User talk:Chabanel-m

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Chabanel-m!

-- 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, Chabanel-m!
Tip: Add categories to your files
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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, je changerai dès que possible

A goat for you![edit]

Bonjour. Votre diagramme P-V de l'expérience historique de Clément et Desormes contient une erreur: Notamment l'étape BC de l'expérience est notée "Isotherme". BC est une isobare! C'est CA qui est une isotherme (imaginaire). Si non, mes congratulations pour la description historique de l'expérience!

Solid110 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clément - Desormes[edit]

pas de isobare, ISOCHORE ! sorry

Solid110 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate sources and plagiarism[edit]

Hello there,
Re. this pic : File:Hauy Molécule intégrante.jpg. All my best efforts haven't managed to land me an online copy of the Traité de Minéralogie 1801 version, apart from tome 1 which does not contain figures. I did find the 1823 version of the Figures géométriques du Traité de minéralogie. Atlas, which does NOT contain these pictures; which means that I very much doubt that these pics were ever part of the Traité de Minéralogie, because
1a) they do not appear to be a description of a particular mineral (else he would have mentioned it like he does in most figures of the Traité de Minéralogie atlas, him being notably more attentive than you are to proper referencing) but rather illustrate his general theory;
1b) in between the 1801 version and the 1822 version, Haüy definitely did not change his mind on his theory, all the contrary; so it's very unlikely that he would have had pictures removed from the later version, esp. as these one rather well illustrate his point.
These pics are in the [Traité de cristallographie, atlas, planche 5], and in it the pics have figure numbers different to that given in the pic you uploaded (now duly explained).
So. You wrote that it's your own work. It isn't. You have merely
2a) copied 4 pictures;
2b) possibly cleaned/whitened them up a bit (possibly not);
2c) possibly mucked up the figures' numbers by pasting different figure numbers, although that seems to me a rather sick thing to do just to appear more knowledgeable than one actually is so there is the benefit of doubt and I would be delighted to get a proof that you didn't, but I've seen worse done and you give other signs in the same direction (the date, the false authorship) so maybe you did muck up these figure numbers, who knows what lurks in people's minds;
2d) stuck them together in one picture; and
2e) uploaded it.
Fiddling with other people's drawings does not make you an author. Pretending that they are yours does make you a plagiarist - otherwise called 'stealing'. The real author is Haüy (duly corrected). And the date to indicate is the date that the real/original picture was made, and not the date you uploaded it which is a damn self-centered thing to do (another reason why it is possible that you may have deliberately mucked up both the figure numbers and the source). So the real date here is either 1801 (with the doubts on that one as hereby mentioned), or (more likely) 1823. (corrected as the latter).
Pueblo89 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]