Achim Hering

Welcome to the Commons, Achim Hering!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

Do you happen to have a higher resolution image of your image Bad Taste.jpg? This really is not such a good and funny picture with such a resolution, and I think that if we cannot find one, we shall either have to move the picture down so it does not ugly the article, or completely delete it. Learn a bit from these images:

A short haired chihuahua.

A short haired chihuahua.

- WebberTakito (talk)

I see what you mean. I took this with a max setting on a webcam, so I have nothing with higher resolution, I could see about taking it with a proper cam though. I already thought about that too. Actually though, it's really only used on thumbs, and looks OK for that, just to get the point across. I'll see about getting the pic taken with a better camera. --Achim Hering (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the image is at the top of a page on taste (or something like that, I can't remember) and the size is pretty large there! Thank you for cooperating, and I look forward to seeing that image (the first one made me laugh). --WebberTakito (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point because someone removed it, calling it vandalism and self-promotion, though I hardly think it's flattering. Anyway, the few emotion type pix I uploaded are still in the appropriate categories on commons but none are in the articles anymore and I was not about to pick a fight with whoever considers those articles to be his or her turf. I also get picky about stuff people do to passive fire protection articles. Still, the pix are up and nothing is preventing you from setting them as rotating wallpaper on your desktop, or hiring a sign shop to get them done up as truck lettering to adhere to your car, or framed pix on top of your mantle or in the loo, graphics icing on your wedding anniversary cake, etc. I won't mind. :-) And I'm glad it gave you a chuckle. I know some people who thought it was quite funny. Nobody thought it was self-promotion though around here... --Achim Hering (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Papermills

Hello, I see you adding category:Paper to several images. A good action. But it is possible to just add category:Paper as a upper category to category:pulp and paper mills and to uncharge the category:Paper from pictures of factories, mills apaper making machines. Will you look after that first. Good luck categorizing. Havang 07:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I answered you at my discussion page.Havang 09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About Commons

Hello, you did a nice job with paper and fire stop articles at the english wikipedia and good résumés at the german. Your pages on commons are nice too. I have hesitated whether I should make a comment. Please, do not change your pages after reading this. Be aware that commons is the archive for pictures, also called items. Making a gallery out of a group of pictures is however allowed. But the legends at the pictures should not make it an article like on the (en, de, etc) wikipedia's. Also, there is preference to put the legend text within the single picture page at the entry description and to relate pictures not by making a page but by making a category, which allows easier searching.

For interwiki links, one does not use the [http....] line but use [[ ]] and put first the wikipedia country abbreviation, en, de, nl, fr etc. So: en:User:AHering , de:User:AHering. Look into Editing pages and imitate formats etc.

By the way, I am not an expert on commons, but wikipedians learn from each other. Because I made to much mistakes, I just started some three weeks ago studiing how to categorize better. I learned much about commons from User:Juiced lemon. and from fr:Utilisateur:Jeroen at the french wikipédia. So will you. Good luck. Havang 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Captions

Any chance we can talk you out of captioning your uploaded photos within the images themselves? There's plenty of room to comment on them in their file pages and on whatever articles you link to them to, and having all that text reduces their use for other wiki articles you may not have considered their placement on when writing your captions. 71.168.215.11 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia captions policy is indeed to not put captions in pictures. If you have the same pictures without captions you should reupload them without captions and add a description texte in the upload template. Sorry, I know, that's a lot of double work. Havang 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, I get the message. I'll see what I can do. I only have so much time and am usually taking my Wiki time out of sleep to the chagrin of my better half who has no sense of humour where it comes to these things. So please be patient with me. Newer ones won't have it, the other stuff I will have to fill in as I have time. And thanks for pointing it out! --Achim Hering 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about this, but I was wondering which control room the photo Control_room_cabinets.jpg was taken in. Is it also from the Point Tupper coal power plant? Great photo by the way, it really adds context to the area of refuge article! --Pmj (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. No bother. Thanks for the kind comment. And, yes, that was Pt Tupper before they fixed it. I have no idea what their maintenance has been like since then though. The idea is to make you think that just because you see a nice cabinet, that does not mean that there is an integral fire barrier beneath. It takes deliberate maintenance to keep that firestop operable. --Achim Hering (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:West side of nf transit terminal.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:West side of nf transit terminal.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. This message was added automatically, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Just an oversight, but fixed now....--Achim Hering 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pt_tupper_unit_1_control_room_behind_wall_control_panel.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Pt_tupper_unit_1_control_room_behind_wall_control_panel.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Karelj 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See the answer on the talk page for the deletion. --Achim Hering 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pt_tupper_control_room_cable_salad.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Pt_tupper_control_room_cable_salad.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Karelj 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The picture is used on the firestop page. See the answer on the deletion request page. --Achim Hering 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pt_tupper_unit_1_control_room_under_desk_big_gaping_hole.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Pt_tupper_unit_1_control_room_under_desk_big_gaping_hole.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Karelj 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture is unique. It is used on a page. See the response page to this request. --Achim Hering 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to say I'm generally opposed to the deletion of anything that's of reasonable quality on the grounds of usefulness. The Commons is supposed to be a resource for current and future editors. It's very hard for us to guess in advance the range of their decisions and the limits of their creativity. --Simonxag 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. According to that guy, one picture per topic seemed to be adequate. Maybe in a power point presentation, but in a public repository for media? That's ridiculous. Thanks for your support anyway! --Achim Hering 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if anything else like these get nominated and I don't catch it within a few days, just let me know. Rocket000 11:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Point Tupper Unfirestopped openings pictures

You're welcome! And thanks for all your contributions! Rocket000 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Zapeziernagel

Your text on my PO: I saw the above-referenced picture, which you had taken and which was transferred to commons. I saw it there under the materials category. The text on the picture is German: Tapeziernagel. Translated, that means wall papering nail. That seems a bit odd. Who uses nails to hold up wallpaper? Is this a joke? Can you tell me what that is about? --24.150.177.211 14 jan 2008 19:08 (CET)

And Y can tell you that you can find the use I made of the nail under: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presenningband and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luik_(schip) The nail is commonly used on historical inland waterway vessels to make the wooden hatches watertight by gunny band. Hatches on a vessel like http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Maris_03011455. I assume that Tapeziernagel refers to use for, in German: Tapeten, Teppiche. English: Carpets. That should make sense. As Dutch Kopspijker mains a big headed nail. --Stunteltje 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks for that. Now that I saw the pic on the nails themselves, I guess over here we call them finishing nails. I think I have some actually. Fastening carpets to the underlay strips makes sense and those tape ribbons shown on one of your pages, at NL wiki. I had not seen that before either. But the German word Tapeziernagel, does not make sense to me because it does not mention carpets, only wall paper. But I googled it and found out you're right. I guess that's our friends in Moffrika for you :-) There are actually German language jokes about nailing wallpaper on the wall and they go ahead and call a nail that right here: http://www.baumarkt.de/lexikon/Tapeziernagel.htm and here too: http://www.meubelstoffenvoordeel.nl/de/zubehor/nietenundnagel/de-206/ . The Dutch and English terms are better, although perhaps not as humorous :-) --Achim Hering 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Niagara Lodge

Hi Achim!

Thanks for your message and apologies for being late in my answer. There were much too many pictures in the main category. In my humble opinion, if some of the pictures of Niagara lodge could/should be in different categories (for instance Image:Niagara lodge 2 caveman flag.jpg must be both in "Niagara lodge" and "masonic flags"), none should be both in the more accurate and the less accurate one. Otherwise, all the pictures of all the subcategories would be in the main category too, making it totaly useless. Just my 2 cents. Sincerely. --Christophe Dioux 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I see your point. Sometimes I prefer having multiple categories simply because it makes searches more user-friendly. That's where I'm coming from, although I see your point quite well too. For instance, one of my fire protection pix may show a firestop, but then it may also show a pipe, so it is of interest in the category of piping because people involved with piping must consider items in direct contact with the piping or otherwise they are more likely to become party to building code violations. Then the firestop may be made of a type of caulking. So if you're just looking for pictures on caulking and you find it because it is categorised that way, you now have a window into the world of firestopping, which is a big part of caulking and then you can see why some caulking can be hard and some of it must be really soft so it can elongate to follow the movement of a penetrant. So having things categorised 6 ways to breakfast is a lot of work for the person uploading or categorising and it may seem redundant to the uninitiated who don't know about the topic, but for the person looking for information it makes things really fast and can open his or her eyes to other related information, which is of value to learning. So take the example of this caveman flag. I have no clue what the freemasons are on about with that. I don't know what it means to them. I know they are bigtime into symbolism though. Freemasons must have an interest in this because otherwise they would not surround themselves with it. Then there are those who suspect freemasons of wrongdoing or being of a nefarious character. I take no issue with either side. Whatever gets you through the night I say. But whether you're one of them, or one who is after them, or one who for whatever reason is simply interested in learning about them, cross categorising is helpful in searches because it shortens the length of time to find what you need and increases the likelihood you will come away with a more complete picture, which is what I believe Wiki is all about. So cross categorising I find not so much to be an issue of finding the more accurate category, because all may be right. Where the masons are concerned, I don't know enough to make that determination. One thing I know though, which is that the symbolism is not unique to any lodge. They all use the same logo, just like hockey will have the same rules in each club that plays it. So that's my 2 cents worth. Best, --Achim Hering 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Firestop pics

Hi Achim,

Your pictures are overcategorized. If a picture is part of the category "firestops being installed", it doesn't need to be in the category "firestops". Also, to add category "fire" to a picture without actually showing a fire, is too broad of a category. -- P199 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With the category "Fire", I agree. That used to be the only category for this stuff, until I learned how to categorise. But you are eliminating good stuff now. For instance, if a pic shows cable tray, then it belongs in that category, even if there is piping in there because it shows both. You can continue, but I will re-instate that which I think is useful. Some of what you did I agree with and left alone. It is but a matter of evolution of dealing with the uploads. You may not realise why certain things are there, unless you work in the trade. Do you? --Achim Hering 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I may have been a bit too aggressive in reducing the categories but please read Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. I don't need to be in the trade to see that this guideline is not applied. For example, Image:Lovely canadian paper mill mortar firestop.jpg right now has the categories:

Category:Firestops - double level category

Category:Cleaning - category too incidental to image

Category:St. Mary's Paper

Category:Corrosion

Category:Cable tray - makes category:electrical_components redundant

Category:Electrical components

Category:Cable

Category:Firestop mortar - makes category:firestops redundant

Category:Concrete block

Category:Operable firestops - makes category:firestops redundant

The purpose of specific categories is to reduce the clutter of images in the upper level broad categories. Don't take it personal if I help out here. -- P199 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No no, nothing personal. I agree with some of what you have done but some of it you don't get. Firestopping is a trade with MANY related trades. Many things do overlap there and it is harmful for you to reduce some stuff. I agree with electrical components and cable tray. Cable tray is enough. But operable firestops and firestop mortar and firestops, showing all firestops needs to remain that way, as an example. You have to be able to find all pix with cable trays for instance and all pix with caulking. Some of caulking is firestopping and some of caulking goes around the bathtub. They are not mutually exclusive. Please aks first before we cause a bunch of work for one another that could result in an edit war. I agree that some work is required on my stuff but right now you are doing some damage without being aware of it and with nothing but good intentions I'm sure. If you read the appropriate articles on Wikipedia first, you might see that light. You DID catch some good stuff, but please stop the bleeding and ask first. --Achim Hering 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• As you have seen I am busy with the categories for files. I see a great many of your pictures still categorised as Electrical components. It is asked to diffuse the category. Can I reduce the amount of files over there or will you do it yourself? --Stunteltje (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Stuntelje: If all you're doing is deleting that category, I have no issue with it. If you apply the wrong category though, I will correct it or if you delete valid categories from a picture, I'll reach in to fix it. But just getting rid of electrical components, no problem. The reason that is still there is because we did not have the many subcategories a while back. Now that we have cables and cable tray and bus duct, etc. it good practice to remove electrical components from many of the pix. I would do that myself, but I am working round the clock these days and I get in trouble with the missus if I spend too much time on this right now... Best, --Achim Hering (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a special remark in de category:Electrical cables to show the importance of Fireproofing. Doing so I can reduce the amount of files shown of fireproofing in this category. I left a number of files, of cource, but the amount will be much less than in category:cable. If I made a bad selection, please correct, but please, do not expand the number here more than five or six or so. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. We'll sort it out. --Achim Hering (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Dirt_mass2.jpg

File:Dirt_mass2.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!

Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Achim Hering!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Geohumus biomass plantheight.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Geohumus h2o seepage.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Geohumus granulate.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Geohumus plant width.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Weichschott.jpg was uncategorized on 26 October 2009.

Kategorien wurden eingesetzt. --Achim Hering (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Unionised_work_responsibilities_poster.jpg

File:Unionised_work_responsibilities_poster.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

COM:HD

hier hast du wohl versehentlich eine alte Version der Seite bearbeitet. --Martin H. (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Eis_report2.jpg

File:Eis_report2.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!

SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Eis report2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eis report2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasserzeichen

Hallo Achim. Hast du keine Möglichkeit, deine Fotos ohne Wasserzeichen hochzuladen? --Leyo 08:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hallo Leyo: Leider Nein, da die Bilder mit Datum und Uhrzeit geschossen wurden.--Achim Hering (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Schade. Ändere doch die Einstellung in deiner Kamera, damit dies in Zukunft nicht mehr passiert. --Leyo 19:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In meiner Arbeit brauche ich diese Information auf dem Bild. Daher erinnerre ich mich kaum wenn ich das nicht anhaben soll. Es ist auch so, dass wenn man sich auf diese Anhängseldateien verlässt, die diese Daten enthalten, ist das auf Dauer unzuverlässiug, insbesondere wenn man mit den Dateien arbeitet, wie z.B einen neuen Namen geben anstatt den, die sich die Kamera aussucht, Beschriftung, OCR usw. Alles verändert sich dann und wenn man mit vielen Bildern arbeitet, so wie ich, dann ist das später ein heilloses Durcheinander. Wenn es aber auf dem Bild drauf ist, gibt es keinen Zweifel. Und diese Information ist in meinem Gebrauch von Bilddateien zu 99% der Zeit von höchster Wichtigkeit. Auch wenn es Wikipedianern nicht gefällt, denke ich mir dass es besser ist ein Bild damit zu haben als gar kein Bild zu haben.--Achim Hering (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Efflorescence pictures - your watermark tags

Hi, thanks for the infos. Maybe someone with have the time to remove them. Best regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully not. I disagree strongly with this policy.--Achim Hering (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sir adam beck 1 control room.jpg

File:Sir adam beck 1 control room.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!

Ariadacapo (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Achim Hering, I am sorry that I have not communicated more about the above file deletion. I am sorry that ultimately this makes one less file in Commons’ repository. Personally I found the file very valuable and interesting (I was about to work on cropping/skewing/repairing it for inclusion in Wikipedia articles). Unfortunately copyright laws do not always make perfect sense and it is best that we do not take risks with them (and risk provoking further infringements when other people re-use the photo). I hope that this will not be a set-back for you and apologize for the rather stern tone of my deletion request. Take care, Ariadacapo (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hello. I see that you are reverting the edits on File:Some godforsaken canadian plant no firestops.jpg. Commons:Categories and the way it is done on Wikipedia (which has far more developed categorisation) show that pages are subcategorised to the lowest level in the heirarchy. I removed the categories to reflect this. To take one example the image of a concrete block wall in a Canadian building should not be in Category:Culture. If this image was placed in the culture category there would be hundreds of thousands of other images, many more deserving, should be placed in it. Note that three editors disagree with you in placing it in the culture category. Regards. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have stated the reasons for the categories. See the talk page. --Achim Hering (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Culture is now looking a bit silly with that image!. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably because of all your deletions. --Achim Hering (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is how it works. Culture is a top level topic and should contain next to no files if anything. All of the upper levels of the category system get clogged up with completely inappropriate files because editors are forever uploading stuff and putting it in categories in which the files do not belong. Editors are treating categories as if they are tags. That is not how the categorisation system works. All files (unless it is a tracking category) should be at the lowest level of the category hierarchy. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (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, 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!

File:No guts no story caps canadian truck stop.png

File:No guts no story caps canadian truck stop.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Racial and cultural comments

Please refrain from using racist language within the project. As a German-speaking person perhaps you are unaware of the use of the word you used and brushed off lightly. It is not a good thing. Besides the insult was irrelevant to the discussion which was not about a black person at all. As a U.S. Citizen I would not presume to claim expert knowledge about racist terms in Germany - likewise perhaps you do not make sweeping generalizations about U.S. people either. Sincerely yours. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly did you take to be racist?--Achim Hering (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Q deck 001.png

File:Q deck 001.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

87.137.77.82 12:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sneer.jpg

File:Sneer.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!

lNeverCry 02:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

File:T ratings oldest trick in the book 003.png

File:T ratings oldest trick in the book 003.png 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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Probably a book page Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Freshman404^Talk 07:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File:T ratings oldest trick in the book 003.png

File:T ratings oldest trick in the book 003.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wdwd (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Mission Manor, Construction Sign, Mission, British Columbia, Canada.jpg

File:Mission Manor, Construction Sign, Mission, British Columbia, Canada.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!

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Intumescent varnish on kōshi?

• 
  The upper mushiko window is a fire protection measure; the bars are plastered
• 
  Lowest roof is wood. Other popular flammables to hang under the eaves include noren curtains, rice straw ropes and paper streamers (religious), balls of dried sugi leaves (to advertise sake), thin wood signage, blinds, and paper lanterns.
• 
  Charring all the wood superficially has its upsides... The fence is to keep passers-by away from the window
• 
  Or one could build an expensive kura, with enormous thick plaster walls, because the city burns down now and then.

A question, out of curiousity... Traditional Japanese architecture looks something like this; a lot of it has wood bars or lattices called Category:Kōshi on the outside, these days often with glass (instead of paper or nothing) inside. If these lattices were painted with clear intumescent varnish, would the wood be likely to resist enough for the lattices to seal themselves? There are lots of these buildings, some are historically-protected, and fire risk is a major concern.

BTW, I used your image File:Puf pt tupper.jpg in an en-wp essay. Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(from my talk page)

Answer

Thanks for your question. In my experience, the answer is unfortunately more complex than is convenient. Not all intumescents are created equally. For the most part, they rely on hydrates as active ingredients. These are subject to ageing and leaching out over time, which is a contributing factor towards service life limitations. In order to judge the long term performance of an intumescent, it is crucial to actually read and understand the test standards used to qualify them and to assess who, if anybody, is performing the follow up service to maintain the certification listing. If there is no certification listing, that can be indicative. There are products being sold that claim to be intumescent, but really, they are not, or they may be so for a month or two. Then you have other, high performance, exterior products, which have undergone ALL the environmental tests available under UL1709. You need to get the appropriate standards, read them and understand them. Manufacturers may imply certain performance, but it comes down to what they have tested and what they can prove and how environmental influences can affect the expansion volume and expansion pressure. Next, there is also the topic of toxicity, to be considered. Generally, building out of wood has backfired, literally, especially in Japan, but also in other places. The timber industry has a powerful lobby, which has recently succeeded in easing restrictions on combustible buildings, which has resulted in taller and bigger structures to be made of wood. What drives this, is an economic agenda, which has resulted in what I call devolution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with safety, or doing the right thing. It is exclusively a money matter. A veneer of thin film intumescent on timber, I personally find is more of a placebo effect thing, sort of like the Q-Ray. There are no generic answers that work for all of these products. You may meet code with some things, but understand that codes are subject to influence by special interests - because manufacturers care about selling their products. Buy, read, and understand the standards and then apply that to what you're trying to accomplish. Do you want it to meet code, or do you want it to work? Those two things are not necessarily the same. The best thing I can tell you is this: Caveat Emptor. The smartest thing you can do is to keep structures as inorganic as possible. A wooden building may be historic, but it is still a fire trap, where some schmendrick, many moons ago, decided not to heed the obvious lessons of the past and build a fire trap. Just because it's historic, does not mean it's safe, let alone smart. Bear in mind that all fire test standards contain a weasel clause that says that not all conditions can be foreseen and that actual fire behavior can differ from what is tested. It sounds reasonable and it is a lovely fail-safe, which works well in civil proceedings. The test labs only tell you the results of tests they have run to a standard. Manufacturers tout the results and imply safety, in the pretense that the aforementioned weasel clause does not exist. There are reasons for this.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed answer; I have heard a number of very public debates on fireproofing standards, and I do really appreciate people with expertise (and without COIs) being willing to share it. Honestly, if you aren't an expert, campaigning for solid independently-developed legal standards may be easier than trying to disentangle the mass of misinformation yourself, especially since one can't really force one's neighbour to read up on it and go beyond the building codes. I should say that I have no current practical application for this knowledge; I just got curious after reading some materials from websites on historical properties. It sounds as if a fire-resistant koushi would mean something more like a wood-veneered extruded intumescent bar. If the intumescent were machinable like wood, it would improve the fire-resistance of listed properties without requiring design changes. The people who built the historic buildings were generally well-aware of the fire risk, but the less flammable construction methods were utterly unaffordable at the time. So they built very light, cheap, minimalistic homes, with modular components and portable furniture that could be stripped out and carried away very quickly, and worked on the assumption that their houses (possibly stripped to just the posts, beams, and roof) would burn down every 15-20 years. There is still a tendency in Japan to view individual homes as temporary structures. Traditional fire protection methods:

• http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/m/misegura.htm
• http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/d/dozouzukuri.htm
• http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/o/ookabezukuri.htm
• http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/t/tsuchido.htm

If you are interested, there is a fair amount about this in the public-domain book Japanese Homes and Their Surroundings, including some 1880s eyewitness descriptions of what people did during large city fires. The 1990s Great Hanshin earthquake saw large traditionally-constructed areas burn down, in part because the firefighters were overwhelmed and the roads blocked. HLHJ (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer. It was my understanding that Japanese royalty had decreed in times gone by, the use of noncombustible materials to combat city fires. But yeah, there is the money aspect. As a fire protection man, frankly I am aware of no shortage of excuses to build with wood. To me, it is and remains a form of devolution. As a species, we know better. As a species with a shortage of funds, we need shelter, consequences be damned. I totally get it. The sad part, to me, is the effect of the timber lobby as well as organic insulations people, under the guise of "green buildings", to pencil whip common sense and wittingly create a situation where we get more and more, bigger, and more dangerous fire traps. These efforts hide behind systems tests, that do not take the complexities as well as the effects of competitive pressures into account. As a direct result, they hide behind weasel clauses common to all fire test standards, whereby not all circumstances can be foreseen... In other words, they are trading money for safety. To me, I am less concerned with how historic a structure is, and more concerned with how safe it is. Japan in particular, has, historically, paid a huge price for these construction methods - in victims. When I think of the victims, that is much more compelling than any historical, or artsy consideration behind an occupancy. A sure way of cutting down the risk is most certainly not to rely on fleeting hydrates to safeguard structures that are really hard to protect - in reality - is to cut down on combustibles, including plastic, especially foamed plastic. This is particularly important when you consider ageing, which is often ignored. Today's intumescent can be tomorrow's combustible. And then who checks on that, when oblivious occupants, in a building, wedge open fire doors and run rugs through? How often do musicians use pyro and not think about foamed plastics on stage? Build as inorganically as possible.

I take your point that there is no substitute for using non-flammable materials. I'm familiar with commercial pressures with attempting to game research results and regulatory standards; I'm not really surprised to hear about it in the construction industry.

The public-domain book (1885) discusses Japanese fire regs as noneexistant, but being under active development; one academic is described as charting the courses of past fires through a city in order to designate key areas which could be rezoned to act as city-scale fire blocks. From other sources I recall that ~the first reg to come in was the banning of the book-cover-dimensioned wooden roofing shingles, which the book describes as flying through the air and starting new fires at a distance from the existing blaze (and as being cheap, compared to tiles). Such shingles don't last very long under ordinary weather, and now seem to exist only on very old temples (which tend to be small buildings in damp parks) and in museum exhibits (small and isolated; second picture). All the city properties seem to have been re-roofed with tiles (the Kobe earthquake I mentioned also saw a far too many fatalities from falling tiles).

From the websites of associations of owners of traditional properties, building such buildings from new would definitely never be allowed today. There was also an opinion survey which found that fire safety was the biggest concern inhabitants had about living in a trad. structure, and there is discussion of ways to decrease the risk short of knocking down and rebuilding (which in some cases is illegal due to historic protections, and in some cases is difficult due to regulations on road frontage; you have to persuade the neighbours on your alley to demolish with you, or you will own a vacant city lot which cannot be built upon). Common measures include stucco, fire-resistant windows, fire-resistant metal shutters, and metal or concrete siding shaped to look like wood. One of the basic problems it that city lots are very long and thin, with no space between houses, so the entire frontage tends to be solid windows. One workaround for this is fiberoptic/LED false courtyards, which also allow for plants in the home. You probably know more about this than I do, though.

There have repeatedly been deaths due to the crash bars on exit doors being chained together in order to prevent audience members from letting their friends in without paying. You can't get much more explicit in trading safety for money than that. A feebate on the flammables might get the economies of scale on the side of the non-combustibles. The cost in victims may be the only cost that matters even in pure GDP terms (evidence). Forget the moral and emotional aspects; there's no percentage in poor fire safety (except for the people choosing it). As a species with a shortage of funds, we could do better. Of course, making sure everyone had food, clean water, healthcare and education would also be a smart move, within our means and highly profitable, but for some reason we are not doing it.

The perfect building material would be non-flammable, load-bearing, tough, waterproof, readily cleanable, thermally-, sound-, and electrically-insulating, adjustably resilient, transparent, easily transportable, easily modifiable, reusable, long-lasting, biodegradable, insect-resistant, cheap, and zero- or negative-carbon. The density should also be adjustable, because when the water table hits below-grade polystyrene, it creates a surreal scene somewhere between suburbia and Moby Dick. Asking your local fire department for advice on materials for a given purpose currently gets you (mostly bad) trade-offs between all of the above. Even newer materials; parallel-plane graphite sheets are hard to install and modify. Non-brittle non-flammable closed-cell aerogels reportedly exist, but are currently a long way from cheap. The aspirational building form in much of sub-Saharan Africa is apparently concrete, with a steel roof. It's easier to maintain than mud, with thatch. Warm climates only. HLHJ (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You crack me up :-) Your perfect product sort of reminded me of the perfect employee, from the perspective of an employer. 20 years old. Yes man. 50 years experience. Assorted post graduate degrees. Published author. Preferably in debt and thus completely dependent upon his gig, where he's prepared to work for peanuts, while knuckling under to every whim of any higher ups there, while still being assertive and self-assured so as to project well, prepared to work unlimited extra hours without pay, and, naturally, prepared to be dictated to, in terms of when to take vacation, eager to sign away all confidentiality, granting the company access to his financial records and accounts, and social media accounts, and name his first born son after the company, with a slavish devotion equivalent to Hitler's much preferred "blind obedience". Some of the material properties you mention are possible and do exist, but they also take homework, which is hard to sell inside of organisations, where the financial decisions are made by others, subject to office politics.--Achim Hering (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Foamfixer.jpg

File:Foamfixer.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!

2605:A601:AE09:4300:9886:BDA0:FD80:EAFD 15:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Foamfixer.jpg

File:Foamfixer.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!

2605:A601:AE09:4300:9886:BDA0:FD80:EAFD 15:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)