User talk:Haabet/Old

Image:The_torture_corset_From_poto_Posed_by_Calder.jpg

---

Thank you for providing images to the commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the commons must be under a free license and should be usefull to the wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

• Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
• State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitely.
• If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
• Add a Copyright tag - images without a appropriate license tag will be deleted.
• Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate Categories, so it can be found by others.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted.

For more Information, have a look at Commons:criteria for inclusion and the Community Portal. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you. -- Duesentrieb 23:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - please have a look at Commons:Untagged images - a lot of your images are missing license information, and may of those which have some license info are not marked with a copyright tag. Please label your images - thanky you. -- Duesentrieb 11:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please delete this image, because it is identically with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:RFpatent406377_1909.gif

haabet 08:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Corset diagrams

Do you have a source for the illustrations you've been uploading today? Thanks, 82.46.90.231 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

yes: LE CORSET A TRAVERS LES AGES http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Corset_%C3%A0_travers_les_%C3%A2ges

Source information

Hi Haabet. When you tag an image as {{PD}}, you still need to provide complete information: where did you get the picture? Who made it, and when? See, for example, Image:Padiographie du corset cambré devant (devant).jpg. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 17:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have some old book, to wikisource.org haabet 18:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:MademoisellePolaire(alsBrodkruste).jpg is another example where you need to provide more information. dbenbenn | talk 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you are still uploading images without any source information. I have tagged Image:CorsetPelvien parAClaverie(ouvert).jpg, which you uploaded only 7 hours ago, as having an {{Incomplete license}}.

You need to give complete source information for every image you upload, including a justification for whatever copyright status you think the picture has. You can do this in French, instead of English, if that language is easier for you; but you must give the information in some form or other. dbenbenn | talk 05:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I see you've been adding a link to a non-existant page on the French Wikisource, with the comment "use that page by discussion of copyright". That is not acceptable. Complete source and copyright information must be given here. dbenbenn | talk 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The copyright is public domain, becorse the age. All pages tell that. If you have any extra copyright question it is most important as you use the Discussion-page of the book, where the images is ~ from. The copyright do not exist if the images is public domain. haabet 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You must give source information, in addition to copyright information. I don't know how to make it any clearer. And what's so hard about that, anyway? Just say where you got the pictures. Did you download them from some web site? Give the URL. Did you scan them from a book? Say so, and tell us what book.

Anyway, don't remove the {{No source}} tag without providing your source. If you do it again, I'll block you. dbenbenn | talk 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some of your uploads are scanned from a book called "Le Corset", published in 1905, written by Docteur O'FOLLOWELL. If so, just say that! (Giving the page number an illustration was taken from is helpful too, if you can do it.) dbenbenn | talk 19:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Old map"

1925 map - Your track record is of uploading "public domain" things that are not truly public domain. When you upload "public domain" maps etc., please tell exactly where you got them from. If you talked to "lawyers", please tell what they said, their reasoning. Thanks.

I deleted this image until we get better information. David.Monniaux 19:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

To get a Copyright have you need of produce something unique.

A map by dots are not unique, not a commonplace line of the coasts and rivers by dots

After that cause the map is public domain.

Magazine articles are public domain in Denmark after 70 years.

After that cause the map is public domain.

The writer of this article is deed of more than 70 years ago.

After that cause the map is public domain.

The image have only two problems

1. Wegge, a disgusting man, who persecute me.
2. The writer have help of a boy, who dead i 1975.

But the had only makede few of the dots on the map, and all this is new on me my edition.haabet 20:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Danish copyright law has no coverage of "Magazine articles". You are confused about the copyright expiry of works with no known author. In this case, there are two authors who share the copyright, so that part of the law is not relevant in this case. Your next gambit, removing the contributions of the younger author does not work in this case either, since shared copyright, by danish law, is shared. Removing a contribution from one author is not possible, since both authors share the copyright on the enitire work. So clearly you are in bad faith here.

• Whether I'm disgusting or not, are up to others to decide. However, I'm NOT! persecuting you as such, but your deeds. Make a hight-quality addition to wikipedia that is not a copyvio, and I'll be the first to bid it welcome. The problem is that almost all of your additions to dawiki are speculative, copyvios or both. That's why the question of whether I seem to persecute you or not, are entirely up to what you participate with.

-- /Wegge 21:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE. I don't speak Danish. Don't we have some competent Danish IP guys here? David.Monniaux 21:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Haabet, will you stop personal attacks on Wegge. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't say it. You have already been warned about this on dawiki by Palnatoke.

The "boy" you are referring to is Vilhelm la Cour (23. december 1883 – 22. juni 1974). In 1926 he would be 42 years old. --Maitch 22:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maitch 22:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Images uploaded recently

You recently uploaded lots of images bot you didn't add a proper license. You also forgot to add them to categories or articles. Please add a proper license tag, see Commons:Licensing, and add them to a category or article. Without a proper license they are consideren non-free, violating the Commons licensing policy. They'll be deleted within 7-14 days. Adding them into a cat or article makes it easier for other users to find and use them. Thank you ! --Denniss 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know the Licens of that images, but think they is PD, because they are 73 years old and anonymous and are not artwork. I do not know the categories because I can not French and the imanges maybe have ned of some new categories. when I have understanding the French text I can get the categories.

E. Pemjean do not make new books after 1933.

haabet 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fashion categories

The comment you placed on my talk page ("fashion normal change one to four times of one years") failed to communicate any meaning whatsoever, but if you're referring to my attempt to bring some rationality to the subcategories of Category:19th century fashion, then the reason why I started replacing year categories with decade categories was due to the very practical fact that IT'S BASICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND ANYTHING IF YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON NUMEROUS STUPID TINY LITTLE CATEGORIES (MANY OF WHICH ARE EMPTY OR ALMOST EMPTY). Maybe you can have "corsets by year" as your own personal private little playground, but to be able to find things and organize things for the purpose of having content on hand when needed, decade categories are pragmatically much more useful than year categories for the rest of us. Please don't mess things up again. Churchh 16:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your stupid accusation of "vandalism"

Your latest ungrammatical "contribution" to my User talk page was more comprehensible, but also more counterfactual. How it can be "hard" to find images which are sorted into a few broad decade categories, as opposed to images which are sorted into numerous tiny little individual year categories (each one of which may actually contain very few images)??? If your principle of organization were followed, then a user looking for fashion images from a 15-20 year period would have to tediously and slowly look through 15-20 separate categories to find what she wanted, whereas according to my principle of organization, she would only have to look at one or two decade categories, and then would be done. Also, for many illustrations, the EXACT year may simply not be known. Your peculiar vision of individual "fashion years" as the master organizing principle for all categories and articles on fashion history was also rejected on English Wikipedia when the "Years in Fashion" category was deleted -- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_9

And perhaps even more importantly, the individual year organization of Category:19th century fashion still stands for everything after the late 1850's (mainly because I have very little interest in re-categotrizing hundreds of corset images, many of which are of rather poor quality or have little meaningful relevance), and very little of your 19th-century stuff is from before the late 1850's. (I can tolerate the current situation because my interests are mainly before the late 1850's.) As I said before, if you want to establish your own little private playground for your corset images, by all means feel to free to do so (create "Years in Corsetry", or whatever you want, and go hog wild), but PLEASE do not disrupt the efforts of people who have a broad general interest in fashion history (which you in fact DON'T) and are trying to establish a well-organized resource on general broad fashion history. Churchh 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please tell me how to categorize this in your preferred scheme

I have no idea what year in the second half of the decade of the 1880's this comes from, and since it's not conventional high fashion, reference to fashion plates of individual years won't help much... Churchh 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

Your latest round of comments on my talk page are extremely cryptic again, but if you're trying to challenge the primacy of Image:1881-empire-bra-vie-parisienne-henri-montaut.gif , then Image:USpatent75030_1868.gif doesn't have any shoulder-straps (and I have no idea whether its even made of fabric or not, as opposed to metal or wood or whatever), while Image:USpatent298067_1884.gif comes from three years after Image:1881-empire-bra-vie-parisienne-henri-montaut.gif , and still looks less "modern"... Churchh 18:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Courbe de la beauté---Beauré du diable- - -.gif

What does that graph mean??? --Sarazyn ^{Got milk?} 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to mean that female beauty peaks at 17 (with a steep decline thereafter), while male beauty peaks at 27. Sounds kind of ridiculous to me... Churchh 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Germany GB France.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Germany GB France.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. AndreasPraefcke 14:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hauteurs milieu du devant.gif

Hello... you tagged your own image as a copyvio? Why is that? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

the date of deat of the writer It is unknown. :-(

http://haabet.dk/Le_Livret_De_La_Corsetiere/51.html#78

Tagging images

You wrote:

• 
  eveningwear?
• 
  daywear?

eveningwear? daywear?, I do see that in the book. I think as eveningwear and daywear is a invention from a other era. And eveningwear was normally longer as daywear. Can your delete or substantiate?

Haabet, if you really knew something about overall fashion history (instead of corset fetishism), then it would be fairly obvious -- the woman on the left has short sleeves, long white gloves, a lowish neckline, somewhat fragile-looking trimming, an elaborate hairstyle (but no head-covering), and is carrying a folded fan; while the woman on the right is attired for outdoors in a bonnet and something like a short "spencer" jacket.

And in 1819-1820 they might not have commonly used the exact expressions "daywear" and "evening wear", but they certainly had the concepts (and many more) -- look at Cathy Decker's Regency fashion page for links to "Morning Dress", "Walking Dress", "Promenade Dress", "Carriage Dress", "Half Dress", "Aftrernoon Dress", "Dinner Dress", "Opera Dress", "Evening Dress", "Ball Dress", etc.

And no, eveningwear wasn't always longer than daywear -- especially if it was intended for dancing (dancing dresses could have hemlines as high as an inch or two above the ankles during the general Regency period).

And most important of all, if you would provide proper categories etc. for your images, then I wouldn't have to come along and clean up after your uploads... Churchh 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You further wrote:

• 
  Mourning clothes?

Mourning clothes? The Mourning clothes was in olddays back and have veil and was discreet.

Haabet, all I did was translate the word "Trauerkleid" into English. If these are not mourning clothes (and it's hard for me to tell with a scan that's only B&W, not color), then why in heaven's name did you put "Trauerkleid" in the filename??? And no, widows didn't wear always veils -- in fact, at that period, I think they rarely did (though they almost always wore caps when indoors). Churchh 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here's a depiction of a widow ca. 1820, and she's not wearing a veil (just a very delicate lace cap). Churchh 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Round two

Haabet, it was pointless of you to repeat almost exactly the same queries on my User talk page when I already answered them as best I could above — and for someone who is rather stingy, partial, and dilettantory about including meaningful information on the images you upload, your sudden attack of stringent demands for exact sources is somewhat inconsistent (not to say perhaps hypocritical).

I derived the general appellations "daywear" and "eveningwear" from applying my knowledge of the period (and a little common sense) to the content of the images themselves, and put them in because chose YOU chose not to provide any significant description of the content or context of these images when you uploaded them. Since I'm the main author on the article en:1795-1820 in fashion , I currently seem to be the main wiki-active expert on the fashions of the period right now, but I'm sure that PKM (the only other signifcant author on en:1795-1820 in fashion) would probably back me up.

And I derived the comment "Mourning clothes" from the word Trauerkleid which YOU chose to include in the name of the image Trauerkleid1831LaMode.jpg. If Trauerkleid1831LaMode.jpg is not actually of mourning clothes, then you should request that Trauerkleid1831LaMode.jpg be deleted, and then reupload it with a different name which does not include the word Trauerkleid.

Haabet, I really don't have any more time to spend on this matter, until and unless you have some new information to bring to bear on the issue (rather than just repeating yourself again without listening to what I have to say). 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your latest query...

You wrote:

Source of Images - I have need of the title of your books and if the titel is commen: titel and author of your books.haabet 20:38, 8 May 2006

Haabet, I scanned my stuff in from a variety of sources (some scanned as long ago as 1997), and I didn't always write down where I found a reproduction of a nineteenth-century image (nor is this info generally necessary for Wikipedia). Noting down the details of the ORIGINAL authorship, date of publication etc. was always more important.

But if you have a specific question about a particular image, then I may or may not be able to help... Churchh 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why I added the "REDUNDANT" tag

Haabet, Image:1819Therepository.jpg is a lousy image which is technically inferior to Image:Morning-dress-Ackermanns-ca1820.png (derived from the same ultimate source) in every single respect except sheer raw pixel dimensions. It's big, but it's a big piece of crapola. Why not just link to Image:Morning-dress-Ackermanns-ca1820.png from your book? Churchh 07:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the image on http://de.wikisource.org now.

I had problem by images, which been deleted becorse they have no source. If I have the title of the book and the name of the author, but they have need of the number of page by the image.haabet 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1880s categories

Haabet, no sooner had I gotten Category:1880s fashion into such moderately satisfactory shape that I linked to it from article en:1880s in fashion, then you started trying to sabotage it. Yes, the 1880's had several distinct fashion mini-epochs (as I agreed to and expanded at 1880s fashion), but the category Category:1880s fashion is STILL USEFUL FOR SOMEBODY TRYING TO FIND RELEVANT PICTURES. I really don't care what you do with your hundreds of corset images and crudely-crayon-colored patent illustrations, but I want to put actual real 19th century fashion illustrations in the decade categories, where people can actually find them (without clicking on numerous tiny pointless individual year categories). Churchh 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

YuStop trying to sabotage :Category:1880s fashion

It is Churchh who make sabotage on Category:1880s fashion.

The Category:1880s fashion is only a collection of teen random years. By only the first three digit shared.

The connection to english wikipedia is the only sense of that Category, but if the concept of wikipedia work, the article 1880s fashion will it deen deleted, and replaced of three articles

haabet 12:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Round Two

MarchettiDasRennen1882

Haabet, that image belongs to Category:Fashion in 1882 because you insist on putting it in that category (and I don't really care too much about the matter), and it belongs to Category:1880s fashion so that PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY RELATIVELY EASILY FIND THE FERSHLUGGINER THING (which is what categories are actually for in the first place).

It's true that the decade of the 1880's is not a "natural" fashion epoch, but that definitely doesn't mean that English Wikipedia article en:1880s in fashion is going to be deleted at any time in the forseeable future --- since decades are as convenient a classification system as any, and since no strong desire has been expressed among Wikipedia contributors to try to divide the 19th century fashion articles into "natural" epochs. These would very often be difficult to dcetermine, in any case -- would you put the end of the bustle era in 1886, 1887, or 1888? All such transitions were of course gradual, and dividing into decades avoids the problems of subjectivity or periodization conflicts.

And when you were trying to write fashion articles, all you did was succeed in writing 5 or 6 individual year stubs ("1841 in fashion" etc.) which were inadequate from a number of points of view (from lacking good English to making sweeping unsupported statements). Your vision of a hundred individual year articles (from "1800 in fashion" to "1899 in fashion") has not been accepted by those working on the "History of Western fashion" series. Churchh 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Dannebrog.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dannebrog.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Valentinian ^(talk) 06:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful teeth.gif

Hi, I was wondering what the source is for the image Image:Beautiful teeth.gif? It's an interesting image but it would be useful to know what explanatory text went with the numbers 1-5 on the image. Cheers /Lokal Profil 13:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Watteau_about1715cut.jpg

Haabet, the girl in Image:Watteau_about1715cut.jpg is probably wearing stays of some kind, but they would be under her clothes, where they can't be seen. The dark green thing in the painting is a kind of Continental European peasant-woman bodice thing (the same as in image Image:1855.jpg), and not stays at all -- from the fact that it's loosely fastened by lacing across a wide gap, it's obvious that it couldn't exert any meaningful constrictive force. Churchh 20:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

1. All Stays and many old corset was over her clothes. Image:1700s_ladys_stay_man.gif

2. the name of 'kind of Continental European peasant-woman bodice' is a bul.

3. the bul was original stays, but was shorter, and because the bul was shorter, it was not able to been tighten, and because the no tighten it have no need of lace in back. The bul start in Directoire era, and been longer by the time.

4. You mix information from various eras. haabet 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Haabet, I have no idea what the word "bul" is supposed to mean (I don't think it's an English word at all), but I do know that real stays go UNDER the clothing, while Continental European peasant-woman bodice things go OVER the clothing. Also, Continental European peasant-woman bodice thingies can pull the blouse close against the skin, but they really wouldn't do much in the serious corseting department, especially if they're shaped like the one in Image:Watteau_about1715cut.jpg . Therefore, I do not see how the dark green garment in Image:Watteau_about1715cut.jpg can be called "stays" in any meaningful sense of the word. Churchh 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

dear Churchh,

Stays and corset was visible in nearly all dress to about 1750, and corset was often visible to about 1850.

If the name not is 'bul', the name of 'bul' is stays.

Can you give sources, of your opinion?

haabet 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The stays have need of a fastened by lacing by a wide gap, because the body change shape and the fabric stretch. haabet 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Haabet, what is your evidence for the assertion that corsets were worn on the outside of clothing before 1750? You've presented a number of boudoir depictions (and yes, Image:1700s_ladys_stay_man.gif is a boudoir depiction), but you haven't presented real depictions of the clothes that women wore outside their boudoirs. There was a brief semi-minor trend towards women wearing short bodices on the outside of their clothing as part of high fashion in the second half of the 1790s (though this trend was by no means as prominent as some people -- such as the costume designer on the movie Die Marquise von O -- think it was), but even in this ephemeral fashion, the bodices would not really have been true "stays" -- they would not have had busks or stiffening, nor tabs at the bottom, etc. Other than that, I'm really not too sure what you're talking about -- I'm flipping through the 18th-century women's chapter of Blanche Payne's "History of Costume" (1st edition), and I don't see any women wearing corsets on the outside of their clothes.... Churchh 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem is that. The ordinary pair of stays, do not have stays, but was of stiff leather, and have the name corset in French, snørliv in danish. Thats have two lacings. All class used that.

The normally fashionable pair of stays, do have many stays, as it look solid! And this have the same fabric and the same trimmings as the skirt. This have only one lacing. Only the rich used that, and only the by special events. Yes, you can say as the pair of stays been a body part of that dress.

Many many books is upper-class books and the writers despise the ordinary fashion, and only write about the fashion in upper-class by the special events. That have also the best sources, and have the greatest quick changes.

Commons is international and you have need to see the fashion in a wide perspective. We do not talk about the same fashion. haabet 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see a back view at Image:Winterhalter_roman_genre_szene.jpg. Continental European peasant-woman bodice things were worn on the OUTSIDE of the clothes and obviously couldn't exert any meaningful constrictive force, while stays wrere worn on the INSIDE of the clothes, so I really don't see how the two are supposed to be the same. Churchh 14:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• 
• 

Yes, the one on the left was meant to be worn under the clothes (possibly except he center front panel), while the one on the right is a boudoir depiction. So what? Churchh 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your latest images

Image:MissLewisEngravedbyJamesMacardell.jpg isn't "underwear", but it isn't really a corset or stays as such -- it's highly decorative outerwear which would not be able to exert very much constrictive force (notice how the lacings visibly hang loosely in the top half?).

As for Image:Lady17hundreds.gif, yes that could be underwear -- it's certainly yet another boudoir depiction, and I somehow doubt that ca. 1700 ladies comonly went around with their innermost shift or chemise visible down to the navel.

And finally, my understanding of Image:Womanbabystays.gif is notn assisted by the fact that you haven't provided any information as to its century or nation of origin (and that it's also redrawn), but I'm suspicious that it's not really upper-class clothing at all, and so may belong more to "Die Tracht" than to "Fashion". In any case, it certainly isn't at all typical of what upper and middle-class women wore in Western Europe during the 18th century, so its relevance may be rather limited... Churchh 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The danish books about fashion, say as the dress cover the stays from 1770. The fine fabric on older images is outer layer of the stays. This layer fabric was the same as the skirt.
2. Fashion in Danish is also the dress of weekday in middle-class and poor-class, not only the ekstreme fashion in ball and catwalk.

The ekstreme fashion was ekstreme rare.

1. Some corsetière about 1900 sold visible corsets. Corset and corset cover united. haabet 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Punch1876september.jpg

Why does that image have "Punch" in its name? Punch was a humor magazine, and didn't publish fashion plates as such, nor did it ordinarily publish in color during the nineteenth century. Churchh 14:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fashion plates didn't show the really Fashion, but only a single dress. Opposite humor plates have need to show the really fashion or overdo the really fashion.

This humor plates are close the really fashion, of that era.

The color was new (1875?), and this image had only two colors, one light yellow-red and one light blue-green.haabet 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the "humor" is so subtle as to almost escape me -- and in any case, the real question is, why does it have "Punch" in its name when I extremely strongly suspect that it does not originate from Punch magazine at all? Churchh 19:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The dane have a magazine by name after a english magazine, but "Punch" and "Punch" have only the name shared. The contents of the danish "Punch" was originate. haabet 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Was the "Danish Punch" actually called "Puk" (as in the name of the other image)? If so, please use the word "Puk" instead of "Punch" in future uploads of scans from this publication. Churchh 07:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Punch [in Danish] and Puk was rivals, and the Puk was better in drawing and was better in print.haabet 07:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's fine -- it's just that in the English-speaking world, "Punch" is associated almost exclusively with the British publication, and I didn't really know what to make of illustrations labeled "Punch" which I pretty much knew were not from British Punch. Churchh 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gender-role reversals or women in power

Haabet, I outlined exactly what the criteria for inclusion in that category were, right at the top of the category page itself. Of the images you've uploaded, Image:ZurJagdSaison.gif and Image:Kvinde-emancipation.gif exactly and precisely meet the definition, while Image:PukModerneMilitarisme1894no46.jpg is a slightly more borderline case, but still arguably strongly worthy of inclusion. If you don't really understand what the definition means, then just don't bother with it (as opposed to trying to effectively contract or expand the definition). Churchh 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:PunchJuli1876No30p233.jpg

If there was a women dressed as a man in this image, then it might belong to the category, but I don't see a woman dressed as a man in the image -- though one of the women seems to be dressed in a cloak of invisiblity! Churchh 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Haabet, if you don't understand what the category is, then PLEASE just leave it the frig alone!

This note you put at the top of the category page is absolute nonsense:

Note: this Category is a English victoria and is incomprehensible of foreigner by knowledge of this era in foreign countries. In other cultures: This Category correspond to joke about womans married unfaithfulness and correspond to joke about womans sexual needs.

The caricatures are simply 'NOT just "English Victorian" -- some are Spanish, American, German, French, and yes, even Danish, and some go as far back as the 16th century. Furthermore, it's NOT directly about sex as such -- a woman can be quite sexual or promiscuously adulterous without acting in what was considered to be an inappropriately "manly" way, or assuming masculine authority. Churchh 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Local variants of common Victorian culture

Image Tagging Image:PUNCH1879p241.jpg

If Image:PUNCH1879p241.jpg isn't hopelessly exaggerated for humorous effect, then it's certainly evidence for a local variant of the overall Victorian cultural norms -- in English-speaking countries, skirts of a length then considered appropriate for little girls would not have gone very well together with grown-up type social events such as balls (the two were pretty much socially incompatible). However, that doesn't mean that Danish women of 1879 wouldn't have been constrained by restrictive social norms (they were). Churchh 11:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In Denmark: Balls was a fashion from foreign countries. Balls was a exotic entertainment.

My sources says one of The restrictive social norms was a woman do not journey alone but the danish woman journey alone. one of The restrictive social norms was a woman do not have a work, but a married woman in the old danish society was a herdsman, employer and dairyman by high status. This status of married women was highest about 1870. And from that time the number of kindergartens have grow by the grow of education of women. haabet 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in English-speaking countries in the Victorian period, never-married girls and young women did not travel alone in most circumstances (with a few exceptions), but married women could travel alone. And it was déclassé for women of the "genteel" (middle and upper classes) to work for wages, but that didn't apply to the lower classes. Churchh 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kan you accept as Victorian period do not, was identical by the Victorian period in England? This period have mininum three faser, in Denmark. haabet 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wie ich meineBuste entwickelt habe.gif

The reason why Image:Wie ich meineBuste entwickelt habe.gif doesn't display is that it's too big -- PNG and GIF images with pixel dimensions greater than about 3072x3072 won't be thumbnailed. Churchh 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is hard to see the text, if the image been smaller.haabet 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But look at Image:18th-century-anti-sex-education.jpg -- the type in that was in much worse shape in the scan source than in the source for your image, and was scanned at a smaller resolution, yet it's still fairly legible. Anyway, I resized some other of your oversize images to make them visible, such as Image:Germany_GB_France.gif , but I'm not going to do it with this one... Churchh 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have resized this image.haabet 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess the limit is actually probably closer to about 3400x3400 than 3072x3072. Churchh 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:LaBelleAssembleeLondon1813.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

it is from same page as Image:LaBelleAssembleeLondon1812.jpg but this have no problems!haabet 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because you forgot to remove the "no source" tag when you added the "PD-old" tag. Churchh 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not remove "no source" becorse somebody been angry.haabet 05:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ChampmartinMadame_deMirbel.jpg and StielerMarchesaFlorenzi_aus_derSchonhaitengalerie.jpg

Do you know what years Image:ChampmartinMadame_deMirbel.jpg and Image:StielerMarchesaFlorenzi_aus_derSchonhaitengalerie.jpg come from? If I were to assign them to either the 1830's or the late 1820's, I would sort of be half-guessing, so if you have definite information, that would be preferable. Churchh 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lirongfrau mit lang ausgedehntenOgrläppchen.jpg

Hi, you wrote: "I think she is a girl, not a wife". The German word "Frau" does man "wife" but can also refer to a woman in general. Thuresson 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in that era, and not in this context, but that is a mistake of the writer, because she have a hat/garland as a unmarried but grown-up woman. She is teen-ager.haabet 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Time

I've noticed you've created some chronological categories. I'm starting Commons:Wikiproject Time. If you are interested in improving chronological categorization and discussing proposed organizational criteria, please sign up and share your thoughts. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Fc1890.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fc1890.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao 06:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"French Empire Style"

Why did you tag a lot of images with a non-existent category? (Especially the one from 1816-1820, which does not fall under the French Empire.) Anyway, I created the broader and more appropriate category Category:Empire silhouette... Churchh 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.What's the difference between "Dressmaker's dummy" and "Dress form"? Churchh 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A Dressmaker's dummy was the dictionarys translation of danish gine and "Dress form" was the name on a Gine I buy from England. I do not know the correct translation.

The French Empire Style is the dictionarys translation of danish: Empire; Empire stil; Empiredragt what was the danish title. We have many danish words which is untranslatable. Often the dictionary know a correct translation, who only few Britons understand.

haabet 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then "Category:Dressmaker's dummy" and "Category:Dress form" should be merged into one category... Churchh 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes if Dress form is identically by Dressmaker's dummy, but perhaps they is different. Like danish Gine and danish : voksmannequin. A Gine is maked to one, or picked to one, or is adjustable and voksmannequin have a head.haabet 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Saison

Haabet, what is "saion" supposed to mean in French? It could be "salon" and it could be "saison", but I really doubt whether it's "saion"[sic]... Churchh 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can not Franch, but I see as the mean change by the context. Saion d'ete both mean the salon by summer clothes and the show of summer clothes. If two translate the same text correct it been different, because they have need of choices between means. So is translation.

The best translation is if you write the same text as in a english book. If you translate a book, you have need to see what other books in your language say in that context.

haabet 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the French should be "Salon", not "saion" at all. Churchh 09:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Åh! it is my mistake, a s had disappear.

---

Thanks. By the way, it should also be artifices, not artirices -- I corrected it for some of the image descriptions, but not all. Churchh 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the printning had losed the top of the letter.-haabet 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Notoriety

I see you got your 15 minutes of fame... en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-09-25/Interwiki_report -- Churchh 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)