User talk:Micheletb

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


  1. User talk:Micheletb/archive1 archived Michelet-密是力 05:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. User talk:Micheletb/archive2 archived Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. User talk:Micheletb/archive3 archived Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. User talk:Micheletb/archive4 archived Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. User talk:Micheletb/archive5 archived Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Example : {{Posthumous-PD|country = FR |date =1950 }}

check whether the publication date is old enough for year 2017 vs 1950, delay is 50 and delta needed is 67 Result is 67 Though published in FR only in year 1950, this work is in the public domain in FR, because in this publication country, such a posthumous work is protected 50 years after its publication.

Example : {{Posthumous-PD|country = MX |date = }}

Though published in MX only in year , this work is in the public domain in MX, because in this publication country, such a posthumous work is protected 0 years after its publication.

Example : {{Posthumous-PD|country = ZZ |date = }}

Error : country code ZZ is not defined in {{UnpublishedCountryProtection}}. Please correct the country code, or update the template if the country code is correct.

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Fichier pour la Wikipedia russe[edit]

Bonjour. Pourrais-je avoir une version modifiable de ce fichier : File:Naissances ou avortement (France).png ? Je voudrais le légender en russe pour un article sur cette Wikipédia.Bien cordialement. --Daniel AC Mathieu (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel AC Mathieu: non, désolé, je n'ai plus les données d'origine (en dix ans j'ai déménagé deux fois et changé trois fois d'ordinateur...). Ceci étant il est facile d'éditer l'image dans un éditeur bitmap pour éditer la partie légende. Cordialement, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Merci. Je vais faire cela. Je vous souhaite une collaboration longue et paisible avec votre nouvel ordinateur. --Daniel AC Mathieu (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Bonjour/ C'est fait : Аборты во Франции. J'ai entre temps lu et compris l'histoire de ce graphique. Bravo. Bien cordialement. --Daniel AC Mathieu (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
-Daniel AC Mathieu : "Lu et compris l'histoire" (!) bigre... c'est une querelle qui s'est étendue sur des méga-octets... belle performance, en tout cas. Je crois qu'elle a fait l'objet d'une enquête et d'un .pdf à l'époque. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

ACC: Liushutong (LST) and "great seal"[edit]

Hi, what do we actually mean by "great seal"? It seems like editors have assumed that any character in LST is "great seal", but I don't think that's right. While some of them might be considered "great seal", many of them are not. LST is a collection of seal characters from the Qing (清) dynasty which collected seal script characters from a variety of different sources, many of which are forms used after the Qin (秦) dynasty (i.e. they could have been "backformations" based on the clerical/regular script). How can we be sure that a form in LST is legitimately "great seal"? Justinrleung (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Indeed, the "great seal" is a mix-up of various things.What is meant most of the time, is just that it has been found in the "LST" section of the Chinese etymology page, and these are obviously of different styles. Those that are chosen are those that can be used to represent the character evolution, so that Oracle > Bronze > Big seal > Small seal, and that's about all that is needed for most projects. If more details are needed, I suggest you create complementary categories that can be used to sort out that mess. And if such a category is numerous enough, alternative namings could be used to improve the time series (if needed). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I know enough to make subcategories of the so-called "great seal". There aren't too many resources on the great seal script, probably because it's an ambiguous term. In a strict sense, it could be restricted to 籀文 (essentially "ancient" forms that can be found in Shuowen), but in its broad sense, it could include anything before the seal script, even oracle bone and bronze. I don't think it's a good idea to take anything from LST and call it "great seal". How can we be sure that the particular form chosen was actually an intermediate before the seal script? Since we don't have access to the annotations in LST, it involves a lot of guessing on our part, which makes the project (and the projects that make use of this project) unreliable. If we want to keep using the term "great seal", I think we need stricter criteria. What do you think? Justinrleung (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
(Actually, I just found a scanned copy of LST on ctext, but it's going to be difficult to find each character.) Justinrleung (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
So @Justinrleung:, leave the things as they are until better sources are found.... These characters are useful for the evolution series, whatever their real name should be. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
this site seems to make better distinctions. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I just found that has LST, so that'll make things easier to check. When I have time, I'll take a look at all the great seal forms and check them with LST. Justinrleung (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong stroke order[edit]

Do you think we should have a new file ending for Hong Kong's stroke order, like -hbw, -hred, and -horder? This website has the newest version of the List of Graphemes of Commonly-used Chinese Characters with stroke order. There's also a free font called Free HK Kai that follows the Hong Kong standard. Justinrleung (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Justinrleung: I am not aware of a HongKong specific standard. A new file ending is not a problem, go ahead, but I think it would be easier to locate these characters by also creating a specific category, especially if there are not many of them. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's an actual stroke order "standard", but the website I pointed you to is from the HK Education Bureau. If we're going to make a category, what would you suggest for its name? Justinrleung (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: See Category:Torder.gif stroke order images and the like categories - it would be something like Category:Horder.gif stroke order images Michelet-密是力 (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Stroke order for 方[edit]

I've checked all the sources for the stroke order of 方, and they all have 𠃌 before 丿, including 现代汉语通用字笔顺规范 (PRC's standard), so what is 方-order.gif should be 方-aorder.gif (which exists already) and what is 方-torder.gif should be 方-order.gif. Could you fix this? Justinrleung (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, this would apply to 於 as well. Justinrleung (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
file:方-torder.gif > file:方-order.gif > file:方-aorder.gif > delete ✓ Done Michelet-密是力 (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Justinrleung (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you also fix file:方-bw.png and file:方-tbw.png (i.e file:方-tbw.png > file:方-bw.png > file:方-abw.png)? Justinrleung (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done there is something fishy, probably a cache problem - let's wait the database updates. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Richard Sears seems to have wrongly identified this as 沒. I've checked three other sources (Multi-function Chinese Character Database, Xiaoxuetang and 字源), and they all say that it is 汋 instead. File:汋-bronze.svg has the same exact glyph (but File:沒-bronze.svg has better quality). There doesn't seem to be a bronze script 沒 anywhere else. Do you think File:沒-bronze.svg should be deleted? Justinrleung (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Hello. Richard Sears follows his own sources, the identification is not his (though there is often mistakes in those identifications).
The composition is clearly 水 on the left, the right part could indeed be 勺, though it is unclear.
  • 勺 alone is not to be found in bronze scripts, but can be seen in 汋 (maybe) and 礿 & 酌, where it has a different shape (see for the derivations). So, the character could be , but in that case the 勺 is very atypical. Why is it so?
  • Alternatively, the right part could be an archaic/alternative form of , making the character a bronze form of 洹, whose meaning is quite different. But is composed of three parts, water 水, hand 又 and 囘 = 回 = 亘 circle around ; and it is not uncommon to see part of such compound characters missing in a given representation. Furthermore, there are lots of messy variants for that character, where 𠬸 is confused with 殳. So interpreting 水&亘 = 𠬸 as is also plausible.
The solution would be to find out the original bronze inscription, and check the meaning of the character according to its context. But that is far beyond my means... I'd keep both File:沒-bronze.svg and File:汋-bronze.svg (I've uploaded both of them), knowing that one of them is wrong, and possibly both.
Maybe a warning notice on both files is enough for the time being ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the original bronze inscription where this character is found (twice). The transcript says 汋(溺). 溺 might be related to 沒 in meaning, but I don't know if we can say definitively that it is indeed 沒. Justinrleung (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Justinrleung: The transcript clearly beats my (poor) capacities in Chinese reading, so I won't debate on it. You may be aware of more detailed information, please contribute if this is the case.
  • (en:), given as an equivalent, says that the character meaning (present time) is "drown / submerge in water / indulge". That seems close enough to classical meanings of 沒, whose chore meaning is "drowned under water / submerged", with the idea of something flapping (hand or wings) while being into water. So saying that the character is a variant form of makes sense for that specific transcription, as far as I can know.
  • On the other hand, the same transcription excludes the meaning of (to pour).
It seems to me that the Richard Sears is essentially correct, but needs being adjusted somehow.
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
While in meaning it is not equivalent to 汋 (to pour), the Multi-function Chinese Character Database does say that 汋 is borrowed for 溺, and cites a similar passage in 大戴禮記.武王踐阼, which uses 溺. This makes sense with the Old Chinese reconstructions for 汋 (*bljewɢ, *sbreːwɢ) and 溺 (*neːwɢ). Also 勺 is actually found independently in bronze inscriptions (in Xiaoxuetang). I've just uploaded that to File:勺-bronze.svg. (It's kind of crummy since it's inverted so feel free to improve it.) Justinrleung (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Justinrleung: I've smoothen the picture. Your bronze representation is clearly the kind seen with File:礿-bronze.svg & File:酌-bronze.svg (spoonlike line facing left and filled with a dot, two strokes). So you have found the correct version. Bravo.
The right part of File:沒-bronze.svg is unclear. If seen as "two strokes" it could indeed be a 勺, but the separation in Sears' picture could as well be a misprint, making it a one-line spiraling character like file:以-bronze.svg (see Category:1-stroke ancient Chinese characters). That 以 character etymologically represents a whirlpool, a waterspout or a tornado. The composition would then basically be that of 泤, but that character apparently does not exist in my classical Chinese dictionary (and is given as an alternative variant to 洍, which is probably irrelevant here).
An equivalence between 泤 (representing something swirling in water) and 沒 (evocation of somebody struggling in water) makes sense, though, being the same general idea as 溺 (two wings flapping in water). "汋 being (in that case) borrowed for 溺" could then mean the bronze character is also a misrepresentation of 洹 (泤) taken as an abbreviation of 沒. Such things happen with bronze compositions. My guess is that the composition is clearly not that of 沒, but since the meaning is said to be something like 沒 in the bronze text, leaving it as it is is OK.
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the right part is unclear. In all the other sources, it's clearly 勺 and it has been interpreted as such. But since there is some semantic relation between 沒 and 溺, and whichever source Richard Sears used (hopefully not his own interpretation) interpreted the character as 沒, I guess we could keep it there. We should probably have a note on the page, though. Justinrleung (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Justinrleung: It's OK to me to leave a notice.
"In all the other sources" : be aware, though, that Chinese studies tend to copy one another, so that the mere number is not necessarily an argument. I've often seen obviously mistaken translations of classical Chinese been reproduced in all available "classical" versions... You must always be very cautious with that kind of data, that has had thousand(s?) of years of misinterpretation. So if the unusual graphic is "clearly 勺" and the meaning is clearly different, there is something fishy ... which should be noted, indeed.
Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I do agree that much of the study of Chinese characters is referencing each other, but I don't think this is exclusive to Chinese studies. Anyway, thanks for the discussion and helping to clear things out. Justinrleung (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:骨-order.gif and File:骨-aorder.gif[edit]

Hi, I don't think the names of these are right. The PRC standard is actually File:骨-aorder.gif, and the Japanese standard is File:骨-order.gif. Could you rename them like this: File:骨-aorder.gif > File:骨-order.gif > File:骨-jorder.gif? Justinrleung (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:鮑-bronze.svg 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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Justinrleung (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Proteger les fichiers importants[edit]

Cher Micheletb !
C'est tout naturellement que je me suis tournée vers Magog the Ogre pour demander de supprimer l'ancienne version du fichier en raison des renseignements personnels. Ainsi, il va supprimer tous les quatre mes fichiers. Lisez, s'il vous plaît, ici :Éric _Laborey
Je vous serai reconnaissante si vous pouviez m'aider à proteger ces documents importants.--V2016 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)