User talk:Hyacinth

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyacinth

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Hyacinth!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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

Here's how:

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

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Chromatic mediant from Tchaikovsky's Chant sans paroles mm. 43-45.png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token e7861ee7efb4c8fc93c26d6e3849f2ac[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Appoggiatura notation.mid[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 09:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia category[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:Wikipedia category 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 template, 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

sarang사랑.svg사랑 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Hyacinth, you recently recreated this template. Commons has since years the potent template {{C}} which does what you need. Its format is {{C|<category name>|<display name>|<language>}}, for a link to a en:WP-category you can use simply {{C|<category name>|3=en}}. As well you may use {{W|Category:<category name>}} or {{W|Category:<category name>|<category name>}}. -- sarang사랑.svg사랑 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:Wikipedia 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 template, 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

sarang사랑.svg사랑 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth, recently you recreated this template. Commons has since years the potent template {{W}} which does what you need. Its format is {{W|<page name>|<display name>|<language>}}, for a link to a en:WP page you can use simply {{W|<page name>}}. -- sarang사랑.svg사랑 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Passing tone.mid[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 09:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

New standard tuning[edit]

Hi Hyacinth!

Thanks for your contributions of illustrations and audio files regarding New standard tuning. You may wish to review some categorical-housekeeping I have done (here) today.

Also, I have made many edits to New Standard Tuning on English Wikipedia: It would be great if you could cast your knowledgeable eyes on the work of this ignoramus.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C alto clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C alto clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C baritone clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C baritone clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 16:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C mezzo-soprano clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C mezzo-soprano clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 17:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C soprano clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C soprano clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C tenor clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C tenor clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Diatonic scale on C treble clef.mid[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diatonic scale on C treble clef.mid 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

a headsup[edit]

I noticed your note to User:Fastily concerning his or her deletion of File:Trattado p.5.JPG. I noticed that Fastily used to confusing entry in the deletion log "No license since 18 May 2012", just as they used the similar confusing entry "No license since 10 September 2012" when they deleted File:Al Qaeda scrapbook 2.jpg.

The commons deletion policy very strongly recommends those who place speedy deletion tags leave a headsup on the talk page of the file's uploaders.

What I eventaully found was that some of Fastily's deletion log entries that say "No license since ..." mark files where he or she has both left the speedy tag and performed the deletion. I'd like to check to see whether that is what they did wit this image. Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

SVG[edit]

Hi Hyacinth!

FYI, I asked (en:WP) user David Eppstein a question about svg files being overly coarsened by the upload wizard.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

AnonMoos[edit]

File:Triquetra-heart-knot.svg[edit]

It's unicursal, so it can't be a link (the coloring scheme is superficial). AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know what your problem is with classifying that file -- it's a 10_116 knot with decorative coloration. AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I have great difficulty figuring out why you do things, but apparently you removed Category:Knots (knot theory) from File:Triquetra-heart-knot.svg because it's in Category:Triquetra which is a subcategory of Category:Trefoil knots which is a subcategory of Category:Knots (knot theory).
Unfortunately, there's a problem in this chain, because not all Triquetras are knots of knot theory. Non-interlaced triquetras are neither knots nor links, interlaced single triquetras are knots, and interlaced double triquetras are links. Therefore Category:Triquetra should not be directly or indirectly under Category:Knots (knot theory): AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You write as if I categorized File:Triquetra-Double.svg in Category:Trefoil knot diagrams with 3-fold rotational symmetry (which was a subcat of Category:Trefoil knots, which was a subcat of Category:Knots (knot theory)). Hyacinth (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't blame you for anything that happened before you started editing, and the situation in the Triquetra category was previously somewhat loose and sloppy. However, once you started applying "No Overcatgorization" etc. absolutely rigidly, then your edits to the previously loose and sloppy situation resulted in some inconsistencies. As I said on your Wikipedia talk page, sometimes "overcategorizations" are actually a clue that something is wrong or insufficiently specified in the superordinate categories. Meanwhile, if you tried to abolish "Category:Links (knot theory)" mainly so as to be able to put both single-interlaced triquetras and double-interlaced triquetras into a single category, which could then be a subcategory of "Category:Knots and Links", then unfortunately for you that's a ridiculous overreaction. AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing the knot and link categories had and has nothing to do with triquetras or their category.
Do you think that there where no inconsistencies in the triquetra knot categorizations before I came, and do you think there would be no inconsistencies if the work I did was undone? Hyacinth (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Can't blame me for guessing, since you haven't offered any alternative explanation. AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Didn't blame you (or mention you: "Collapsing the knot and link categories had and has nothing to do with triquetras or their category."). "Category:Knots and links" would do nothing for triquetras, as some are neither. Hyacinth (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to "Category:Knots in art and decoration"[edit]

How can "Decorative knots" be "outside of decorations"?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How can a door be outside of a frame? How can a shirt be off one's back? Hyacinth (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does a dog have the Buddha-nature? How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You ask as if I created Category:Decorative knots and Category:Knots in art and decoration. Hyacinth (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I created Category:Knots in art and decoration, and you removed Category:Decorative knots from being a sub-category of it, and I don't really see why... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
So what do you think is or should be the difference between Category:Knots in art and decoration and Category:Decorative knots? Hyacinth (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Why can't the more specific "Category:Decorative knots" be a subcategory of the more general "Category:Knots in art and decoration", which is in turn a subcategory of the even more general "Interlace in art"? AnonMoos (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle unforthcoming. Hyacinth (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would an undefined category be a sub- or super-category to anything? If the categories shouldn't be as I described on their pages, what should they be/how should they be described? Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand latest maneuver[edit]

Collapsing link and knot categories to a single undifferentiated category may or may not be a positive thing on English Wikipedia (I really couldn't say), but it's a definite negative thing here, and furthermore, you've added a lot of stuff to a non-existent category. AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if you want to convince me of something, you should explain, and not just make, assertions. Hyacinth (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dude, what is your problem??? You're the one who is collapsing what has been considered to be a useful distinction since 2007, so it's up to you to offer some kind of explanation for this. I notice that you seem to have endless energy when it comes to constant category churning, but all of a sudden turn languidly lackadaisical when it comes to the simple courtesy of offering some basic explanation for some of your changes which might appear to others to be questionable. AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I would apologize for getting stuff done quickly, since that seems to bother you, but in many instances this is considered a good thing.
Please show me where the existence of separate categories for mathematical knots and links was described as or asserted to be useful.
It would probably be up to me to defend a category I created or support against criticisms, if criticisms existed. "I don't like it" isn't a criticism, its a description of one's feelings. Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
First off, you haven't offered any argument for getting rid of the distinction other than that you don't like it. It would be nice if I could be receive some minimal explanation for why I had to spend the last hour and a half cleaning up the mess you left behind with respect to something that no-one ever objected to between 2007 and yesterday (and you haven't been able to provide any type of articulate explanation to support your objection). However, as long as I don't have to repeat the experience, the explanation is desirable but ultimately optional at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Rather than expecting me do to what you want because you demand it, why don't you attempt to persuade me? What, then, could be a problem with "Category:Knots and links"? Hyacinth (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would collapsing these categories be a bad thing? Hyacinth (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Since 1) Knots and links are different things 2) The previous categories had existed without controversy or complaint since November 2007 until yesterday, the shoe is on the other foot. AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

STOP VANDALIZING Category:Links (knot theory)!![edit]

As you can see for yourself, this category existed since November 29th, 2007, and nobody had the slightest objection to it until you came along yesterday, and you've refused to offer the slightest reasoned argumentation or meaningful explanation for your aversion to it, which makes your actions little better than vandalism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop shouting. Stop insulting me ("I really don't know what your problem is", "Dude, what is your problem???"). A first revert is not vandalism.
Stop making empty assertions and then blaming me for them.
There are dishes in my sink that have been there a long time, but that doesn't mean they are good. Why haven't you asked User:Darapti why "Category:Links (knot theory) was created? Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
User Darapti doesn't seem to be around anymore, but that doesn't make any difference anyway, since I participated in the discussions which led to the creation of that category (and its sister category). As should be extremely obvious (but apparently somehow isn't to you), the burden is really on you to explain why the category distinction between knots and links should be abolished -- a test which so far you've conspicuously failed. AnonMoos (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of the nature of wikis, instead of insulting people for what you think they don't understand, you are required to explain it.
Where did this discussion/these discussions take place? Hyacinth (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What difference does it make, since the intent of the categories is quite clear? By the way, if my suggestion of "Category:Knot-theoretic knots" and "Category:Knot-theoretic links" had found favor, then I probably would have created the categories under those names, but they were shot down for stylistic reasons, so somebody else in the discussion ended up creating the categories under slightly different names... AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for providing me with an example of how to be forthcoming.
The difference these discussions would make is that they may provide me with reasons you have yet to elaborate. Hyacinth (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Makework or semi-makework[edit]

To start with, you do a lot of renaming of categories (pluralizing etc.), and creating new categories which seem to be quite similar in purpose to existing categories. There can be some slight advantages to this, but the proportion of real meaningful benefit to the total overall number of edits involved is rather low... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:12 crossing number knots and links with respect to File:Simple-knotwork-cross-12crossings.svg[edit]

By the way, File:Simple-knotwork-cross-12crossings.svg has 12 visible crossings, but one of them is purely ornamental and structurally insignificant (the same as the two ornamental crossings which make the 7_4 knot into the Buddhist Endless Knot with nine visible crossings). In Knot Atlas terms, it has 11 crossings. Not sure what you want to do about such cases. AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I went by the titles. We're on a wiki, feel free to correct. Hyacinth (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Not 100% sure what you intended by these categories, which is why I raised the matter here... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
From some views a square looks like a rectangle, but I assume it should still be categorized as a square. Hyacinth (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:L6a4 links[edit]

What is the purpose of that category, when we already have so many Borromean rings categories? AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of asking what the purpose is? If you have a reason why you don't like something you should just tell me you don't like it and why. Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Whatever -- sometimes you do something strikingly counterintuitive whose drawbacks seem to strongly outweigh the merits, and when that happens and I question it, it would be greatly more productive if you could be bothered to explain yourself a little (instead of just leaving me guessing, as has happened several times in the past). You could be spared such incidents as taking me to "Administrator noticeboard/User problems" and conspicuously failing to receive any support for your position, if you would just unbend sufficiently to condescend to give some explanation.
In this case, I very obviously "don't like" the category because it's superfluous and redundant to the Borromean rings categories. Can you give me any explanation of any countervailing advantages that would offset this large disadvantage? AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Saying things like "Whatever" implies that you are rude or are a twelve year old who just stepped out of a time machine. Or both.
How is "Category:L6a4 links" superfluous and redundant?
Earlier you told me that category names where trivial.
Why are categories and subcategories a reason not to create other categories? Some categories have more than four subcategories.
Is every Borromean ring an L6a4 link? Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you imagine me pronouncing the word "whatever" with exaggerated intonational rises and falls, then you have a mistaken idea -- imagine it pronounced with a flat monotone intonation of disgruntlement (corresponding to my level of long-term Hyacinth-induced annoyance) instead. And what I said was that I didn't care one way or another about much of your category changes (since many of them tend to be somewhat uncontroversial but inessential) -- but on the other hand, I do care a lot when you merge something that shouldn't be merged (such as "Category:Links") or split something that shouldn't be split (such as "L6a4 links" vs. "Borromean rings"). And yes, all Borromean rings are L6a4 links. (A few people probably think that non-circular L6a4 links shouldn't be called "Borromean rings", but that's not standard terminology, and certainly doesn't apply to knot theory.) So "Category:L6a4 links" and "Category:Borromean rings" shouldn't be created because they're synonyms. That would be like creating both "Category:Aluminum" and "Category:Aluminium"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
So I'm supposed to imagine that you saying you rarely give a fuck about what I say or do is a polite, friendly, and interested way of engaging with me. At home my parents and at school my teachers preferred that kind of response: Q: "What do you want for dinner?" A: "Whatever." Q: "What is two plus two?" A: "Whatever."
"I don't see how you could have seriously looked at [[[:File:Five-interlaced-pentagons.svg]], File:Principia Discordia page00043 mandala (Brunnian link).svg, Category:Borromean crosses] for more than a few seconds and really thought," that there where three components. Hyacinth (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's nice -- you personally don't like me. However such inclinations and preferences are not the issue. The issue is that when you commit actions which others find startling or counterproductive, YOU ALMOST NEVER GIVE ANY MEANINGFUL OR RELEVANT EXPLANATION AS TO WHY YOU DID THOSE THINGS, and this reticence of yours does nothing to help things move forward productively, or to smooth over any little frictions and difficulties which arise. My comments on this user talk page would probably be a third of their actual length or less if you could just explain yourself when appropriate.
And on File:Principia Discordia page00043 mandala (Brunnian link).svg, I initially made the mistake of assuming that there was an overall five-loop Brunnian link instead of five distinct (but entangled) Borromean rings configurations (i.e. three-loop Brunnian links), as I explained on the file talk-page. I did not commit the error which you attribute to me, and I am unaware of any errors which I committed in relation to the Borromean cross or File:Five-interlaced-pentagons.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Either you didn't read my last response or you are hallucinating. While the reply contained the words "I", "don't", and "you", they where not together, and the word "like" is missing. Hyacinth (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you could be bothered to stir yourself to actually provide a meaningful explanation for some of your more disputable edits (such as what you imagine to be the supposed difference between "Borromean rings" and "L6a4 links"??), everybody all around would be spared much pointless drama. AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:8crossings-two-trefoils.svg[edit]

Why did you add this to Category:Composite knots when the description page specifically says that it's NOT composite, and it's used on Wikipedia article "List of prime knots"? AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:10crossings-two-triquetras-joined.svg[edit]

Same with "File:10crossings-two-triquetras-joined.svg", but even more so, since it's not even a pseudo-composite knot, but actually a phoney pseudo-composite knot. I don't see how you could have seriously looked at that image for more than a few seconds and really thought it was composite... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

...if only it was really really easy for you to change it back. Hyacinth (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you exercised greater care in some of your categorizations, then the likelihood that other people would have to come along and clean up after you would be less... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Good job correctly categorizing those images as Category:Prime knots. If you'd exercised greater care in your categorization of them I wouldn't have had to come along and clean up after you.
Not only are mistakes allowed on wikis, even if I'd only made 200 edits, two errors would make a success rate of 99%. Hyacinth (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Whatever -- just because you created "Category:Prime knots" three weeks ago (something which I would consider rather "inessential"), that doesn't require me to move all my relevant images into it. I'm not failing in any obligations or committing any "mistake" by not rushing to reclassify all the knot images I've uploaded over the last 6-7 years. I helped you with filling the crossing-number categories, and added the two triangular configurations of three 4-crossing knots into "Category:Composite knots", but would have seen no particular reason to do the same with "Category:Prime knots", even if I had known about its existence (which I didn't until after this conversation started).
In any case, almost anyone can make a mistake now and then, but in several of your reclassifications into "Composite knots" (for more than two images, by the way) you ignored red flags or warning signs, such as an explicit statement on the image page that "This knot is prime, not composite", or the file being in use on "en:List of prime knots", while 10crossings-two-triquetras-joined.svg is really not prima facie credible as a composite knot if you had bothered to look at it and consider it for more than about three seconds. Therefore your edits in this matter would appear to display a more than ordinary degree of carelessness... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The latest category reshufflings[edit]

I'm having difficulty keeping track of them all, but I hope that it will turn out that you haven't removed all indication of whether it's a knot or a link from any individual file... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More indication of what is depicted in an image is needed than a category, such as in a file description. If subcategories are determined to be necessary and a file lacked a file description, the file's previous categories would be present in the file history. Hyacinth (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:6Loops-Brunnian-link.svg[edit]

I really don't know whether this would turn out to be alternating or non-alternating when cast into minimal form, but for comparison, File:3Loops-Borromean-link.svg has a visually-similar non-alternating appearance with 8-crossings, but of course is alternating when in minimal form with 6 crossings... For that matter, L10a140 is alternating in minimal form with 10 crossings, but non-alternating in appearance in "Marilyn's Cross" form with 12. AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Principia Discordia page00043 mandala (Brunnian link).svg[edit]

This contains five overlapping three-link Borromean rings configurations, but does not contain an overall five-link Brunnian configuration (sorry for misleading filename). See the talk page of that image. AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:L6a4 links[edit]

We already went all through this a year ago. If "Category:Borromean rings" is not understood as referring only to literal rings (which it isn't), then "Category:L6a4 links" serves no useful purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Principia Discordia page00043 mandala (Brunnian link).svg is a five component link with many crossings, not a L6a4 link with three components and six crossings. Hyacinth (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It contains five L6a4 subconfigurations. In other words, there are five different ways in which you can remove two of the loops, and the other three loops will be in an L6a4 link. File:Three-Solomons-knot-triangle.svg and File:Solomons-knot-quadruple.svg are not actual L4a1 links either, but they're still classified under Category:Solomon's knot for exactly the same cause.
The reasonable solution to the problem would be to create Category:Multiple Borromean rings configurations or similar, into which File:Principia Discordia page00043 mandala (Brunnian link).svg could be classified, along with the "Borromean cross" and "Borromean chainmail" type images -- because creating "Category:L6a4 links" is unfortunately a stupid solution in the context of the category structure which already exists... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hopf links[edit]

I'm afraid to ask why, since it seems likely that I won't receive a meaningful explanation in response, but adding this to Category:Borromean rings would seem to be obviously not a good move.... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Civility[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Commons:Civility 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 project page, 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Incivility[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Commons:Incivility 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 project page, 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:3-limit_tuning_and_intervals[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:3-limit_tuning_and_intervals has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hi Hyacinth! I need some help with your duplicate tags. Seems to me you mixed a few filenames up. Could you please have a look and let me know? Here's the list:

Thank you for your help! Face-smile.svg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What seems mixed up? 36*2 = 72. 1/36 = 2/72 = 0.0278. Hyacinth (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems mixed up because I have no clue what you are doing. Seems like others didn't want to touch the duplicate request either. Face-smile.svg
To clarify that for people like me, File:2 steps in 72-et on C.mid = File:1 step in 36-et on C.mid? Same for the other ones? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If you have 2 fourths, how many halves do you have? Hyacinth (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/How Commons should deal with TemplateData[edit]

Hi Hyacinth, if you have time, I would be glad if you could give your honest opinion. The question is not really urgent but I'd like better know whether to roll-back my edits (as if Commons has no recommendation, it is not worth spending more time in fixing bugs in Module:TemplateBox), which I would like to do better sooner than later. Best -- Rillke(q?) 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've never heard of JSON or most of the things under discussion. Hyacinth (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
But you authored templates, correct? Were you aware of {{TemplateBox}}? Did you ever use it for documenting your templates? (Asking for research purposes only.) Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 06:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I've been quite involved with templates, relatively. However, I usually copy and paste when I make templates: I think of a template that is needed and find a similar existing template to base the new one on. Thus I may have used TemplateBox but would not remember it.
I'm looking at TemplateBox now. Hyacinth (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

images[edit]

Hi. Thx for many great images. Can you add info about software/method you have used ? If possible source code. See commons Category:Images including source code in their description. Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Blast beat drum pattern 4.mid[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Blast beat drum pattern 4.mid. 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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ravel Ma Mere l'Oye Laideronnette Imperatricedes Pagodes m.9-13.mid[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Ravel Ma Mere l'Oye Laideronnette Imperatricedes Pagodes m.9-13.mid. 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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Septimal major seventh on C.mid[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Septimal major seventh on C.mid. 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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)