User talk:Mathsci

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mathsci!

How did you manage to get the image of "Wie Zittern" from http://www.bach-digital.de

for [1]? There are some I'd like to get, since they're CC4, and have printed .. is it possible to get the largest ones? TimKelley65 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to locate the file pages on the archive. That takes luck and guesswork. I just did that for first page of the full score of BWV 29. I had previously uploaded all the pages of the organ obbligato part for the sinfonia from a different manuscript also in Bach's hand in November 2013. Guesswork will lead to the directory or directories where the jpeg files are stored. Here is the example for BWV 29. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Mathsci, read carefully COM:SCOPE and COM:D just to see than not being used is not a valid argument to remove any file (what you have actually done by replacing a file with other, though almost identical but not usable in the same projects). I've assumed good faith, but your refusal to fix your mistake (and your pointless references to Swahili images) leads me to think that you were trying to make some point. Please, leave your disagreements with me in the English Wikipedia. Thank you --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) PS: that's the last time I fix your mistakes. Your time is valuable but so mine is.[reply]

What you have written is uncivil and inaccurate. No file was removed. You simply had to click once to restore a previous version. You did create an English version from my small modification of the file. You made no request on Wikimedia Commons for such a removal, so I don't understand why you refer to "my refusal". Please provide a diff on wikimedia commons. Two trivial modifications of the graph, to give different notations for numerals in English and French, are used in en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia, the only wikipedia sites which have articles on the en:Demographics of Gibraltar / fr:Démographie de Gibraltar.
Please could you address other users in a less direct tone? In English what you write comes across as exaggerated, belligerent and aggressive. Perhaps certain things have acquired unintended second meanings in translation from Spanish.
Modifying files (eg undoing or creating a new version) takes very little time. I acknowledge that the original graph must have been time-consuming: it is extremely useful and a valuable way of conveying information on population changes in Gibraltar. It was modified here, rather than being ported to en.wikipedia, because, after you moved it from its original English title, it showed up as a red link on en.wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 645f678c7a24007c4f65920614c21642

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 355dc800e88f7395e0c229e0897be62f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Bach scores

Thank you for uploading high quality Bach scores past and present! Can you give them categories such as "Bach cantata"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Beaufort et envoyés de Rouen.jpeg

Hi. I see that you revert my categorization of that file. I explain here my choice : rules about categories say : "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category", this file is already inside "Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset", which is the undercategory of "People of the Hundred Years' War". So this file is already inside "Category:Hundred Years' War" and should not be directly inside this last one (same reason for garter knights). 2nd : there is a bishop on that image (Archbishop of Rouen in fact), that's why I put the cat "Medieval miniatures of bishops". Then, the artist who painted this image is identified as "Philippe de Mazerolle" (see the most recent refs I give). He had never been in the "Ghent-Bruges school" which is a very particular style at the very end of the 15th cent. : read this page, he is not mentionned in it and you'll never find any historian of art to say that. Don't hesitate to ask me question. Thanks. Mel22 (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a link to a completely different manuscript as you did was not helpful (it was a link to a page in the current BnF exhibition on Flemish miniatures). Gallica has a scan of the whole manuscript in black and white; Mandragore has (low resolution) scans of the images in colour. My plan was to find images of Edmund Beaufort for the BDP on en.wikipedia. I found two of them, both documenting his failed campaign in France during the Hundred Years' War. The accuracy of pages on commons is certainly not the main issue here: often the artists or scribes for fifteenth century illuminated manuscripts cannot be identified in any definitive way. (In the Great Bible of Henry IV of England there were probably at least 8 different illustrators.) Anyway, I just looked to see what the fr.wikipedia article on Edmund Beaufort looks like. I was a bit surprised that le bon roi René was not mentioned as the father of Marguerite d'Anjou, his probable mistress. And all those references to en.wikipedia. @+ Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Henry VII Elizabeth of York Westminster.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Henry VII Elizabeth of York Westminster.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Nominated for deletion by User:A1Cafel. I am a software, please do not ask me any questions but the user who nominated your file for deletion or at the help desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Lochamer-9v.png

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Lochamer-9v.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the license to contain PD-art and PD-100. Mathsci (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bach BWV 56 closing chorale Cantata SIngers Orchestra of St Cecilia Dublin.mp3 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) : RandomCanadian.

And also:

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 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi, Do not edit others' messages. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion concerning you on Admins' board. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purcell Dido's Lament Philharmonia Flagstad.mp3 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!

Prospectprospekt (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]