Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Pierre cb

File:Circumhorizontal arc in Michigan.jpgEdit

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Bahasa Indonesia | 日本語 | മലയാളം | Português | svenska | 中文 | +/−


Hello!

Thank you for uploading File:Circumhorizontal arc in Michigan.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,

Stefan4 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Possible tornadoEdit

First of all, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The rain shaft was rotating, giving it the appearance of a heavily rain-wrapped tornado. It occurred northeast of Highway 403 in a forested area, where there were several reports of broken branches and some snapped trees. The tree damage may also have been due to straight-line winds, which were very strong that day. --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have images of the damaged trees? What was the trees' falling shape like? Did trees lay straight in a line or like Mikado sticks? Sturmjäger (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmjäger: I have transferred your question to User talk:Anonymous Macaw. Pierre cb (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Supercell final fr.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Supercell final fr.jpg. 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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why follow edit?Edit

Hello Pierre, why this edit? --Jean11 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jean11: Hi: "Category:Innenstadt (Villach)" does not exist and should not be there. There is no point to link to a non-existant category. If you ever create this category, then you could add it, but I see no point into creating it since there is already Category:Flood in Villach which is a subcategory of Category:Villach already with the picture Pierre cb (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Pierre simply because the category has not been created, which is not an argument for removing this. Innenstadt (Villach) is a district, so an entirely different meaning. --Jean11 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: So create it. As I said it is useless to have a category indicated on an image if it is leading to nothing. Pierre cb (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not correct, because it is used to sort the images in a virtual category, and if there are enough images in the virtual category to create this only. This is common practice here at commons. --Jean11 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: First news I have of such a practice and I'm an old fart in Commons. Can you cite the rule on that? Pierre cb (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


move to commonsEdit

Hello Pierre, these two photos are stuck on English wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pocketthis#/media/File:High_Desert_Fog.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pocketthis#/media/File:Flaming_Rain_at_Sunset.jpg It seems the proper steps were taken to allow them to be transferred, but they just sit there. Can you move them please. I don't know how to thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pocketthis: Done! Pierre cb (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User gone Looney?Edit

Hello my friend. Got a notice that someone had edited one of my photos on here. When I got to the sunset photo, some user had added another 6 categories...lol. When I went to his page, I saw that he is on a mission here today to edit many sunset photos. If what he is doing is OK.....then fine. However, if not, I wanted to check with you first before I decided if I was going to reverse these edits. You can visit this URL to see what he has been up to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.78.138.253 I respect your opinion here on Commons, and I don't have much luck here when I get in conflicts. As usual: Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pocketthis: Hi. Some of the added categories are OK but others are not present in the photos. For instance in File:Beach Sunset Newport Coast (6677432533).jpg I can see an "Orange sunset" but not the other color categories. That IP is either color blind, and cannot decide the real color of the sunsets, or is blanketting all possible color categories. If I were you, I would keep the correct color category and remove all the others. Pierre cb (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
OK buddy...thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This is what I mean Pierre about my luck on this site. I take out a couple of unnecessary categories, and this "phantom" puts them back. I have always believed that on Commons: "No one belongs in another man's photo files but the author, admin, or someone authorized by the author or uploader. Anyone else is a vandal in my opinion, and I have been "blocked" from here and punished for voicing this opinion here in various debates on this site. An example of proper procedure in my opinion: When you messaged me the first time you were interested in moving some of my files over here. You didn't just "do it", you asked me first. We then became friends. You wouldn't believe the vandalism I've had to remove from my photo files on here over the years, because any idiot can go into a man's photo files and type things like "Suck my Dick" in the license area, or wherever. I've actually had entire "commercials" printed in my photo files. That is why I didn't upload a single photo to this site for over a year. Well, I'm back because of your help and kindness, but nothing's changed in policy around here. It just doesn't make any sense to me that anyone can edit "Commons". Thanks for all of your help and advice here, but the situation here is hopeless. At least on en.wikipedia, the vandalism is caught very quickly by Bot programs, and removed. Here, they stay until you find them. Pocketthis (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with anon(s) because all colors exist on the images IMHO. If it is not so, you possibly use old computer with bad color reproduction /St1995 17:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sir, you may have missed the entire point here. True, this particular phantom editing is not harmful, and I could care less what categories he wants to add my work into. However, I don't think that anyone looking for editing credits should be able to get into an art form. FYI: I have five computers with the highest resolution available on the planet. There is only one of my images in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burnt_Horizon.jpg He has been editing at random in other users files as well. In this case, he is not a vandal, but a vandal has the same access as him or anyone else. However, I guess I have to get it in my head that once I donate a photo to Commons, I don't own it anymore. But out of respect for the author, I'd like to see some limited, or protected editing privileges. Happy editing! - Pocketthis (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a fascinating conversation and I agree partially Pocketthis:

  • Stupid added comments are vandalism in all cases and should be reverted. Bot policing should improved.
  • If there is a good justification given, I have no problem with it. Many of my images have been recategorized by other users for better categorization and that did not bother me.

However, I would ask that you all continue on the Commons:Village pump, not on my discussion page. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to categorize logosEdit

Your contributions to Wikimedia Commons are appreciated. One minor point is to have "logos" be lowercase instead of "Logos". But I am glad to see you taking the initiative. Again, thanks! Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 09:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Senator2029: OK. Sorry about the extra work you had to do! Pierre cb (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Image for deletion is clicked by me.Edit

Hi Pierre,

I strongly disagree with the deletion of the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Let_the_mind_be_clear_of_all_thoughts_and_merge_into_expansive_existence.jpg as these images are clicked by me

please refer to the similar image uploaded by me. File:Buildings at Rishi Chaitanya Ashram.jpg and website from where I have shared these.

http://www.gurumaa.com/ashram/ashram-rishi-chaitanya-ashram-in-india

please compare the images and take decisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilchaudhary (talk • contribs) 11:00, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

@Salilchaudhar, Rodhullandemu: Sorry but images with website on them are likely copyrighted. You must contact Commons to certify that they are yours and not copyrighted (OTRS procedure). In the least, your photos are publicity for this website which not accepted by Commons. Pierre cb (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


As per the deletion of the images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2016_July_09_10:30#Salilchaudhary_.2840_edits.29 with the tag of copyright an email to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org has been shared by the concern organization from info@gurumaa.com to grant me the permission to upload their images anywhere across the globle as those images were clicked by me and also request you to rollback all my images been removed from wiki commons. Let me know if anything else id required. Salilchaudhary (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Salilchaudhar: I am NOT an administrator. You have to refer to their decision. However I can say that your photos are purely publicity for that Ashram and if it was up to me, they would never be reinstated! Pierre cb (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hermine VIS-IR 2016-09-01.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hermine VIS-IR 2016-09-01.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

High pressureEdit

Probably you do not understand the subject of high pressure lens gaskets for 3500 bar. This is a high pressure device of a polyethylene plant. Not supposed to be submerged or used for divers. I reverted your edits. Please read the description before moving to inapproprate categories. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cccefalon: Sorry if I redirect to the wrong category but your images were in a category associated to Meteorology, not high pressure technology. Please create a new category for them or use an existing category more related. Pierre cb (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The category "High Pressure" is wrongly connected to meteorology. Pse see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_pressure. High pressure in science is a pressure above 100 bara.
I suggest that all meteorology related topics should go to a new category "High pressure area". This will comply with the specific explanations in English wikipedia. Regards, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cccefalon: Suggest it to the Meteorology project in that case. I am just cleaning the categories. Pierre cb (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It was even much easier. I created Category:High pressure and aligned the technical categories with pressures over 100 bara as subcategories. Problem resolved. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:C-17 tests Phoenix snow runway for wheeled aircraft at McMurdo Station -- Antarctica -- November 2016.jpgEdit

Hi Pierre, I notice that you removed categories for snow and Antarctica from the subject file. Please help me understand why. The image is significant because it as an aircraft test of a snow runway for wheeled aircraft, so snow is a significant category. One other runway that can accept wheeled aircraft in Antarctica is at the Australian station, so Antarctica, at large seems appropriate. I'll watch this space. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: The Category:McMurdo Station is a sub-category Category:Antarctica, thus redundant. As for the Category:Snow, it is a mother category (see {{Categorise}}) where all images must be transferred to sub-categories and since Antarctica is covered by snow, this is a category irrelevant unless you create a category Category:Snow in Antarctica where all the pictures of Antarctica will be categorized. Or you can create a Category:Snow runways that would be a sub-category of category Snow, but you would have to find other images to help fill it in order not to create an orphan category. Pierre cb (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Weather and climate in CanadaEdit

Hi Pierre cb. I reverted your edits to Category:Weather and climate in Ontario and two others because they created an inconsistency in the naming hierarchy. The Weather and climate in... categories should have parent categories that match (ie - also Weather and climate in), and likewise for the Weather in...' categories. Mindmatrix 20:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: I understand your point. I had moved them to Weather of Canada because there is nothing in those categories that is really related to climatology, exect the Seasons in Ontario, all files and sub-categories are about weather events and phenomena. Pierre cb (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the bigger issue here is that Commons needs to develop a rigorous approach to the Category:Weather and Category:Weather and climate categories. For example, why is the former not a member of the latter? To me it would make sense that the specific category Weather would be a member of the broader category Weather and climate (likewise for the respective country subcategories). Moreover, there's no consistency within categories, as can be seen in Category:Weather and climate by country, which is almost evenly split between Weather and climate in... and Weather and climate of... subcategories. Category:Weather by country more consistently uses "of", but there are exceptions there too.
Regarding your concern that the contents of Category:Weather and climate in Ontario et al are mostly weather related, I think the better option would be to create the subcat Category:Weather in Ontario, making it a subcat of Weather and climate in Ontario and Weather of Canada, then moving the appropriate content there. Mindmatrix 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: I agree with you there is a bit of confusion probably due to the fact that many think weather and climate are the same thing. Thanks, Pierre cb (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cumulus11 - NOAA.jpgEdit

I haven't read the description in the source link. Sorry and thank you for the correction.

--Daniele.Brundu (talk)

Roll and shelf cloudsEdit

Since the new WMO atlas has now officially added volutus as a cloud species (of Altocumulus and Stratocumulus genera), it shouldn't be classified as arcus (accessory cloud to Cumulonimbus & Cumulus). I know there is some confusion arising from earlier usage, but the names are now formalized and we better stick to that. Szczureq (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but volutus (or roll cloud) still designate to different types of clouds, one being a particular form of arcus. Unless you want to create Category:Volutus (arcus) and Category:Volutus (soliton), you cannot dissociate the Roll cloud images with arcus. Pierre cb (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
'Roll cloud' does, 'volutus' (a new formal term) doesn't. Arcus clouds may be divided into shelf and roll clouds. Szczureq (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Besides, why do you answer in your own discussion?
@Szczureq: So what do you suggest? Keeping Category:Roll cloud separate from Category:Volutus?
I'd prefer all roll-form arcus clouds to be put into Category:Arcus clouds. But if you think it would be causing confusion, let's keep the separate categories. These are only categories after all and if they are to be useful it might be better that way. Only the tree would mix formal and informal terms, resulting in Volutus ∈ Roll clouds ∈ Arcus clouds, while in fact Volutus ∉ Arcus clouds. Szczureq (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Image requestEdit

I've seen you were able to colorise the GOES 13 image of Matthew at 1845Z Sep. 30. Do you mind if you could try the same with the image of Matthew at 1945Z? --MarioProtIV (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Hi. I did not colorized that image, it was like that in the source (at version https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/af/20161001145853%21Matthew_Geostationary_VIS-IR_2016.png) by Supportstorm. So I have no opinion on your request. Pierre cb (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mannheim_radarsEdit

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Blitzschutz in Freileitung Klosterwinkel.jpgEdit

Hi Pierre, I know canada is a little bit far from us, but austria is not germany, in this image was at first a category austria, but you add one from germany. Is not so bad, but an information for you :-) --regrads from Austria K@rl (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber: Sorry, I did not go the the image itself. I use cat-a-lot function to reclassify some images in subcategories. I used Germany as the text was in that language, silly of me! I will be more careful next time. Pierre cb (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, ce n'est que une information :-) pas de problem et saluts de vienne K@rl (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BilderlöschungenEdit

Hi Pierre,

mir ist nicht ganz klar, warum du die von mir bereit gestellten Bilder gelöscht hast. Es gibt hier keine Copyrightverletzungen, die Bilder sind allesamt von mir.

Oder was habe ich falsch gemacht?


   1 File:Boeenwalze-Superzelle-Gewitter.jpg
   2 File:Unwetter-mit-Starkregen.jpg
   3 File:Superzelle-Gewitter.jpg
   4 File:Deutschland-Sommer-Badesee.jpg
   5 File:Burg-Ebernbug-Bad-Münster-am-Stein.jpg
   6 File:Sonnenaufgang-waginger-see.jpg
   7 File:Regenbogen-bei-Sonnenuntergang-mit-Regen.jpg
   8 File:Forggensee mit Blick auf die Berge.jpg
   9 File:Mit dem Boot auf dem Hopfensee.jpg
   10 File:Unwetter-mit-Starkregen.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evetro (talkcontribs) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


@Evetro: Sorry but I do not speak German. I am using Google translator to reply and I hope you will understand:
  • Diese Bilder sind von einer Seite mit dem Urheberrecht, können Sie auch herunterladen, wenn Sie sagen, dass Sie wäre, weil der Autor Commons GFDL-Lizenz erfordert.
  • Wenn es stimmt, was Sie sagen, müssen Sie eine E-Mail an Commons senden, die bestätigt, dass Sie alle Ihre reproduktiven Rechte Commons (OTRS) geben
  • Bitte lesen: Commons: Lizenzen und Commons:OTRS/de
Pierre cb (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pierre, sorry for my take in this question, but the german translation of google or whatever is not to understand. The question was, that the user can not see a error from his side, because all the photos where made from himself. --regards K@rl (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Evetro, Karl Gruber: Well, I will say it in English :
  • These images have been uploaded from a website with copyright mention. Commons consider this as a {{Copyvio}} as any image must have a free licence (GNU Free Documentation License). This does not change even if the uploader claims to be the original owner of the image.
  • Furthermore, each image gave the name of the creator in its Metadata, it was a different name than Evetro and it specified that it was done expressedly for the website. There is thus no way to know that the uploader is really the creator of this image.
  • Finally, the only way to have these photographs readmitted into Commons is to use the OTRS procedure.
I suggested the deletion of these images but it is an administrator that deleted them, not me, as he agreed to the reasons I have explained above. Evetro is a new user and should read the rules of Commons. In particular, please see: Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS for further details. Pierre cb (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps I can help Evetro, he is a new user and I can explain him in german, what does it matter :-) --regards to Canada --K@rl (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pierre cb".