User talk:AnonMoos

Archives created by popular request: User talk:AnonMoos/Archive1, User talk:AnonMoos/Archive2, User talk:AnonMoos/Archive3, User talk:AnonMoos/Archive4, User talk:AnonMoos/Archive5

---

Language

Hi AnonMoos, once again I could use your help. I am searching a good name for a category which should collect buildungs in the landscape as boardwalks, steps, stairs, platforms, bridges and other kind of engineership; it may be subcategory e.g. to Daejeon Dulesangil and others. Even in German I had not yet a good idea how to call that. I would be glad if you have some ideas which short title will describe the stuff. sarang♥사랑 13:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Frances Benjamin Johnston, full-length portrait, seated in front of fireplace, 1896 (altered).jpg

File:Frances Benjamin Johnston, full-length portrait, seated in front of fireplace, 1896 (altered).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 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!

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frances Benjamin Johnston, full-length portrait, seated in front of fireplace, 1896 (altered).jpg

I have clarified what I intended to say - that the issues I'm bringing up have nothing to do with your work, just tbe copy youu had to work with.16:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them. 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!

Affected:

• File:Mogi Mirim EC.svg

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg

File:Venn diagram gr la ru.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!

Alexei Kopylov (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg

In Reply to : File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg

Hey There! I never realized that wikimedia resources don't have a built in "talk" page like wikipedia articles do, so maybe we should team up and mention this to the top brass at wikimedia to avoid having to discuss such things in such an awkward (eg directly on each other's profile page's) sort of way!

In regards to your feedback on this specific update I made:

1. I don't necessarily agree that using "a series of xlinks" to draw the grid is the best way to go, and this has actually been something that has driven me nuts on various SVG drawings on wikipedia/wikimedia that are "chart" or "graph" based, but I specifically have wanted to play with on this specific SVG for a long time because I think the general concept/data of the graph is kind of cute and fun, and I had noticed early on that you opted to go with a "dotted" grid (presumably to add a layer of granularity between the "5 year" grid blocks and the "1 year" sub-grid dots, which is pretty clever). I think the whole SVG pattern concept was introduced to optimize/simplify the parts of graphics that tend to be…well…a pattern, especially in contexts such as drawing grids or lines that merely assist in making the graphic easier to interpret rather than represent the core drawing/graphic itself (for example, I wouldn't want to use a "pattern" element to draw the actual lines representing the graphed age data for this specific graph). So I'm not trying to "attack" or "undermine" this specific graphic (or anything negative of that sort), so much as use it as a neat and simple example of the benefits of SVG elements specifically meant for such graphics (eg patterns), and ideally improve my own ability to use the pattern concept as well as have a real-world example that I can point to showing it in action.
2. I did notice how you are currently using XLINKS and "use" attributes (amongst other things) to draw the dotted graph and at first thought I could simply add into the current SVG a dotted graph pattern that would "override" the existing graph so I could swap them out, but my local tests proved this to be QUITE painful, since the existing approach is much more sophisticated/entangled into the SVG in general. So while I'm still interested in using this graphic as a proving ground for optimization as mentioned above, I agree that it will not be as simple as "let's swap out the current approach with this other approach to see if it works as well/better/worse" and will instead will likely require rebuilding the graph from the ground up (which I'm probably going to do the next time I get bored and re-remember this whole thing in 3 months), which I try to avoid doing (and I think you're reversion speaks to you agreeing on) in favor of "improving" the existing document/SVG rather than nuking it (like I'm so smart I think I can just replace your efforts, and yet so dumb I want to give you credit for "the original" version that I've essentially replaced). So it's a shame that these two approaches (and other parts of the SVG spec) aren't more modular/interchangeable/inter-friendlier to allow for nicer/cleaner "revisions" or revision history without having to reinvent core parts of the SVG in the process. Maybe that's something we can collaborate on for shaking our angry fists about to the W3C SVG draft committee for the 2.1 revision. At any rate, I hope that any efforts I make in the future for this specific graphic will be well-received by you and anyone else who has put in any efforts on the graphic's revision history.
3. My inspiration for the last revision in question was after reading the awesome article High Performance SVGs which goes into some interesting depths of the common pitfalls of SVG design (automated, specifically, but to some extent manual mistakes as well), and also includes a list of some popular SVG "optimizing tools" that address some of the more common areas of concern for SVG documents. The author specifically responded to my comment regarding paths that have extremely high floating-point numbers in their paths (like d="M 100.1230000234 100.1230000234 L 300.567000234 z", etc etc), and she mentioned that this was one of the issues that SVGOMG fixed up, so I figured "hey, why don't I try running one of my oddly-personal-favorite SVGs on wikipedia through this free tool and see the difference it makes?". Seeing that it dropped it from 137KB to 47KB, I was pretty excited, and made the revision. I wasn't too concerned about looking at the exact depth of changes it made from the original, since the tool came recommended from a great source, etc. So I didn't do an in-depth comparison to see if it affected the underlying "integrity" of the graphic at a document level (like merging paths that are intentionally separate and intended to have distinct meaning, etc, into one big path). I agree that such "optimizations", while sometimes useful when the end-result is most important or when the graphic was "written" by a machine that wasn't aware of the significance of these sub-parts remaining separate, can also lead to hyper-"uglified" documents that will only have value to a machine that outputs the result, and loses the value of the XML/hypertext/human-compatible parts of such standards like SVG, (good) HTML, and other human-readable documents are intended to provide. Having said that, I do think that there are probably aspects of the document that SVGOMG did improve—even if it also did some "glomming" (a new expression to me—which I am guessing is a sort of like "munging" crossed with "minifying" where the end result is mashed together code that technically still works but has lost its meaningfulness—that I am going to add to my dorktionary, so thanks for this, if nothing else!). So I may take a second pass at "optimizing" your SVG via similar tools, but keeping my eye out for "improvements" that trade off byte-count for semantic meaningfulness. Again, I hope any future revisions are taken as I intend them to be: improvements to the existing document/graphic, not as "critiques" or "hyper-simplifications" of the original approach.

Probably more feedback than you ever wanted on this, but, I actually appreciate that you took the time to give some real reasons for why you reverted my changes rather than give some one-line BS reason that clearly was actually a cover for some territorial pissing match, where your "precious darling baby" could never be improved upon by some outsider, etc. Also, my long-winded response is another great argument for why wikimedia documents should have a Talk page where we can reply to each other and allow others to join in rather than this weird "my talk page, then your talk page, then probably my talk page again" form of communication.

"Age of the Geek, baby!" -- Alec Hardison

--Crazytonyi (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hei :) Thank you so much for contributing Image:Whitehead-link-alternative-sexuality-symbol.svg to the commons!! We are very happy to use this for a gender non-binary group based in Vienna. Budding movements really heavily on symbols and logos and this one might likely find wide adaption. Unfortunatly i have no other means but if you happen to use Bitcoin i would be happy to let you have a little tip! Otherwise please accept our gratefulness :)

Mangostaniko (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Baker's San Felipe Flag.svg

Could you change the shade of green to that of the Mexican flag? Thanks. --Thegunkid (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Help needed – wrecking in symmetry categories

Hello. I see, you are an active wiki editor yet.

Please, look at the “chiral images” incident. Without users’ output, “admins” may downplay it and then allow the incident to fade away.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrongly colored coats of arms

Hello.

You have reverted my categorization of Category:Contravention of no colour on colour‎ under Category:Wrongly colored coats of arms which I have made due to a misconception about what files should be in "Wrongly colored coats of arms". For example File:AUT Stoob COA.jpg is categorized in this category, but shows the same colors (red and yellow) as the svg version of this coat of arms. Do you think that this file was categorized in "Wrongly colored coats of arms" because of the ugly compression artifacts or just by mistake? Or do I misunderstand something? Best regards, Torsch (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ministry of Interior Saudi Arabia.svg

File:Ministry of Interior Saudi Arabia.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!

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Celtic Knot Tattoo

Hi Anon,

I just wanted to share with you a tattoo I got based on one of the designs you made and maybe get your opinion about it. Thanks for designing it!

If you have any other ideas to improve the design I´ll be glad to hear them.

Best,

Anthony Callow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowsss (talk • contribs) 00:42, 07 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Outstanding work, with always the same diligence for detail and balance. Galahad78 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Professional use of one logo you designed

Hello AnonMoos, I'm a new user on Wikimedia and I have what may be a beginner's question. I have seen the "triskelion" design that youhave produced (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wheeled-Triskelion-basic.svg) and I really like it. I'm currently in the process of creating a small business here in Canada - selling hot food at our local farmer's market. I would like to use this logo as the official "brand image" of my company... How is it possible to do so, would you allow me to do it? If yes, under what conditions? Thank you in advance for your answer. Cheers, Ben —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.175.57.155 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As it says on the File:Wheeled-Triskelion-basic.svg page, I released it to the public domain as an abstract geometric shape. That means you can do pretty much what you want with it (except copyrighting the original unmodified version of the image so as to prevent other people from using it). AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! This is what I thought but I wanted to make sure...  :)

Thank you so much!!! -- 01:07, 16 January 2017‎ 184.175.57.155

re:your post on User talk:199.119.232.220

same person, different IP
Unless you object, if we converse, it's probably best if we post on this page.

Hi.
I see you've been busy with Category:Clothed male, nude female.   ;-)
I was going to put a lot of stuff in Category:Clothed male, nude female in art later (maybe in a month or two.)
First off, there was a decision made long ago that the word "naked" would not be included in Commons category names without some very specific reason.
Okay, but where was this decision made?
I just checked Google:
clothed male naked female
About 22,600,000 results (0.38 seconds)
clothed male nude female
About 2,770,000 results (0.43 seconds)
"naked" outnumbers "nude" by 8 times.
Not that I'm too passionate about it myself.

Second, even if the category were named correctly, it seems quite stupid and unnecessary...
I figured it'd be better than using both cats Category:Clothed male, nude female and Category:Barefoot women all the time.

199.119.232.217 12:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure now where the discussion was done and the decision was made (if I ever knew), but it was a decision about Commons category names, not the whole Internet, so your Google search results are quite irrelevant. These are much more relevant:

• Nude in category search: 3856 results
• Naked in category search: 170 results (many of them proper names, such as "Naked Cowboy", or not actually in the category name itself).

Second, there has been some pushback regarding excessively specific and narrow categories involving images of scantily-clad or unclad women, where this doesn't seem to help too much with regards to valid purposes of image categorization. For example, someone created a category "Women in bikinis wearing wristwatches", but what does wearing a bikini have to do with wearing a wristwatch, and in what way would such a category meaningfully help others find images? It's pretty much the same with "Clothed male, naked female with bare feet apparent‎", as far as I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the above links: I should pay attention to such numbers when I search here from time to time. Actually, I neglected to use the quotation marks on my Google searches: when I do nude beats naked by almost 2 to 1.

My understanding is that the arty types prefer "nude" to "naked" as the former gives it an air (or at least a greater air) of respectability. I suppose that it can also be used as a noun also helps: "I admire Hefner's tasteful nudes, I do say"; whereas there is likely a strong sexual component—or at least a stronger, more explicit, sexual component—in CMNF: "He was clothed, she was n-a-k-e-d." If I understand correctly, such was why Manet's famous painting created a bit of a scandal. As a lot of the files with women-without-clothes here are likely of the arty sort, so does the word "nude" likely predominate for this reason.

As for bikini girls with wristwatches (I see your comment in the talk of Category talk:Women with wristwatches wearing bikinis   ;-)   —btw, do I use the "[[:" for category talk on a page like this?), watches aren't only timepieces but fashion accessories. Such would be more the case for nude women. It's also kind of indicative of intelligence: e.g. she ain't some bikinied bimbo, she's conscious of time.

Very well, I will use two categories instead of the one I created, unless someone objects to that.199.119.232.217 14:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1) If you want to make a link to a category, then you have to add a colon ":" after the original [[, but that doesn't apply to links to category talk pages.

2) The real discussion about bikinis with wristwatches took place at User talk:Michael Barera/archives/2013#Category:Women with wristwatches wearing bikinis and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55#Strange categories created by Neelix (there have been some further discussions on the same general topic, not involving that category specifically)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Again, I learn from you.

Thanks about the colon tip and pointing out (however inadvertently) that one can find categories a user has created.

Category:Women between 182 and 185 centimetres in height with red hair and freckles wearing bikinis while talking on their cellphones? Just how does one ascertain height from pretty well any image in Wikicommons? You're also talking some tall women there.   ;-)    Actually red hair and freckles might separate the natural reds from those who colour theirs. Should it be "-metres" or "-meters"? As for cellphones, it'd help me avoid images of such.   ;-)

AnonMoos, I'm going to let you in on a little secret about me—a confession of sorts: my interests in all the nekkid women here isn't entirely to better facilitate searching for images for educational purposes. As the computers I use tend to be slow, I tend to use more than one or two pages at once. At times, while downloading porn such as this (nothing too explicit), I'm also downloading images from here. There is quite a cross-over between images here useful for educational purposes and of wiktionary:prurient, or prurient-of-sorts, interests. Now while I'm downloading images of all the nekkid (and barefoot) women here for my non-educational purposes, I figure that while I'm on the page, why not edit it a bit. Indeed, why not edit some of the non-sexual stuff?—all within the guidelines of WC, of course.

I know there's an ongoing debate about how far one can go on the nudity and sexual stuff on Wikicommons. I remember an editor here (I think it was here on WC), on the subject of all the images of penises, sarcastically referring to the "fascinating world of cock." Some folks say things have gone too far; others, I suppose, are willing to tolerate a bit of it, particularly as there are, what, over 25 million images here—it ain't paper and all of that—if 1% of 1% were of little more than porn, it's still be 2500 in number. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.7.156.141 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Now, if my edits, however the reasons that lead to my editing here, have become disruptive, particularly in the wonderful world of female nudity is concerned, I can refrain from editing on such subjects. Also as my non-nude/non-sexual edits tend to be general—i.e. uncat to cat People, uncat to cat Russia, etc, I might refrain from such as well. An administrator (whom I have little respect for as he didn't allow me a chance to talk it over as you are now here) here once blocked one of my IP addresses for such (and as I feel the block was unwarranted and I didn't really have a chance to talk it over, I feel free to evade it), I'm actually more wary of uncatting files to general files even if I figured they're better than nothing (he was of the opposite view). Therefore while I still do it, I'm actually nonetheless a bit more wary of it. If administrators here in general rather uncat files to remain uncategorized rather than go into general cats, I might stop such general categorizing, even though such would end much of my non-nude/non-sexual categorizing here in addition to ending my nudity/semi-nudity/sexuality categorizing of images here.199.7.156.141 03:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the filter won't allow me to post the rest of my largely non-controversial stuff and I don't feel like reporting it. So the issues, in my view, are somewhat unresolved. Still this will be my last edit for the night—maybe a few days. Sorry about the semi-no-show folks.199.7.156.141 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you've done has been really obnoxious or harmful (at least from my point of view), but the combination of the word "naked" (disfavored in category names here), plus the micro-sub-niche categorization in an area where I have an interest, motivated me to firmly oppose the creation of this one particular category... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The second last post of mine above this one is about a third of what I was going to post. Your above post has made my posting the other two-thirds of such likely unnecessary: save it for another time for another page, I suppose.

Thanks for the endorsement-of-sorts, or at least from refraining from all but perhaps a minor-at-most complaint.

As for particular categories:

If "naked" is disfavoured, then perhaps a Category:Clothed male, nude female with bare feet apparent again, as, if for nothing else, it's easier than putting images in both Category:Clothed male, nude female and Category:Barefoot female or Category:Barefoot women (as girls in the former category would most likely be not suitable for the CMNF cat), or perhaps the possibly more controversial Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent (they have cats for nudes and the like such as Category:Nude women with shoes,  Category:Nude women wearing knee socks,  Category:Nude women wearing high-heeled shoes,   and Category:Nude women with jeans,  why not this?, I figured).

If not, as it seems to be the case, I suppose I'll cope: again, 2 cats instead of 1.

I'd also like to see a Category:Topless and barefoot women (as breasts are above feet), or Category:Barefoot and topless women (as "b-" comes before "t-"), for files such as File:Strandidylle (1402422465).jpg and File:20011-08 przystanek woodstock 0 31.jpg as Category:Topless and barefoot female is problematic as (1) most categories use plurals, (2) "female" can include girls (and yes, non-humans)—let's not make life too easy for the pedophiles, and (3) most of its subcats say "women." If not, I suppose one could put in three categories: Category:Barefoot women—they are indeed women and they are barefoot, Category:Topless women (or its subcats)—they are indeed women and they are topless, and Category:Topless and barefoot female—they, or she—again—"female" is singular, are indeed topless and barefoot, and as women/a woman,  they/she  are/is  indeed female.

If left to my own devices, I was also intending of making subcats of Category:Female black hair, Category:Smiling women, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with long hair; such as I did with Category:Women with long black hair. There are (I think) 11 possible sub-cats from the first mentioned four and I intend(/ed) to go about it provisionally and slowly, maybe over a few 10s of months (maybe see how the latter category turns out).

I'm not quite sure what "in art" means. Does that include weird and/or artsy photographs such as File:Sublime Inhibition After Monroe.jpg—at least the title sounds artsy; or conversely very representational—File:Femme nue.jpg—while it lasts—I couldn't find one in several minutes as realistic that pre-dated photography—and thus perhaps somewhat non-artsy, paintings?

Thanks for your time.

199.7.156.141 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You should know that some people on Commons are rather tired of endless micro-sub-niche categorization activity with respect to images of scantily-clad and unclad women which leaves other areas of Commons unaffected. I personally am not really irritated by that in and of itself -- but when the micro-sub-niche categories combine things that aren't very directly related to each other (like bikinis and wristwatches), then I can become annoyed. I just don't see any close or necessary relationship between CMNF and bare feet apparent...

P.S. I'm not sure how Commons can compete with Tumblr when it comes to erotica images, since Commons has to respect copyright, while Tumblr ignores it in most cases. AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos.
It seems that my continuation of the above chat got stuck in the abuse filter—Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by 199.119.232.213—don't worry—it ain't abuse.   ;-)

hope it's cleared up soon.
199.119.232.213 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use figure in a book.

Dear AnonMoos,

I am working with Prof. Steven LaValle to help obtain permissions for borrowing figures or pictures in his upcoming book Virtual Reality, to be published by Cambridge University Press. The book is online here:

http://vr.cs.uiuc.edu/

We are hoping to include the picture of yours (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/John_Ball_encouraging_Wat_Tyler_rebels_from_ca_1470_MS_of_Froissart_Chronicles_in_BL.jpg) in this book (Chapter 1, Figure 1.22b). Could we please have your permission for this? Thank you.

Please contact me at awarkoczewski@yahoo.com Sincerely, Adam Warkoczewski —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.8.91.56 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia Foundation interpretations of copyright law, you don't have to ask anyone's permission to use image File:John Ball encouraging Wat Tyler rebels from ca 1470 MS of Froissart Chronicles in BL.jpg, but if you were to ask permission, it should be of the British Library, not me... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Warning

I would like to remind you that users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked.

[1] Regards, Sealle (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Overhand-folded-ribbon-pentagon.svg

Dear AnonMoos!

I haven’t been active on Wikimedia projects for a long time, but now I have stumbled upon this neat little graphic. I thought it might be a bit clearer using this code (changes in bold):

%!
300 396 translate 1.3172 dup scale
/X{72 mul 90 add}def/I{X cos 100 mul}def
/J{X sin 100 mul}def 4 I 4 J moveto
0 I 0 J lineto 1 I 1 J lineto
1.75 X cos 111.8 mul 1.75 X sin 111.8 mul rlineto
3 X cos 111.8 mul 3 X sin 111.8 mul rlineto
2 I 2 J lineto closepath
gsave .87 .97 .87 setrgbcolor fill grestore
.2 .65 .3 setrgbcolor 2 setlinewidth stroke
3 I 3 J moveto 1 I 1 J lineto
0 I 0 J lineto 4 I 4 J lineto
3.25 X cos 111.8 mul 3.25 X sin 111.8 mul rlineto
2 X cos 111.8 mul 2 X sin 111.8 mul rlineto
closepath gsave .92 .96 1 setrgbcolor fill grestore
.2 .3 .55 setrgbcolor stroke 4 I 4 J moveto
0 I 0 J lineto 2 I 2 J lineto 3 I 3 J lineto
closepath gsave .92 .96 1 setrgbcolor fill grestore
stroke [5.2] 5.2 setdash
3 I 3 J moveto 1 I 1 J lineto stroke
.2 .65 .3 setrgbcolor [5.14] 5.14 setdash
2 I 2 J moveto 1 I 1 J lineto stroke
/l { 36 dup sin exch cos div mul mul } def
3 I 3 J moveto 0.25 X cos 90 l 0.25 X sin 90 l rlineto stroke
3 I 3 J moveto 0.25 X cos 110 l 0.25 X sin 110 l rmoveto 0 I 0 J lineto stroke
2 I 2 J moveto 4.25 X cos 90 l 4.25 X sin 90 l rlineto stroke
2 I 2 J moveto 4.25 X cos 110 l 4.25 X sin 110 l rmoveto 4 I 4 J lineto stroke
showpage
%EOF

Do you agree? Kind regards, —Quilbert (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew letters

Hi there AnonMoos!

I'm looking for the hebrew letters separately, i.e., to print them one by one in A4 sheets. I've seen your Chi symbol and have downloaded it. It's exactly the format I need, and I was wondering if you knew how to get them all.

Kind regards Lagirling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagirling (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

hello

hello i see u made the flag for Sultanate of Mogadishu [2]. can you make a similar one for medri bahri? based on this [3] Duqsene (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It will be used on the Medri Bahri main article on wikiepdia. Ya it was a kingdom in modern day Eritrea. Duqsene (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, as shown here, its regarded as the flag of the kingdom [4] Duqsene (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Mogadishu flag u added is the same flag on the reality game page. It should also be removed. Duqsene (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Nordic flag of Greenland (Proposal).PNG

File:Nordic flag of Greenland (Proposal).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 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!

Julius Cæsar (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Znak obce Tlumačov u Domažlic.svg

File:Znak obce Tlumačov u Domažlic.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!

TFerenczy (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

file:MUNUS-SAL-sinnishtu Cuneiform.svg

"munus" should be written as "𒊩" instead?

The only female determinative in Sumerian that I have seen is "𒊩" (munus, Akkadian sinništu) [5] [6] [7]. I am not sure what character is displayed in this file. Nicole Sharp (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbols

OK. Sorry. Best regard, --JMCC1 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Assyrian cuneiform U120DC MesZL 426.svg

---

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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Flag of Comecon.svg

File:Flag of Comecon.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!

Ency (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:RadicalRelationsHeart.png

File:RadicalRelationsHeart.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 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!

—LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Assyrian cuneiform U121CB MesZL 776.svg

---

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 MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)