HLHJ

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, HLHJ!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

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

blanking

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 plantations

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.jpg

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 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!

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

File:SkySail flown from foredeck.jpg

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 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!

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

File:MS Beluga SkySails.jpg

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 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!

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

File:Windspeed kite & traditional sail rigs.jpg

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 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!

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

File:Kite rig points of sail.jpg

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 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!

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

Dates of images

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)

Completed

Completed. ǃǃ

• 
  Please fix colour

(^_^)/

MuseScore shortcomings

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 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:SA cigarette ads 1932&1933 01.jpg

And also:

• File:SA cigarette ads 1932&1933 03.jpg
• File:SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg
• File:SA Sturm Zigaretten Der Kuender der Lufte ad.jpg

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 rights

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.png

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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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 given

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, overwriting files uploaded by others 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 chapter

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?

• Your message to me:

• 
  The upper mushiko window is a fire protection measure; the bars are plastered
• 
  Lowest roof is wood. Other popular flammables to hang under the eaves include noren curtains, rice straw ropes and paper streamers (religious), balls of dried sugi leaves (to advertise sake), thin wood signage, blinds, and paper lanterns.
• 
  Charring all the wood superficially has its upsides... The fence is to keep passers-by away from the window
• 
  Or one could build an expensive kura, with enormous thick plaster walls, because the city burns down now and then.

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.webm

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 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!

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

Apparent innacuracies

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 image

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.pdf

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).

Overcategorisation Canopy beds?

Dear HLHJ, Almost all files in Category:Canopy beds in the Netherlands and it's subcategories also got Category:Canopy beds this morning. It looks like you did this by a mass action. To me this seems not right, overcategorisation. Could you please revert this or solve this otherwise? Category:Canopy beds is now overcrowded. Or do you have another plan? JopkeB (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear JopkeB, that was pure stupid haste on my part; I searched "Hemelbed", and stuffed almost all the results into Category:Canopy beds. I've fixed that particular category, and some others, removing images in subcats from the broad category. This has reduced the images in Category:Canopy beds by about a third (Category:Bed curtains and Category:Bed hangings in art seem to overlap heavily and arbitrarily, and might be merged). Some of the things I've moved don't really show significant amounts of a canopy bed. Please feel free to remove any images you think unsuitable; I'll do the same soon. The current remainder of Category:Canopy beds is still 200-odd images, and I will subdivide it following Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Lit à la française once I'm fairly sure I've got the ontologies in the sources figured out. Apologies for trying your patience with this ill-advised mass edit! HLHJ (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear HLHJ, I am glad that you could fix the overcategorisation in Category:Canopy beds in the Netherlands. JopkeB (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear JopkeB, I've half-fixed. More soon. :) HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour, après avoir trouvé votre discussion avec @JopkeB: sur Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Lit à la française, comportant une question à laquelle je viens de répondre je suis stupéfait de constater ce qui se passe dans la catégorie des lits à baldaquin. Si vous pensez qu'il y a un besoin urgent (pour ma part je n'en vois aucun) de déplacer des fichiers de cette catégorie et de carrément la "vider", faites le correctement si vous en avez la compétence requise ou abstenez vous s'il vous plaît.

Il y a des absurdités flagrantes comme par exemple des « lits à l'impériale » (XIXe s.) classées sous la Category:Lit à la turque (XVIIIe) où l'on trouve aussi un salon représentatif d'une turquerie fantaisiste rempli de tout un bric-à-brac sauf ... un lit à la turque ! [2]. Des représentations de lits médiévaux à demi-ciel sont classés dans la Category:Lit à la duchesse (XVIIIe s.!!!, pour vous servir), et j'en passe. C'est également un non-sens de placer la représentation d'un lit vu par un peintre flamand du XVe/XVIe siècle dans la Category:Canopy beds in France [3]. Vous devriez partir du principe que beaucoup de contributeurs qui apportent ce genre d'images savent ce qu'ils font quand ils ajoutent une catégorie et que souvent des spécialistes les ont vérifiées, compétées ou corrigées. Un grand nombre de ces images était catégorisé avec grand soin (avec clés par date si elle est connue). Eparpillées dans les sous-catégories non adéquates, les fichiers deviennent introuvables. C'est un mal non irréversible, mais difficilement réparable, et en tout cas seulement au prix d'un énorme sacrifice de temps puisqu'il faudrait repérer et recatégoriser les fichiers perdus "un par un".

J'aurais préféré de ne pas avoir à le dire, mais ces actions de catégorisation en masse ont fait beaucoup plus de mal que de bien. Présumant que vous êtes de bonne foi, je vous demande d'y réfléchir. Merci. Bien à vous, --Bohème21 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Je regrette d'avoir fait des erreurs. Comme ces sous-catégories sont en discussion, j'eviterai de demenager des fichers jus'que tout soit réglé. J'ai crû que le siecle n'etait d'aucune importance, car les descriptions n'en disent rien, et il ya plusiers images des reconstructions du 20iême siecle des lits du 18iême. Je serait tout a fait d'accord avec des catagorisations témporales. Les lits médiévaux à demi-ciel ont probablement dû être dans la Category:Lit à l'ange, et le peintre de Bruges ou Gand n'est bien sûr pas français; corrigées. Je n'ai pas le bût de vider la Category:Canopy beds, mais seulment d'eviter que des fichiers sont dans cette catégorie et ses sous-catégories, ou qu'elle soit trop grande. Il me semblait que "lit à la turque" et "lit à l'impériale" ont aussi plusières définitions (parlons-nous de celui-ci? je ne vois pas si c'est fixé au mur, mais "non" me semble probable); peut bien être que j'ai eu tôrt, nous nous en discuterons avec JopkeB ailleurs. Merci pour votre engagement et vos conseils. HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Speke Hall

I thought this looked more Tudor than Renaissance when I photographed it? Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rodhullandemu. 1530-1598 (from Wikipedia:Speke Hall) is certainly Tudor, but would also put it solidly in the English Renaissance, I think. I might be wrong. HLHJ (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Buchette

Thanks for your category. Sometimes thou the "buchetta" was not for shopping, it was just to keep alms and oil for street devotion lamps, so I took the category off from a few files. --Sailko (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sailko! Since I think "buchetta" just means "opening", I'm not sure having a cat just for donation slots named in Italian makes sense, but a specific religious purpose does sound like it could have its own category. I lack the knowledge to make it; thank you for fixing my lumping-together. HLHJ (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Blank Paper Stuck on “Freedom” the Slogan Board in Xidian University as Protest, Nov 27 2022 (cropped).jpg

File:Blank Paper Stuck on “Freedom” the Slogan Board in Xidian University as Protest, Nov 27 2022 (cropped).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: None) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : A Chinese ID.

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) 16:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 has started, Join us!

Hello HLHJ,

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team!

Wiki Loves Folklore is an international photography contest hosted on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from around the world, such as folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, folktales, folk games, folk religion, mythology, and many more.

The campaign invites participants to document photographs, videos, and audios linked to folk culture and fit within the contest's theme. Through this campaign, you may become a part of a community dedicated to preserving our intangible culture, which has been brought and passed down for thousands of years.

How to Contribute?

The dates for the submission in the photography contest on Wikimedia Commons are from 1 February to 31 March 2023. Probably you are wondering how you can take part. It’s simple: grab a camera, record an image, video or audio under the folklore theme and start uploading ! To learn more about the rules, check out our Project page on Wikimedia Common. Here are the exciting prizes which you can win internationally.

International Prizes

• 1st prize: 500 USD
• 2nd prize: 400 USD
• 3rd prize: 300 USD
• Top 10 consolation prizes: 40 USD Each
• Best Video prize and best Audio prize: 150 USD & 150 USD
• Top uploader prize for images: First Prize: 100 USD, Second prize: 50 USD
• Wiki Loves Folklore Postcards to top 100 Uploaders
• Certificates and postcards to Local Organizers.

(Disclaimer : The above prizes will only be disbursed in form of gift card or voucher format only)

You can win both International prizes and your local Prizes simultaneously !

If you are interested in participating in the photography campaign, start photographing and collecting media of your local culture and get ready for the photo campaign happening on Wikimedia Commons. For more information about rules and prizes of the contest, refer here. For any questions, email us or join our telegram group

Warm regards,

Rockpeterson

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team.

Category:Ground looms

[4]: are you planning to create this category? Not much point in adding it to a file if it will just be a red link. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Re-upload

These images have the caption as part of the image:

• File:JapanHomes097 PLAN OF DWELLING-HOUSE IN TOKIO.jpg
• File:JapanHomes098 PLAN OF DWELLING-HOUSE IN TOKIO.jpg

I tried to re-upload versions with the caption cut out, but it says: You attempted to overwrite a file that was not initially uploaded by you. You currently do not have sufficient permissions to do this. Can you re-upload them instead? Eievie (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, Eievie. While most of the images are better (cleaner and higher-res) in the source I used, some, like File:JapanHomes100 MAT.jpg, are not, as I expect you'll notice with the PDF right beside them. If you alert me to any you spot, I'll see if I can upload better copies. HLHJ (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)