User talk:BuzzWikimedia

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

Pourrais tu compléter un peu ta page perso user:Buzz, les utilisateurs rouge (nom présentés) sont particulièrement surveillé, ce qui ne semble pas nécessaire pour toi ?

  • Please complete a little your page user:Buzz. Just some work it's ok too.
user:Yug

nice work

[edit]

Hello, your architectural work is the right way, nice. I did something in the same direction (see Category:Meyer's Ornament). But why doesn't use you a template or the categories? It would help to use your work not only in the francese Wikisource but also in the greater international Wikipedia. The right Categories would be under Category:Architectural_elements. If you have Questions, perhaps I can help you. Kolossos 08:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think for you should two Category's intresting: Category:Architectural_elements perhaps with new subcategories like Category:balustrade and so on, the other category could be Category:Architectural_styles with "Gothic architecture" and "Romanesque architecture"....

Because your work is so huge it would also be good to have our own Category. (Sorry , if my english is bad.) Kolossos 08:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don´t know that you plan 5000 pics, it´s real huge. To let the fotos of other users live, perhaps it is better use the Category:Viollet-le-Duc with Subcategories like Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Balustrades and so on. This subcategories can also be part of Category:Architectural_elements.

With the 5000 Pics in one Category I see no technical problem, see Category:PD-Art. It's more a problem to find the right picture in the Categorie.

"I find it hard to define if it's gothic or roman or what ..." -> Then, Medieval architecture is also ok, or let it by Category:Viollet-le-Duc.

The flexible way would be over a template, because it is changeable later:


Public domain
This image comes from Dictionary of French Architecture from 11th to 16th Century (1856) by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879).
Viollet-le-Duc
Viollet-le-Duc
Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

I designed for you under Template:Viollet-le-Duc. It´s with integrated Subcategories. Is it ok so? Bye. Kolossos 07:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I propose to create a subcategory for each article of the dictionnary" I think it's ok, but I don't know the original book and hope you have not to many articles like "ALBATRE" with only one image, perhaps in such a case it´s better to use something other like "windows" or no Subcategory. I hope you know the english names of every article. Kolossos 17:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

problems with Template:Viollet-le-Duc

[edit]

A little bit late, but I write User_talk:Dbenbenn#Template:Viollet-le-Duc about the problem with the subcategories. I believe that it is a software-bug. What can we do? Can you upload the new images with the additional [category:Viollet-le-Duc/subcategorie] ? Kolossos 11:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Viollet-le-Duc. User:dbenbenn 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image antialiasing

[edit]

Your images are sometimes with aliasing, for instancesImage:Baguettes.XIIIe.et.XIVe.siecles.png, wich software do you use to resize the Images before upload?

Something other: Do you use the Commonist for uploading? Kolossos 20:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kolossos!
In fact I don't resize images. They're scanned in 16 million colors Png files, and I just clean them up (removing stains and dust), and save them back in 256 levels grayscale. All the work is done with the Gimp. But if there is any antialiasing, I don't know if it's done by the scanner or by the Gimp. On the one hand, in the Gimp, Changing color depth shouldn't do anything to anti-aliasing, and saving a png file doesn't show any anti-aliasing option... But on the other hand, I don't think my scanner can do any anti-aliasing..... But I can't check it for now : I'm at work. I'll verify my scanner's options tonight, when I'm at home...
I didn't try the commonist yet. I just heard of it last week. I may give it a try this week-end.
See you !
Buzz 07:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
After a little check, my scanner doesn't do any anti-aliasing. But if you say that some images look like anti-aliased, I may have an explanation: Some of the pages I scanned were not perfectly vertically oriented. So, when cleaning the illustrations, I had to play sometimes with the 'Rotate' tool from the Gimp. And I guess this tool does some kind of anti-aliasing to hide the bad effects of the rotation... This could be an explanation..
See you!
Buzz 07:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

if in GIMP the parameter for rotation interpolation on kubic(best) is, it should be ok. bye.Kolossos 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Equipement.archer.png

[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Equipement.archer.png. 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. gildemax 11:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for notifying ! It's corrected.
Buzz 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting, it would be a pity to loose this image. --- gildemax 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Balustrade.cathedrale.Rouen.png

[edit]
File:Balustrade.cathedrale.Rouen.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

213.6.91.206 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ 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 ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, BuzzWikimedia!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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:

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").

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.

BotMultichillT 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chapiter (Viollet-le-Duc)

[edit]

Hi. I'm going to make same order in category Vilet-le-Duc. And i have problem with name this category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chapiter_%28Viollet-le-Duc%29. i saw that you make this one. i'm not sure it's properly in english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28architecture%29). So, I want change this category name for category:Capital (Violet-le-Duc). What do you think? Szubrawiec (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Szubrawiec !
You're perfectly right ! It was badly translated.. Please change this category.
Thanks for your work !
See you,
Buzz.

Viollet-le-Duc restaurateur de Saint-Germain-des-Prés ?

[edit]

Bonjour, désolé d'utiliser ta page de discussion pour poser ma question. Viollet-le-Duc a-t-il participé à la restauration de Saint-Germain-des-Prés ? Ma question fait suite à une définition du verbicruciste Michel Laclos : "Célèbre restaurateur de Saint-Germain-des-Prés". La réponse est Viollet-le-Duc. Après questionnement sur un forum spécialisé dans les mots croisés, un internaute m'a fourni un lien vers le fichier dont tu es l'auteur http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plan.abbaye.Saint.Germain.des.Pres.png?uselang=fr Ainsi, j'ai appris que Viollet-le-Duc avait rédigé une sorte d'inventaire des monuments du Moyen-Âge dans lequel il décrit notamment l'abbaye de Saint-Germain. Mais ceci ne prouve pas qu'il ait restauré ce bâtiment...Peux-tu m'éclairer ?--Ségala (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bonjour. Bienvenue sur ma page de discussion. Malheureusement, je ne suis pas un spécialiste de Viollet-le-Duc. Juste un 'fan' :-). Dans son dictionnaire raisonné d'architecture, il ne fait que quelques allusions à Saint-Germain-des-Prés, et le plan qu'il fournit est le seul croquis qu'il donne de ce monument. Contrairement aux monuments dont on sait qu'il les a restaurés, et pour lesquels il est BEAUCOUP PLUS prolixe, et offre de nombreuses illustrations.
Je ne pense pas qu'il se soit occupé de la restauration de cet édifice (mais ce n'est qu'un avis personnel..) : on en trouverait des traces sur Internet. Néanmoins, de par sa charge d'inspecteur général des édifices diocésains, il était sans doute responsable de l'entretien de ce bâtiment.
J'espère que ma réponse t'aidera un tant soit peu dans ta recherche.
A+
--Buzz (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Merci pour ton éclairage
--Ségala (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Buzz. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Buzz~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

20:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Clocher.Vezelay.png

[edit]

cette image de Viollet-le-Duc est le clocher de St-Père et non celui de Vézelay. Il est d'ailleurs utilisé dans la page de l'église Notre-Dame de Saint-Père. avec mes amitiés --Michelfouch (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

02:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BuzzWikimedia&oldid=801969892"