User talk:TCO

RTV

Hi TCO, you've several times had your user talk page deleted under "right to vanish", but you've continued a certain level of activity. This was raised at Commons:Village_pump#Abuse_of_right_to_vanish.3F. If you're going to continue contributing, the deleted revisions should be restored, at least. Rd232 (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered it there. I did return to activity (not "maintain" it). And I've had my page deleted once as an admin request (effectively, it may have had a redelete because it was not salted).TCO (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I've restored the history. User talk pages shouldn't really be deleted under RTV anyway; you might have specific revisions removed for specific reasons, but not the whole page. Sorry (from your VP remarks) that you're still disgruntled (and not really sure why you're back). If there's any specific issues I might be able to help with, feel free to ask (onwiki or by email). cheers, Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Large images on the Village Pump

Did you really intend to place three largish images on the Village Pump, or did you just mean to make links to the images? I don't really see the images as serving much purpose there. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nafion Water Channel Model.png

Hi TCO, you refered to this DR in an unrelated thread. I've closed the DR and removed this remark as it was unrelated to the PK thread. I hope you understand. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man! You are a calming influence.TCO (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning

I was looking and saw your edit. Please don't be disruptive like that, it looks like vandalism to drop random unrelated obscenities in the middle of serious discussions. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

That is the first barnstar I have ever got. In commons and en:wp. It has been over a year as well. Are they the correct images? Did you want to crop the text from the bottom and try and remove the water mark? We may find better ones on google yet as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm taken care of. The wide one serves my purposes best. Someone will fix the watermark one if they want to use that.

Seems like there are a lot of interesting images from the 1800s (prints and things like that...for example color plate drawings of animals). One could do a great service by proactively uploading them. I pretty much just grab only what I need though.

Take care...and peace.TCO (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I added it to graphics lab for the watermark. I will update that as low priority then. I was trained that peace can only be achieved through superior firepower, but that may have changed. Bye for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

De re metallica

I just uploaded a new series of images from De re metallica. Commons categorization is so confusing.... I did'nt found before your upload.

In brief, the original book (Basilea 1556) has been loaded here: File:Agricola De re metallica.djvu and the projecy is, to proofread in into la.wikisource: la:s:Liber:Agricola De re metallica.djvu. It's a hard, heavy work, but there's someone so bold to try. I'm helping him, the first step being adding some metadata, opening the Liber: page, and trying to train OCR application to get the best. If I discovered your beautiful images I'd save some time..... and some Commons server space. :-(

Now, I'll try to fix different categorizations; keep in in contact if you like. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just found some poorly categorized De re metallica images, with with a pretty good resolution. You can see File:De Re Metallica 1556 p 357AQ20 (3).TIF, File:De Re Metallica 1556 p 363 AQ22 (2).TIF, File:De Re Metallica 1556 p 360 AQ21 (1).TIF and |File:De Re Metallica 1556 p 158 AQ23 (2).TIF. Enjoy! Borvan53 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Sounds great. Your project sounds amazing. Please don't be sad. Smile!!!  :-)

I think we were both kind of thrilled by the man (really quite a scientist, even so long ago). And his book with the detail and the work of the illos...breathtaking. I wish people did work of that detail nowadays! Really it was a lifework (even though he had several other books).

I had in mind a sort of project to organize everything and get it online and nice quality. There were only about 60 images and various versions, crops, resolutions, etc.) before I uploaded. I bought a CD with all 273 and 300dpi scans.

I was just going to take what I had and organize it well (files are labeled in book order). Annotate with page number of the Hoover translation, description of the activities (by reading the book), cat with a little more info (e.g. type of metal, activity, etc.) Was also thinking about taking the set through En-Wiki Featured Picture (pick a poster boy, but whole set). Reason is to get the collection some publicity. Also, notify the mining and art projects. It is kind of a big work, though.

I didn't have any preference on category organization or the like. or the like. And I value all the different uploads (e.g. crops may help individual articles, some value in the images from the 1556 version, etc.) But I was just going to make a beautiful thing and then figure out if it gets merged with the overall or not. Someone just advised me to upload both versions (they are on the CD, jpeg and gif) and just get moving with work.

BTW, I hear Library of Congress has the original book online (or maybe in collection). But have not looked. There are a couple good sites that have the Hoover translation (which is valuable because of the very detailed footnotes and explanations) online. On one of them, you can search by word and the like. I have physically looked at a copy of the 1913 Hoover book (beautiful). It is a rare book and costs 8000 dollars on the open market (had to get special permission to look at a copy). There is a Dover edition that came out in 1950, that is pretty decent and has same page numbering as 1913, but slightly reduced page sizes. This is a common book and library checked it out to me.

TCO (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know is you never explored wikisource projects - I and my friends work there, and Commons is simply our "repository of book images" to go ahead with full digitalization of the books. This implies, as the first step, to browse the web searching for "partly digitalized books", t.i. scans of pages and OCR of text; one from our preferred source is Internet Archive, and there you can find both scans of "princeps edition" (Basilea 1556) [1] , and of first English translation [2]; the latter containing the full set of images from "princeps edition".

The next step of work will be, to match pictures with original 1556 pages; the English version hasn't be uploaded into Commons, but your interest suggests that it could be a good idea to upload it as soon as possible. Then. I'd help with a good table of links of images to both wikisource books pages. I imagine that, using that table, links could be uploaded into description pages of your files by a bot. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. My main motivation is to support use of the images in Wikipedia articles. For that reason, wanted them all up there, organized, annotated, etc. Especially the descriptions are important so people know a gold processing image from a steelmaking one and get search on that.

Which images do you think are better to work with? The JPEG, GIF or PNG ones? I'm not sure which format is better or if there is a quality difference of the sets (yours seem to have similar size, not sure your source but mine was a Mining Heritage CD from a 300 dpi scan of the 1950 Dover edition).

For what it's worth (just an interst of mine). My impression is that 1950 Dover is a photographic copy of the 1913 edition. I think (am not 100% sure) that Hoover actually paid a print shop to recut the wood blocks based on the 1500s editions. Anyhow, they look identical in composition and are in better condition.

TCO (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About images format: I use png or gif for b/w images, jpeg for color images and pictures (jpeg compression sprays black pixels on the white background into thumbnails: try!), but I'm far from an expert about computer graphics: when in doubt about anything related to images and Commons, I ask User:Luigi Chiesa; when in doubt about metadata, book and creator infoboxes, categorization I ask User:Jarekt.

About images into English translations vs. "editio princeps" one: scans of 1556 edition are not perfect, sometimes resolution/contrast is less than optimal; I did a fast conversion from color images coming from IA pdf into grey images, then applying a filter for white/black levels; this is far from the best possible result, I simply need a first, running result.If you want the best, download "original jp2" images from Internet Archive; if you need a free,powerful application to convert jp2 into less exotic, but lossless format, Irfanview] is an excellent one.

About re-drawing of original engravings: interesting question! It deserves a careful comparison between 1556 images and 1950 ones. My images come from scans of 1556 work - they are retailed from those scans, really they are "images from original book"; the same pages scans are wrapped into File:Agricola De re metallica.djvu by FineReader 11, working on IA pdf (that wraps original jp2 scans).

In brief: don't presume I'm really a true expert of anything.... I only know what needs for a decent wikisource job (but wikisource forces you to learn basics of a long list of exotic topics....) --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy to let you know that a copy of 1912 translation of De re metallica is under proofreading into en.source here: en:s:Index:De re metallica (1912).djvu; obvioulsy I posted a gallery of your images (I chosed the jpg series, but I mentioned too the gif one). Proofreading is particularly easy since OCR is excellent and images... are available :-) --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Montage of four US state reptiles.jpg

File:Montage of four US state reptiles.jpg 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!

Smooth_O (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Montage of four US state reptiles.jpg

File:Montage of four US state reptiles.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Revent (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)