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Achim. I didn't know that and gave up on finding it after a some minutes of searching. I'll know next time. Apologies for making extra work for you. HLHJ (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Rice plantationsEdit

Hi, I nominated this category for deletion. To discuss this, please visit Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Rice plantations. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Kite rig components.jpgEdit

 
File:Kite rig components.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 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!

Yann (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:SkySail flown from foredeck.jpgEdit

 
File:SkySail flown from foredeck.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 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!

Yann (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:MS Beluga SkySails.jpgEdit

 
File:MS Beluga SkySails.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 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!

Yann (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Windspeed kite & traditional sail rigs.jpgEdit

 
File:Windspeed kite & traditional sail rigs.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 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!

Yann (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Kite rig points of sail.jpgEdit

 
File:Kite rig points of sail.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 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!

Yann (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dates of imagesEdit

What basis is there for the dates you've ascribed to File:SeattleWestlake Square Comfort Station Seattle frontage 04.jpg and the other interior images of the Westlake Square Comfort Station? 1917 is the year it was built, and it certainly doesn't look brand new in these photos. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I see now: that's what the City Archivist's office says. I suspect they are wrong, but I see no reason to argue with them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jmabel, I'm always a bit surprised to be asked the exact day on which something was published in the fourteenth century or whatever. I rarely know. In this case, I have a source for a date, but I have no independent knowledge of whether the date is accurate. Thanks for the check, it's nice to know someone's looking! HLHJ (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I suspect it's off by decades, and I've actually given the Seattle Municipal Archivist some corrections in the past, but lacking anything more than an impression I'm going to let this one lie. - 00:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

CompletedEdit

Completed. ǃǃ

(^_^)/

MuseScore shortcomingsEdit

Hi, please have a look at [1] in which I try to address some of your concerns. (Slightly unsure about the best way to discuss this; tell me if a better way is suggested. I’m in #MuseScore on Freenode usually, too.) mirabilos (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
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 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:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Antwort dort. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame Cathedral by Fire rightsEdit

Dear HLHJ,

Did you get the authorization from Tasnim News Agency for the clipped out of Notre_Dame_de_Paris_roof_damage_aerial.webm?

It is a very interesting video, but if the rights are the Tasnim News Agency, this movie can't be on Commons.

Thank you for your answer ArkéoTopia (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ArkéoTopia, the file is a derivative work. It is a video I clipped from a longer video already on Commons (linked as "Source"). The longer video was reviewed by MZaplotnik, who says that it has a compatible license. So I think it is OK. Thank you for the very polite inquiry! HLHJ (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are many many Tasnimnews files here on Commons besause they are published under free license: {{Tasnim}}. Best, MZaplotnik(talk) 21:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback ArkéoTopia (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Soldiersfootmili00munsrich Fig7 anteroposterior arch.pngEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Soldiersfootmili00munsrich Fig7 anteroposterior arch.png, 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.

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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Castillo blanco, I must have mis-typed. Now fixed. HLHJ (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cite chapterEdit

Hello. Please create {{Cite chapter}} which is used on your uploads such as File:Kyoto machiya, Roji 2013.png (all links). Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed using VisualFileChange, which I understand I needed the autopatrol right for. Thanks for the heads-up, 4nn1l2! HLHJ (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Intumescent varnish on kōshi?Edit

  • Your message to me:

A question, out of curiousity... Traditional Japanese architecture looks something like this; a lot of it has wood bars or lattices called Category:Kōshi on the outside, these days often with glass (instead of paper or nothing) inside. If these lattices were painted with clear intumescent varnish, would the wood be likely to resist enough for the lattices to seal themselves? There are lots of these buildings, some are historically-protected, and fire risk is a major concern.

Answer
Thanks for your question. In my experience, the answer is unfortunately more complex than is convenient. Not all intumescents are created equally. For the most part, they rely on hydrates as active ingredients. These are subject to ageing and leaching out over time, which is a contributing factor towards service life limitations. In order to judge the long term performance of an intumescent, it is crucial to actually read and understand the test standards used to qualify them and to assess who, if anybody, is performing the follow up service to maintain the certification listing. If there is no certification listing, that can be indicative. There are products being sold that claim to be intumescent, but really, they are not, or they may be so for a month or two. Then you have other, high performance, exterior products, which have undergone ALL the environmental tests available under UL1709. You need to get the appropriate standards, read them and understand them. Manufacturers may imply certain performance, but it comes down to what they have tested and what they can prove and how environmental influences can affect the expansion volume and expansion pressure. Next, there is also the topic of toxicity, to be considered. Generally, building out of wood has backfired, literally, especially in Japan, but also in other places. The timber industry has a powerful lobby, which has recently succeeded in easing restrictions on combustible buildings, which has resulted in taller and bigger structures to be made of wood. What drives this, is an economic agenda, which has resulted in what I call devolution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with safety, or doing the right thing. It is exclusively a money matter. A veneer of thin film intumescent on timber, I personally find is more of a placebo effect thing, sort of like the Q-Ray. There are no generic answers that work for all of these products. You may meet code with some things, but understand that codes are subject to influence by special interests - because manufacturers care about selling their products. Buy, read, and understand the standards and then apply that to what you're trying to accomplish. Do you want it to meet code, or do you want it to work? Those two things are not necessarily the same. The best thing I can tell you is this: Caveat Emptor. The smartest thing you can do is to keep structures as inorganic as possible. A wooden building may be historic, but it is still a fire trap, where some schmendrick, many moons ago, decided not to heed the obvious lessons of the past and build a fire trap. Just because it's historic, does not mean it's safe, let alone smart. Bear in mind that all fire test standards contain a weasel clause that says that not all conditions can be foreseen and that actual fire behavior can differ from what is tested. It sounds reasonable and it is a lovely fail-safe, which works well in civil proceedings. The test labs only tell you the results of tests they have run to a standard. Manufacturers tout the results and imply safety, in the pretense that the aforementioned weasel clause does not exist. There are reasons for this.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I used your image File:Puf pt tupper.jpg in an en-wp essay. Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad it worked out for you.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Notre Dame de Paris roof damage aerial.webmEdit

 
File:Notre Dame de Paris roof damage aerial.webm 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 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!

Gyrostat (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparent innacuraciesEdit

The drawing at "Notre Dame 531 transverse crop rot.jpg" is probably by Violet le Duc, the 19th century resporer, the same guy who added the fleche that fell through the vaukt. The photograph that you have used for comparison seem to me to show an entirely 19th century structure, not a Medieval one. So that rather than being "inaccurate", the drawing (whoever it is by) almost certainly shows the roof as it was at some time in the 19th century. Amandajm (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense, Amandajm; the truss as destroyed in 2019 seems rather sophisticated for a Gothic original, and more reasonable as a 19th-century additions to the same. I have modified accordingly. I'm leaving the "fact" tag, as a version of this image is widely misused to illustrate the 2019 fire and I want a translingual way to alert people. Copied to relevant discussion pages. HLHJ (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I am using the same to illustrate the cross-section of a Gothic Cathedral. The roof trusses, which have often changed over the years, are not one of the elements that I have discussed.
While the carpenters of the Gothic period were capable of the most beautiful timberwork, they didn't usually bother to finish the beams quite so neatly when they were out of sight.
I say this with the proviso that I have not ever been up into the roofspace above the vault in a large Gothic church. It would be very interesting to find some photos.
Amandajm (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Amandajm, some cathedrals and churches have roofspace tours; they often aren't very popular or well-advertised, and one may have to ask. Tourists find them boring; no artworks up there :). Personally I think that the structural engineering of a building can be beautiful, and understanding it adds to one's appreciation. For photos of Notre-Dame's frames, see Category:Frame of Notre-Dame de Paris. I made these SVG cross-sections of Notre-Dame (showing the tension and compression); see the file pages for their known omissions and inaccuracies. HLHJ (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I love roofs. I have an interest in roof drainage. Unfortunately I have reached an age where my knees don't do ladders any more, and steep spiral staircases are OK on the way up, but threaten disaster on the way down.
I was just chatting to a friend who once ascended the tower of Ulm Minster. Luckily, that is not on my bucket list. Amandajm (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Standing on a sloped roof is hard on the youngest knees. The fire department got up there without stairs... :). HLHJ (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe you added a nonexistent category to this imageEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Snohomish_-_Blackman_House_Museum_-_footwarmer.jpg&curid=7162523&action=history Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Created. Thanks, Jmabel! HLHJ (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Images from File:Prehistoric and Medieval Skis from Glaciers and Ice Patches in Norway.pdfEdit

Could you please add the images from this file? I have already proofread the page on Wikisource. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

TE(æ)A,ea., I extracted the images and uploaded them to Commons (I tried to request a tool for semi-automating this task at last year's Community Wishlist Survey, but the nomination was rejected for lack of a clear description of the problem, and I did not respond in time). I've added the first image to the Wikisource page you linked to, but I'm not sure about the formatting of the image. Please format it as you see fit. Separately, the original publisher's pagination around that image is terrible! HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I agree, for born-digital (or wholly digital-friendly) files like this, an automated extraction system for images would be a lot easier than extracting the images by hand. I’m not that engaged with image formatting, but I’ll do what I think looks right; I usually don’t use image templates, but these images have lengthy captions, so it’s more of a requirement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
You've inserted all of them! Thank you, it looks good. If anyone criticizes the formatting they can suggest something better  . A tool to import academic articles, leaving the humans to do the jobs that actually really need humans, would be great, so I've written a suggestion up at Commons talk:CropTool#PDF quasi-extract, using this job as one of the examples. HLHJ (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading the images, and for the proposal. From my experience, the system that you suggested could likely be fully automated as respects born-digital files, or files that have been converted into wholly digital files. For these, the quality of the scans, in terms of the image resolution, and the alignment of the images, would not be an issue; with scans of physical books, more human involvement would be needed, I think. The captions on digital works would also be easier to identify, compared to scans, where the OCR might make it difficult to extract a caption. One of the main problems I have when proofreading works on Wikisource is images, as I am unable to extract color images easily; a program as the one you have proposed would be quite helpful. I can provide some more examples of works on Wikisource, but your proposal looks to be quite well-written; I certainly support it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC).