Last modified on 27 February 2014, at 17:06

User talk:W.Rebel

Return to "W.Rebel" page.

File:Smichovnadrazi.pngEdit

Ahoj, na téhle mapě mě zaujala snesená kolej na odbočče před Vyšehradským železničním mostem. Máte informace, kam tato kolej vedla a kdy byla snesena? Často chodím kolem, takže mě to zaujalo, protože okolí a část mostu přes silnici nevypadá, jako by zde byla v minulosti kolej. (vypoplaz@seznam.cz)


File:Porter-Allen cylinder and valves 2.pngEdit

Thankyou! 8-)

I hope you found my scans useful. There are more listed under User:Andy_Dingley. Colourful versions like yours would be very welcome and would make many of these mechanisms clearer to understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks of info. I do not have much time for drawing. --Hapesoft (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Curiosities of Locomotive DesignEdit

Interesting new category! What's the background to it? Is this a book? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanx ! I prepare on cs:wikipedia ... this art, source ... Curiosities of Locomotive Design and Secons Evolution of the Steam Locomotive. --Hapesoft (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:GearBoxRotRotVar.gifEdit

Hi Hapesoft, I took a look at your File:GearBoxRotRotVar.gif, and although useful, the image is also a bit misleading. This because it makes it look like the 2 cones are facing the same direction, and the belt just jumps/slides down on either side. In reality, the cones face opposing sides, and one part of the belt would actually not be visible. To resolve it atleast better (without losing vision on the belt), I propose to put

  • the (now black) belt in dark blue and lighter blue (lighter blue= not visible belt)
  • change the grey rings to darker and lighter grey (darker being more towards the spectator, lighter being further away)

91.182.43.78 12:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The cones are facing in the same direction - there are four cones, they are in inward-facing pairs.
The diagram is simplified by making the upper cone transparent, so that we can see the belt. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with this image. Do not mess with it. Do not "improve" it, "fix" it, or upload any new version over the top of this.
If you do this, I will report it as yet more vandalism from you (because that's what your ceaseless stream of incorrect edits have now become) and will endeavour to have you and your IP space blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is a simplified view. The first cone discs are not drawn. Drawing the belt and the rear cone. --Hapesoft (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pěkná fotkaEdit

Nordkapp 2010 whitenight.jpg

Při vyšším rozlišení by se dala nominovat na Quality Image.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahoj Juane, chápu, že se ti tato fotografie třeba líbí, je to působící náladovka ale to je včechno, možná někomu jako tapeta na plochu, když má rád ponuré náměty. Vyšší rozlišení její hodnotu nezvýší. I ve větším rozlišení nemá žádné detaily, kontury, ostré a kontrasní přechody. Takže, i kdyby jich nahrál v původním rozlišení, stále to bude pouze neostrá náladovka s měkkými přechody. Na snímku i nechtěný scénický nedostatek, a to vodní brázda, která se táhne přibližně od středu snímku v dolní části šikmo vpravo dolů k pravému okraji. Při zaměřování snímku tam nebyla a stihnul jsem cvaknout dříve, než se brázda změnila o čeření. Schválně nepíši čím to bylo (Lochness tam ale nežije), aby jsi hned nepsal, že to je VV, když to nemám vyfocený :D a stejně to nebylo pořádně vidět.

No, jen se divím, že u té fotky nepostrádáš exify, u File:Temppeliaukio Church - Project 1939.jpg jsou a je ti to pořád málo, prostě jsem to tak vyfotil, svisle vyrovnal, vyvážil, barevně doladil a oříznul z toho tu skálu okolo na který to bylo přibitý (viz ostatní fotky exteriéru z toho místa). To je stejné autorské dílo jako bych to neořezával, jen by motiv tolik nevyniknul, jenže motivem je právě ta deska s vyobrazením kostela a text. Zdroje ani neuvádějí, kdo byl autorem rytiny nebo předlohy, prostě to je jen moje fotka. A tohle File:Temppeliaukio Church - Project 1939 (2).png ať chceš nebo nechceš je taky moje dílo, kresba podle mojí fotografie. S tím nic nenaděláš, stejně jako ostatní kresby.

DSC 0072(2).jpg

Když už se snažíš naléz něco kvalitního, tak tohle je sice taky zmenšeno (na 50% strany / 25% plochy), přesto je zachováno dostatečně dobré rozlišení detailů včetně drobných strupů na větvích, které jsou potencionálními zárodky nových větví (nejsem botanik), ze spodní strany listů jsou dobře viditelné žilky listů, pupeny na letošní jaro, strom je snad i celkem zdravý, na listech nejsou přílišné stopy po škůdcích ani mimikry, kterými dub imituje nakladení vajec škůdců nebo stopy po zakuklení (pokud to na listech je, tak to vypadá to jako malé bradavičky), jeden takový bod na listu je možná přibližně uprostřed snímku na horní straně listu. Občasné díry listech mohou být stopami po škůdcích nebo přirozený rozpad listu, to nedovedu posoudit. Celkově má snímek dobré nasvícení a je vhodně proostřen tak, aby byly ostré přední listy s detaily, listy v druhé řadě a dále jsou již přirozeně neostré a dělají jen pozadí. Škála hnědé barvy je vytvožena nasvícením, natočením horní/dolní strany listu a stupněm schnutí listů. S měkkou modrou barvou pozadí se hnědá snese. Jedině co by snímku prospělo, by bylo méně listů ale chudák strom netušil, že jej vyfotím tak to listí více neshodil. Ty super fotky na kalendáře vznikají uměle, kdy fotograf je téměř schopen přesadit strom a vykopat drn aby mu to v záběru pěkně sedělo. --W.Rebel (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Jen poznámka k tomu finskému kostelu: ve Finsku platí FOP pro exteriéry i interiéry veřejných i neveřejných budov. S projektem neuskutečněné stavby by ale problém být mohl, i když tato byla rozestavěna. Neuskutečněný projekt prostě nelze překreslit tak, abys nezasáhl do práv jeho autora. Jak je tomu ve Finsku s technickým nákresem, to nevím - musel by to posoudit nějaké znalec finského práva. Každopádně u odvozených děl (a toto dílo je odvozené čtyřnásobně, t. j. překreslení projektu kýmsi na pamětní tabuli, vyfocení pamětní tabule a následně překreslení pohledu) je vždy nutné (jak kvůli autorským právům, tak kvůli tomu, aby popis nebyl zavádějící) co nejpřesněji uvést zdroje a údaje o použitých dílech. U věrných reprodukcí dvourozměrných děl (u skenů, ale i například u fotky obrazu) se tady na Commons obvykle autorský přínos skenujícího člověka či fotografa opomíjí a do šablony se vyplňují primárně údaje o vyfoceném díle, u prostých fotek pamětních desek se obvykle vyplňují údaje o fotografovi a fotce, ta tabule s nákresem kostela je něco mezi tím. Je fakt, že popisné šablony nejsou k vyplňování údajů o odvozených děl moc dobře uzpůsobeny. --ŠJů (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ve finsku to mají nějak komplikové to ano, ale to by nikdo nemohl vyfotit ani ten kostel zvenčí natož zevnitř. Jestliže je možno fotit zvenčí tak ta deska je také umístěna venku a ani se nejedná o umělecké dílo. To omezení FOP se totiž týká uměleckých děl nikoliv pamětních desek a památníků. Zrovna tak památník Sibeliuse. File:Sibelius grave.jpg dále jiná díla File:Helsinki 2009 PD 0010.JPG, stavby File:Helsinki (church).jpg, zevnitř File:Temppeliaukio, Helsinki.jpg, moderní interiéry File:Asematunneli Helsinki.jpg, dokonce sochy File:Helsinki-worker-statue-1751.JPG a další. Tak nevím, proč zace čecháčci chtějí být papežtější než papež. Co sem tu měl fotky z finska Tichých lidí tak ty už finové smázli ale na rozdíl o českých všeználků napřed proběhla konzultace s rodilejma finama co může být ponecháno a co ne, při tom lze předpokládat, že projeli/zkontrolovali i ostatní fotky z finska, včetně tohoto nepostavného kostela. Takže pokud proti tomu finové nic nenamítali již dříve, resp. vyselektovali to, je další diskuse na dvě věci ... --W.Rebel (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Možná si špatně rozumíme. Když píšu, že ve Finsku platí FOP pro exteriéry i interiéry veřejných i neveřejných budov, tak tím mám na mysli, že platí, ne že neplatí. T. j. budovy (existující budovy) lze volně fotit zevnitř i zvenčí. Ta socha je špatný příklad, její autor zemřel roku 1907. Jak je tomu s nákresy nerealizovaných staveb, to je otázka - u nás by k uvolnění práv stačilo, aby taková deska byla trvale umístěna na veřejném prostranství, ale pokud ve Finsku FOP platí jen pro budovy, tak bych si nebyl jist, že platí i pro technické nákresy upevněné na budovách. Každopádně na odvozeném díle by v Commons měly být vždy uvedeny dostupné údaje o původním díle, které je vyfoceno nebo překresleno. --ŠJů (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Baby Bell pepper Capsicum annuum 3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Baby Bell pepper Capsicum annuum 3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baby Bell pepper Capsicum annuum 3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Costa Concordia map 13-1-2012.pngEdit

Source (reference) for the time:21:58 position?Edit

Hello,

Do you have a source for the "time:21:58, speed 0.0 knots" position ? Teofilo (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship that sinks (situated on the right side) is no longer floating ;) , knot = naval unit speed. --W.Rebel (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, but this is not what I am asking. I mean: do you have a newspaper article confirming that the grounding occurred at 21:58 UTC ? Teofilo (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, check: [http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/16/news/concordia_vittime-28199505/ Altro cadavere sulla Concordia, sei le vittime

"Errore umano, procedure non rispettate"]. A classic problem of mass media. Source Maritime Authority would be better. You have a link? No problem to adjust/modify. --W.Rebel (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rebel, as you probably have seen your great map is also used in the german wikipedia article Costa Concordia. Thanks for your work! However on the discussion page of that article there have been asked questions as for the different timings; there seems to be a contradiction between the AIS position 20:37 UTC and the collision, assumed at 20:30 UTC, and the events until 20:50 "tilt boat". Maybe I can help you sort this out with current times as published in italian newspapers. As far as I know, the collision has taken place at 20:45 UTC accordung to the general attorny of Grosseto, reference can be given. After that I have no sources for events or AIS positions until the 20:53 point you already have. But I have seen some positions from gemit trafik that now I cannot find any more. If I do not react on a posting here please 'ring me' at my discussion page. --Isjc99 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the corrected gemi trafik map with some positions not yet in your chart: facebook post of corrected gemi trafik positions
You're right, look for more, but more sources, more different data, try the Italian (tomorrow). --W.Rebel (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Format SVGEdit

Why didn't you upload the SVG version of this map? --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Any code, also code SVG can be described as source code, then it is at the discretion whether to publish it or not. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I understood you make this image as svg and save it as png? To save double work, can you upload the svg-version on the svg-image I made from your img?--RicHard-59 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the picture created in SVG and saved (exported) as a PNG. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
And why did you not upload it as SVG first hand? This would give other people the chance to translate it to other languages! --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why this file File:Sensebezirk-Wappen.png, File:Wappen Bergen (Celle).png is not SVG?
P.S. File:RK 0907 3460 Kaiserbahn Ratzeburg.jpg ... good --W.Rebel (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

LegendEdit

Hello and thank you for the nice map. What is the meaning of blue and red dotted lines? Can you please explain and provide a legend? --Ingo1968 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will fulfill the legend. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It would be helpful to have the explanations inside the image. --Ingo1968 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Other mapsEdit

Here are other maps for information:

Maybe you can precise or include some information. --Ingo1968 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I look for a moment. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
See section above - I added another map link there. --Isjc99 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice update today, Rebel. Thank you. --Ingo1968 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Map of ItalyEdit

Hallo W.Rebel, I like your map, but you should use another map of Italy, showing also Corse, Croatia, etc. On your map, all those countries are missing and the map is misleading. --muns (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Detail of the map is focused on the location of the accident. This is the main theme. The small figure shows only Italy, because it was the Italian ship and Italian territory. The purpose is to localization, determination of the location. Yes, from a geographical aspects there really some of the missing. But the areas in terms of accident location really important when there is tragedy off the coast of Italy, a few miles? --W.Rebel (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand the purpose, but your choice ist geographically really misleading. Althoug the focus is of course on Italy, the cartographic base sould be correct. You could use File:Italy location map.svg instead. --muns (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
just like that? --W.Rebel (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
very good, thanks! --muns (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you for the graphic showing the last positions of the Costa Concordia. - Ingo1968 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, surprise, thank you --W.Rebel (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeřáb - plody v ziměEdit

Ahoj, odmazal jsem kategorii není to jeřáb. Podle mého jde o kalinu. Tímto tě chci taky upozornit, že to smáznu z článku o rodu jeřáb. Nebylo by od věci přejmenovat ten snímek a upravit popis, abychom nemátli lidi.Dendrofil (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletionEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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, 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)‎ | +/−

DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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, 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

About some of your diagramsEdit

Hello, W.Rebel, I'm making a report on the workings of the RepRap 3D printers for my university, and I would like to use some of your images (I wanted to ask you if it's ok with you). Also, as to give proper attribution, should I credit it to HapeSoft or to W.Rebel. After the report is made it will be made public (free open license).

This is the image I may be using (given your permission): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GearBoxRotLinScrew.gif I find this image quite explanatory, thank you for your great work.

Copyright status: File:Salamanca 2.pngEdit

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Salamanca 2.png. 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.

JuTa 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial DSC 2539 2.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial DSC 2539 2.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!


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)‎ | +/−

Labattblueboy (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bodio north portalEdit

I presume it is a typo, the labelling "Bodio north portal" in File:GBT-geo.png. Best regards -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)