User talk:Rcbutcher

Rcbutcher has passed away.

Rcbutcher passed away 28 April 2017. Please observe w:User_talk:Rcbutcher#Passed_away. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English: Welcome to the Commons, Rcbutcher!

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 (direct access). 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 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain artillery

[1] 1 If you adding categories write them like that

[[category]] 
[[category]]

not that

[[category]][[category]][[category]]

2 if you add a category Category:World War I Mountain artillery not add Category:Mountain artillery - its wrong double.

3 If you add a category Category:World War I Mountain artillery to Category:QF 2.95 inch Mountain Gun- then you shuldn`t add that category to Image:Pack Howitzer2.jpg - its also double.

Nice work. Pmgpmg 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates

Hi! There are some reasons for deletion where you don't need to start a deletion request. Duplicates (or bad named pictures or copyvios, ...) can be deleted speedily. Instructions how to do that can be found at Commons:Deletion guidelines. In case of a duplicate just add {{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}} to your picture (the parameter is the name of the other picture). I have closed your deletion request and made a speedy delete of the duplicate (Positioning18pdrSommeSpring1917Quality100.jpg). -- Cecil 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holt tractor

Hi! Due to an error in a template, your request landed in the wrong place. I have put it in the correct place, namely here. You may want to watch that space :) --rimshot^talk 11:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rcbutcher 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BL 8 inch Howitzer Mk 6 - 8

Thanks for correcting the captions. I added 3 photos of the Mark VIII at the Canadian War Museum that I had on my hard drive since the summer. Enjoy. Balcer 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing the brightness of dark pictures is useful, but please make sure your monitor is properly calibrated first. If your monitor brightness is set too low, for example, pictures will appear too dark for you, but normal to most other people. Consequently, when you make them brighter to appear normal on your display, they will in turn appear too bright for other people.

These two links contain useful tests. [2] [3]

Also, thanks for extending the image captions using CWM web information. If you could track down the info for Image:Panzer II CWM Ottawa.jpg, I would be grateful. The museum tablet only said it was a Panzer II, nothing more specific (version, year of manufacture etc.) Balcer 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I have my monitor set too dark, and that the pictures I've brightened, such as your photo of the 8 inch how, appear too bright on other people's screens ? I have an LCD monitor with brightness and contrast set to 50%. On the test you point to, my contrast setting appears correct but I cannot set brighness to differentiate the light and dark sides of the black box - its all just black no matter what brightness setting I use.

I'd be really grateful if you could help me to correctly calibrate my LCD monitor. You can click on "E-Mail this user" on the left.

I'll try to find the panzer info you asked for.Rcbutcher 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much I can help, as I am no expert in this area. There should be a specialized discussion page somewhere on Wikipedia concerning this topic. Anyway, on my end, the modified picture you uploaded seems a little too bright. When I was playing with my settings to calibrate my monitor, I found out that not everything can be fixed with monitor controls, and that some things may have to be fixed in the computer settings as well (en:Gamma correction is the key, if I remember correctly, though it seems that can be controlled on some monitors as well). On Linux this can be done with a simple command (not sure about other systems). Your setting of 50% contrast and 50% brightness seems a bit on the low end to me, but that is just my gut feeling (and of course that might be what you find comfortable for your use of the computer, as for some things that is fine).

At any rate, feel free to experiment with image alterations. The original unaltered images are after all still there and clearly linked, so no harm is being done. Balcer 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice and simple gamma test. Balcer 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what's happened. I use Linux, and I had set my Gamma to 0.4, via software, because with higher settings everything is too bright. But with Gamma set to 0.4 the square in the test you pointed to is all black with no circle visible. Now, if I increase Gamma to 1.05 using software, the circle appears with left side faint and right side clearly visible. But again, my screen is too bright (i.e. firefox window is nearly white, and the task bar is very bright) but your photos appear correctly. So... isn't it the photos that should be adjusted, not the monitor ? I think I've read somewhere that photos display darker on a screen than they do in print... the conclusion would appear to be that they should be gamma-corrected before uploading to the internet, rather than people adjusting their monitors. Or is it my contact lenses that add extra gamma correction ??? Rod Rcbutcher 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, it is quite possible that the monitor on my end is set incorrectly in some way. Plus I guess different people perceive brightness of photos differently, the lighting in the room in which you work may be different, etc. This whole issue of getting the colors and brightness right seems to be fascinating indeed. At the end of the day, I guess if someone really needs an image from Commons, they can download it and adjust it themselves in any way they see fit.

Here is one more thing that I suggest you try. Since you are using Linux, you must have the program en:GIMP installed by default. Try usings its Tools -> Colour Tools -> Levels option, and then adjust the colour levels automatically. That should produce reasonably well adjusted brightness levels independent of the display you are using (though it does not work perfectly all the time). Balcer 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any reference to a Panzer II in the CWM catalog... I came up with all kinds of other tanks but not yours. It's probably incorrectly catalogued and hence doesn't come up on a search. Rcbutcher 06:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help in placing some of the images I uploaded in the appropriate categories. It took me a while to figure out the idea behind the category system, so some of my earlier pictures are only linked to articles. Thanks again. Balcer 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AvionsHenriMignetHM1000Balerit03.JPG

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Category:Storm Shadow (missile)

Hi Rcbutcher,
Related to your edit] in Category:Storm Shadow (missile): You can find the descriptions in the gallery Storm Shadow (which is, as you can see, the gallery for the pictures in the category Storm Shadow) so you don't need to copy them.
hf --D-Kuru 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bristol_Blenheims_Mk_IV_Singapore_June_1941.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:12pdr12cwtAAgunBargeMesopotamiaWWI.jpeg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 11:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:13pdrMkIVAAGunSettingFuzesWWI.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:QF2.95inchMountainGunDiagramPalmerstonFortsSociety.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:QF2.95inchMountainGunDiagramPalmerstonFortsSociety.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jusjih 02:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi. I am verry sorry for the message i gave. I chosed the wrong button. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BL 6 inch

I uploaded some new pictures into Category:BL 6 inch Gun Mk 7. I am sure this is a BL 6 inch gun but I am not sure which Mark it is. The museum label was unfortunately in Finnish only. Maybe you can help with precise identification here. Balcer 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are great photos ! The gun appears to be a 6 inch Mk 7. It came on various types of carriage, giving different guns a different overall appearance. But the barrel and breech do look like 6 inch Mk 7. Is this at The Front museum Hanko - Lappohja ? Maybe I can contact them and try to trace its history - this is part of my interest, to try and discover the story if possible. These guns link us to the past. thanks. Rod Rcbutcher 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Contacting them may be a good idea. Finnish weapons are usually described at the comprehensive http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/, but for some reason this gun is not mentioned there. Balcer 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US23rdInfantry37mmGunInActionFrance1918-ARC531005.gif

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MkITankDitchedArras13April1917.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmette Battlefield

Hello. I reverted your edit at Image:ChalmetteBattlefieldCannonBattery4Location.jpg because that was a battlefield from the War of 1812, not the American Civil War. (I don't see any category for artillery from that war yet. Should there be?) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

d'uh - and I'm always criticizing movies for getting facts wrong ! Indeed the Civil War was not fought against the British in 1815 ! My interest is artillery through history, and I'm trying to move the photos of guns into useful categories so people can find them and see what was used when/where/what for, and link it with information about it if possible in the en, de, fr Wikipedia etc. - not possible if we just have it under artillery, too much there. For the major wars we have artillery categories, but I suppose we can't have such a category for every single war. I'll put it under Category:Field artillery of the XIX century. Rcbutcher 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BL5.5inchGunNewhavenFortMarch2008.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 13:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NRMPortAdelaideLocomotivePeronne15July2007.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:5BarrelGardnerGunRoyalNavy.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by ABFbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (abf /talk to me/ (using a bot)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --abf /talk to me/ (using a bot) 09:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming British artillery shell diagrams

Excuse me, Inkwina proposed new name, I checked only it's was formally correct. --Luigi Chiesa (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I have forwarded my message to Inkwina. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm not an artillery specialist. I just proposed the rename because BL15inchAPMkXXIIBNTShell1943Diagram.jpg (and similar file names) looks like gibberish to anyone who is not familiar with the subject. Also, typically naming on commons tries to use correct English (therefore Diagram of ...). I think its fine to have the names as you suggested: e.g. "BL 15 inch APMk XXII BNT Shell 1943 (Diagram).jpg" even if it is not too descriptive; but please remember that 1. most users are unfamiliar with the subject and 2. somewhat more descriptive names would make the images more useful. thank for your heads up --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request help for corecting conscription map

hi these countries have not conscription: (from asia: 1- Afghanestan. 2- Irag. 3- Yemen. (from Africa: 4-Tanzania 5-Ghana (from America: 6-Peru

and these countries have no enforced conscription, although the law allow this but not enforced, so we should consider their now condition and paint them blue:

1- Ethiopia(Africa) 2-Uruguay(America) 3- Chile(America) 4-Bolivia for seeing refrence go to the: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2024.html.

I do not Know how i Correct it, please correct it. thanks

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightstallion"

Link to useful resource

Hi. You may find the resource under this link useful: FAMAG. This is a complete archive of the Field Artillery Magazine, published from 1911 to 2007. Some of the illustrations may even be in the public domain. The older issues contain a lot of information about various aspects of artillery use during WWI. balcer (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BL 5 inch Howitzer Common Shell Mk III Diagram.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 08:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you photograph ammunition also ?

Thanks for the words of appreciation. The problem with ammunition in museums is that it is extremely poorly labeled. There are quite often lots of shells around as exhibits and decorations, but it is usually impossible to find out what one is looking at. I can try to take photos of these in the future, hoping that someone will identify them, but I am not sure how to go about this. Uploading many photos to Commons entitled Unidentified_Shell_1.jpg seems akward. Even worse, from the photo you cannot judge the caliber unless you add a ruler somewhere (then again if the shell is behind glass, then the ruler will not help much). Overall, it does not seem to be an easy problem to solve. balcer (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo of the 37-mm pom-pom

I don't currently have specific info on the gun, but can easily get it. The museum is only a couple of km from where I work; I'll pop in there over lunch during the week. I have a number of other Military Museum photos that I also want to the the details for. --NJR ZA (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Image:Boer war-37 mm Maxim-002.jpg. Same gun from a different angle. --NJR ZA (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally got my guns mixed up on this one. This is a German WW1 gun captured by South African forces in South West Africa in 1915. I have renamed the photos as Image:WWI-German-37 mm Maxim-001.jpg and Image:WWI-German-37 mm Maxim-002.jpg and updated the information on the image pages. The gun in the photos is Nr. 542 manufactured by the Deutsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken in 1903. There are two of these at the museum, Nr. 542 and 543.

According to museum staff the Boer War gun is at a museum in Pretoria. I'm sure I've seen it before and will have to go find it again sometime and take a photo. --NJR ZA (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed with the 7 pounder photos. The flash on my camera was not good enough to get a clear shot of the 7 pounders on field carriages. I've put a gallery of guns from the museum at http://www.roux.co.za/mhm/gallery.html if you want to have a look and let me know if any will be useful on commons. The 75mm mountain gun is quite interesting as it is serial Nr. 1, but there is no wikipedia page for it yet. More info on that gun is available at http://www.sacktrick.com/igu/germancolonialuniforms/militaria/mountaingun.htm --NJR ZA (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Wikipedia in this case is to upload information, photos, diagrams etc. that allow e.g. a school student to research what great-grandad or great-great-grandad did in these wars, whatever side he was on. E.g. if the ancestor is known to have worked a Krupp field gun, it's great if people can go to Wikipedia and find the gun, see the gun details, how it was operated, how far it could shoot, how it was moved around etc : and be able to imagine great-great-grandad in action. So images of shells, closeup gun breech details, gun being towed etc. are most useful. Stuff that contributes to building an action mind-picture : bringing history to life and hence making it interesting. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMSLiondamagetoQturret1916.jpg

I notice that you have tagged the file I uploaded with 'work of UK government'. I hesitated to tag it since I dont myself know whether it would be or not. I thought it better to leave it be and see if someone knows what the established view is here on how to tag such things? I have other images which would be us expired by date but uncertain elsewhere. Sandpiper (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angriff 1918.jpg

Thank you for your comment. Is it possible to give me the full desciption under the picture in "The German Offensives of 1918" by Martin Kitchen?

The only information given is "German infantry on the attack near Montdidier, June 1918. Author's collection.". Rcbutcher (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When appeared the book and in which town/country? --Dr. Alexander Mayer (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus Publishing, Stroud UK, 2005 Rcbutcher (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo improvements

Hi. I do most of my photo improvements with the open source editor The Gimp. I usually use the "levels" tool for colour balancing, and Noiseware Community Edition to remove noise. If you have any specific images you'd like some work done on, I'd be happy to help. Hohum (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMCS Kenogami (K125) BL 4 inch Mk IX gun.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:01097628_062.jpg

File deletion warning

File:01097628_062.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Cobatfor (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi there. When you nominate a file for deletion, please do not delete the information on the image page! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CWM -Livens Projector Phosgene round.jpg

I have sent an e-mail to the library and archives section over at the Canadian War Museum to confirm permission. I will let you know as soon as I have a response... give me a couple days on this one. Either way, I inputed the wrong PD (likely in uploading haste) and that will need to be corrected. Will input proper PD or remove depending on response from the museum.Labattblueboy (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The War Museum just got back to be. The item is ok for personal and research purposes but does not have full unrestricted commercial use (they would like permission sought before publication). I have changed to tag to note the permission level given but at the same time have flagged it as noncommercial, for review and likely deletion. Please review once you have a chance. Labattblueboy (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trench railways

Responded on my page. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category navigation boxes

Regarding Category:Battle of the Marne (1914), how about if there was just a timeline, like the category navigation so that the vistor to commons might more easily discover content related to other time periods for the same location, or other places in for the same time period in the western theater? EG: I think you would agree that the category navigation template can be useful- eg Category:1910s ships or Category:1910s paintings. In wikipedia, it is possible to navigate in a less narrow fashion because contributors manually added large numbers of relevant links to the material. This sort of reference information should not be included in Commons, but the links are extremely valuable for finding related media on commons. Now, all we have is category structure for navigation. Category navboxes allow another way of navigating commons content. This particular template is a heavyweight example of that class and I agree it is not that useful for the battle of the marne at this time. Dynamic navboxes present to the visitors other categories of the same time period or regarding the same place. The marne area is not richly categorized this way, so I agree placement of that template probably won't reveal many interesting related categories at this time. This will change when more categories exist for regions of the western front in the 1910s.

I was wondering if you would find it acceptable that for the time being that the navbox be minimized, or if you could recommend some of the groups in the navboxes that should be masked off? -J JMesserly (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about the navbox idea.. my view is that it can be useful if the presented navboxes are useful to the viewer rather than being seen as just cluttering up the page, or at worst confusing the viewer. I feel that e.g. navboxes relating to the History of France on a category page about a particular battle are just confusing & disruptive. I think if a viewer has got to a category about a specific battle, they probably want to see media about that specific battle, so navboxes in front of them should assist that objective.. I don't see how a navbox about History of France, France in the 1910s or Navigating France meets that requirement - but e.g. navboxes about the Schlieffen plan, geography of the Marne etc. could be useful on the battle category page. But I'm just one person, and Wikipedia is a democratic enterprise... I'll leave this issue to others to decide. Always good to see others trying to improve Wikipedia. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am removing it from Marne anyway because for it to be useful this would be a year by year template, and not focused on France as you say but narrower scope. This is something I need to do because it is obviously useful for the scenario of a war. You could then move around various regions of France Belgium and Germany and see what was going on year by year. Maybe I can generalize it to handle specific battles, but who knows. Anyway for the marne template would not be useful until this variation is developed, and would take a lot of manual work to spread it to all battles of WW I. At this point I am focusing on getting feedback from folks that care enough about a page to talk about it. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuxhaven Raid 1914.JPG

"If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." -> The picture is from Paris. --Jodo (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload the picture, I just added the Category. If the author was French I agree that it could still be under copyright. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didnt check the version history properly. --Jodo (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping categorisation

Hi, it might be a good idea to discretely give a helping categorisation hand here. With your expertise in the domain, it should help the user to find his way in war related categories.

Events by decade template

Regarding this edit. I too, have concerns about {{Events by decade}}. Please see the talk page of its sister template {{Places by decade}}, especially Template_talk:Places_by_decade#Microformats. Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beutepanzer categories

Do you think that it might be better for these to spell out "World War I" and "World War II" instead of using the WWI and WWII abbreviations? --BrokenSphere 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is better, I can change it. I was just getting sick of repeating World War I everywhere. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be a pain, and everyone likely does know what it means. However I think that we should try to spell things like this out instead of abbreviating if we want to maintain an encylopedic tone. I actually find the use of WW I and WW II abbreviations in articles on the English Wikipedia annoying. --BrokenSphere 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Operation Albion Map.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories File:HMHS Britannic turbines being assembled.JPG

Hi, you suggested I add categories to the pictures I upload. I've tried this in the past without success. I'd be very interested to learn how to do this intelligently. Thanks so much! Pmcyclist (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Alexandra right elevation & deck plan Harpers Feb 1886.gif

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Category navigation templates.

Do you have a generic disagreement with the use of any category navigation templates? You commented with your change that the nav template removed has "nothing to do with 1880s ships". You left the other nav template that allows navigation to other ships in other periods. How do you know a visitor trying to find an image on commons doesn't want some other category in the 1880s? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "generic disagreement"... but if users go to a category about ships they don't want to see links about art, culture, sport, whatever... they want to see images about ships. Just because something totally unrelated was around in the same era does not make a connection. Also, the template occupies a ridiculous amount of space on the screen and overshadows the real content. I don't think "How do you know a visitor trying to find an image on commons doesn't want some other category in the xxxxs" is a strong argument fot its inclusion. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rod, our category system tends to pigeonhole content. Our search system sucks because not a lot of text is associated with images. No one interlinks pages, so what that leaves is 4 million islands of content in category pigeonholes. Navboxes offer a way out of the commons trap. I can symphathize with your remarks about the decorative elements or the other things of the same time period. Those decisions are up to editors whether to include or not include. But at the very least, the navbox cell with all of the decades for ships is useful, and if that were displayed you would presumably have no trouble with its inclusion with this category. Is that correct? -J JMesserly (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need more than just categories to help users navigate commons.. ideally we need accurate and detailed text descriptions for images so people can use Google-type searches - that seems to be the Internet standard. But as you said, because most images lack detailed text. I feel that Navboxes will help so long as they are relevant and unobtrusive - just occupying a few lines at the top, and pointing to associated subjects. e.g. just arts, military, politics or science of the period... e.g. the ship decades navbox is useful.. ultimately though, we need to get descriptions (i.e. metadata) added to images to enable Google searches. I would be interested in participating in a study group to discuss this. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to films

This nfb site looks like a nice resource. I wonder if at some point it would be possible to get those films into Commons, as they are probably in the public domain. balcer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Magnificent 1899 IWM Q 039473.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Lord Warden (1865).jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Uploads from Flickr

Please browse through all your uploads from Flickr and tag them with {{Flickrreview}} to have a bot checking them for beeing valid. For future uploads from Flickr please use the Flickr Upload form or alternatives specified here. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot cat

You know it would be 10 times quicker and less painstaking adding categories using hot cat. You can add hot cat to your settings by going into my preferences and ticking the hot cat box Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brassey's Naval Annual

Don't you think, that it will be far easier to search if they are sorted in alphabetical order? We could make a separate page with a gallery sorted by year. Pibwl (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I sorted under year is that this category is about Brassey's Naval Annual.. it shows what was published, year by year... if people want an image of a particular ship they can search for the ship's category... but I'm just one contributor and if others think differently then of course it will change. Thanks for adding more diagrams. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ole Bill Inside IWM.jpg

File:Ole Bill Inside IWM.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Leoboudv (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my reply to your reply in the DR. Maybe it can be kept or maybe not. Only the closing Admin can decide this now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bofors 120 mm gun on ORP Błyskawica 1940 IWM A 672.jpg

Polish book on Grom-class destroyers (if you want, I can write details). There was a period in 1941, when Błyskawica had 7x120 mm and 1x102 mm. Pibwl (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minenwerfer 170 mm Memorial de Verdun.jpg

Hi. I'm sorry. I couldn't see your supplement. Simply I gave a scheme with my old description with the correction "Fleury-devant-Douaumont" without your supplement. I will repair it. Regards Janmad (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:46th Division Memorial.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I find stuff at Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec ?

Hi,

I use the following URL:

http://pistard.banq.qc.ca/unite_chercheurs/recherche_simple?p_anqsid=2009060906190821&p_nouv_rech=N

--YUL89YYZ (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso.jpg

You are not the first to ask. Everything I know is at en:User_talk:Kablammo/Archive_7#HMS_Calypso_.281883.29_2 other than the museum sign mentioning that it is on a Vavasseur mounting. Kablammo tried contacting royal armouries. So far zlich.Geni (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong guns from Bundesarchiv

Hi, the images you recently removed from Category:Armstrong guns are in fact pictures of armstrong cannons (except one). Have a look at http://www.nuav.net/coastgr4.html#Art.Gr.Trondheim-%C3%B8st, under MKB 1/ 506 Brettingen and MKB 2/ 506 Hysnes for more information. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-116-0336-20, Nordeuropa, Küstenbatterie, Geschütz.jpg was my mistake. This is in fact one of the SKC/28 guns placed at Brettingen fort by the german occupation forces in 1942. The location and type of guns, was identified by the current manager of the museum at Hysnes fort (http://www.hysnesmuseum.no/), and confirmed by another unrelated person who was previously stationed at the fortress, while it was still active.. Jerazol (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IWM Collections

Ah, I see now. I modified the template so that if collection number is supplied it is in singular, and if not it is in plural Nikola (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry Lefroy.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Francis Newdegate.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Van Schalkwyk NNP poster Durban 1999.jpg

File:Charles Gilpin Vanity Fair 18 January 1873.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why you have added an author as PAL (Jean de Paléologue) to this caricature? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leslie-ward.jpg&diff=36751960&oldid=21553403 curious 78.55.157.231 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he did it. Rcbutcher (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archibald Campbell Tait Vanity Fair 25 December 1869.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Iarthair Chorcaí 081.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity fair cropping

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted the border removal of the vanity fair caricatures? All of the information in the borders had already been moved to the description page (so none is lost due to cropping) and the border less image is more useful for illustrating the subject in Wikipedia articles. /Lokal _Profil 10:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the "work" consists of the the whole page as printed, not just the "picture". By removing the border you are actually corrupting the historical record. To put it another way, there is much more to the Vanity Fair caricatures than just the pretty picture : the picture together with the surrounding details : Frame, text, page heading, date etc are a complete unit and need to be preserved as such, in the ORIGINAL visual form i.e. the whole layout is important, not just the so-called "words". Regarding the use to "illustrate" subjects in articles : these are not photographs, they are artistic impressions : users need to see it as it was printed in its day, not the way you want it to appear to suit the article's purpose. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we might disagree about which function is the more important for these images but I'll use {{Extract}} instead of {{Crop}} from now on. That way both versions will exist. /Lokal _Profil 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Queen Elizabeth: attribution

Hi! I'm concerned with attribution of an image of HMS Queen Elizabeth. It is declared as PD content, yet states nothing about the subject.

SOD OFF

)

Put your own brain in gear, its a PS 5 second solution. throwing in additional credit is a little dishonest

State Library of Victoria

Since you have a knowledge on Australian copyright policy, then what do you think about using Allan Green's photos from State Library of Victoria, like this one File:HMS_Kingston.jpg? They are marked as "out of copyright ", nonetheless they say in general copyright notice, that: Unaltered images or text may be downloaded, saved and printed from the State Library website to use as reference or study material for personal use or illustration in a project, assignment, essay or thesis and not for any publication in any medium. All of the accompanying caption information must be included without alteration. (...) To use images ...for all other uses ... you must contact the Library to seek prior written permission. ... A reproduction fee may be charged depending on the nature of the proposed use. [6] When downloading high resolution photos (I've only uploadad several low-res ones), there's a notice: Although there are no copyright restrictions on this work, the State Library of Victoria does not endorse or support any derogatory uses of this work. In using this work you agree to acknowledge the work's creator and the State Library of Victoria as the source of the work. Pibwl (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the same about smaller images. However I don't know, if they appreciate it ;-) There is a lot of fine images in this collection (of naval and civilian ship), so I'm going to pick several most interesting ones. Captions are no problem, for they are limited to ships' names. Pibwl (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair from Flickr

Hi. Just a note. If you upload Vanity Fair caricatures from the CCNY Flickr stream (such as File:Wilfrid Scawen Blunt Vanity Fair 31 January 1885.jpg) then make sure you upload the image at the original resolution. Thanks for sorting through my recent Vanity Fair uploads =) /Lokal _Profil 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Edward Scrutton Vanity Fair 28 June 1911.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Warneton 051003 (8).JPG

Hello, dear Rcbutcher thank you for your interest in the file above mentioned. Sorry but I can not help you. Fortunately you seem to be pasion in this matter and and I'm sure that some other contributors will help you. Please, let me let me know if you have any information about this gun. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Twin6pdr10cwtCoastMount1943.jpg‎

You describe this as:

IWM caption : "Munitions production: Work being carried out on a 6 pounder twin coastal artillery gun. Workers in a Ministry of Supply ordnance factory aligning the sights of the gun in elevation." Comment : The guns are QF 6 pounder 10 cwt.

However the internal diameter of the barrel looks a bit large for a 6 pounder 10 cwt (57mm). I've used it on a new page for the 6 pounder 10 cwt: QF 6 pounder 10 cwt gun

I think it is an illusion caused by the photographer being up close : the muzzles appear larger than they really are; also possibly the man is small. Such a distortion would have had propaganda value at the time if published. Rod

File source is not properly indicated: File:HMS_Argonaut.png

Request help identifying artillery fuzes

Rod,

I have uploaded some pictures of sectioned artillery fuzes that I took in Finnish artillery museum in Hämeenlinna. Unfortunately the fuzes were not labeled and the museum weekend staff could not help me. I have created the Category:Unidentified fuzes for them. I pestered the museum staff by email later and found that the fuzes are mostly from light caliber (75-105 mm) shells. I got some details of one (File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 13.jpg), but did not press the issue on others. Given the mix-and-match of equipment used by Finnish army these fuzes could be Russian/Soviet, British, French, German, Swedish, Finnish, American, even Austro-Hungarian or Japanese (and that's just presuming they were actually used by Finland and not acquired by the museum later).

You seem to know quite a lot of artillery fuzes based on your edits. If you can find anything of these, it would be most appriciated. MKFI (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship's cats

Category discussion notification

Category:Ship's cats has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorteren

Even een vraagje. Ik doe nogal wat aan het categoriseren van schepen en zie nu dat je veel werk steekt in het sorteren. Niet dat ik verschil van mening over de plaats waar je ze naartoe verwijst, maar ik heb zo het idee dat je overbodig werk doet en dat is zonde van je tijd en moeite. De bestanden worden automatisch gesorteerd op de filename. Het gaat dus pas fout als er HMS, M/S, S/S, Ferry of iets dergelijke voor staat. De vraag is dus: Is er een speciale reden waarom je nu op deze manier sorteert? Voorbeeld: File:Zuiho1944.png --Stunteltje (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 67921af8c9568e77cb3fb07c83b4b116

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Bishop of London Vanity Fair 22 May 1912.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Julian Orde Vanity Fair 22 March 1911.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanity fair list

Hi. I've finally got around to answering your message at User_talk:Lokal_Profil#"Test" list of Vanity Fair caricatures with image thumbnails and think I've figured out a working solution. /Lokal _Profil 12:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are ok with it (seeing that you are the other main contributor) I'll try changing over to the "by year" subpage system I mentioned. As I mentioned on my talk page I don't think it will make editing any harder than it currently is but there might be other things that crop up, such as a possible software limit on how much info can be included through templates. /Lokal _Profil 12:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks it's OK to go ahead with it if you are committed to being around to fixup any mistakes other people might make. I intend to support Wikipedia longterm so I can also monitor it. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now updated. Any comments/opinions are welcome =) /Lokal _Profil 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. I put together User:Lokal Profil/VanityFair earlier to simplify file uploads. Feel free to use it =) (needs to be used substed). /Lokal _Profil 10:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way (again) did you figure out who this is? It's the last remaining one from the CCNY Flickr stream. /Lokal _Profil 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heugh Battery memorial plaque Geograph 1608078 0295fa65-by-Andrew-Curtis.jpg - character of the 'War Memorial Tablet' on the Promenade in Hartlepool UK

I contact you Sir with reference to your apparent involvement in one of the architectural elements within what were formerly the 'Hartlepools' ('West' and 'East', 'West' being a Victorian new town and 'East' known historically over a period of centuries as 'Hartlepool') and the 1914 East Coast Raid.

Is there anyone interested in this matter? For a start you may wish to see the most recent (January 2011) edit by myself to what so far as I can make it is indeed a contribution by the manager of this talk page to the illustrated ('jpg') site in question. I shall check this present site where I leave this message over the next fortnight from today, if not later. (I warn everyone in advance it is to myself at least an extremely complicated matter, historically, involving a number of those UK and European legal issues which have never, with respect, been addressed at all, so far as I can make out, within the international 'wiki' system, extraordinary though this clearly is, from a technical point of view, going in fact beyond my own understanding. Can this be resolved? I doubt it. In the meantime however, given the evidence available in a British public document, which can be confirmed and if necessary made more clear as to its significance, the correction of the title so that it is at least no more misleading than the original upon which it happens to be based, in relation to a site of completely unique historical character within the UK, seems to be something that is perfectly elementary, with regard to how to do it and what needs to be done.) Peter Judge 28 January 2011

New entries in Vanity Fair list

Hi. Just wondering if you know if there were ever two Vanity Fair caricatures issued on the same day? I discovered a print which I couldn't find in the list (or in [7]) and which supposedly was also released on 1906-09-05 (same date as this one). /Lokal _Profil 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found answer to that question when looking at the 1878 where this seems to have occurred twice. /Lokal _Profil 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union Buildings

Sorry about that mess, I mistakenly thought that the category was for images of the buldings of labor unions (i.e. "Union buildings"), and did not realize that "Union Buildings" was a title. Perhaps the category name should have a disambiguator to make it clearer. In any case, my apologies for screwing up, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on some VF prints

Just wanted to give you the heads up (so you don't spend time hunting for them) that I've got the Vanity Fair prints for the following dates on my computer and will be uploading them over the coming week(s). Great work on finishing of a few more of the years =) /Lokal _Profil 11:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long list which will hopefully collapse and is best viewed in editing mode

1889-05-11 1889-05-18 1889-06-22 1889-08-31 1889-10-26 1889-12-14 1890-05-24 1890-08-09 1891-01-31 1891-03-28 1891-05-02 1891-07-25 1891-10-31 1892-01-30 1892-04-02 1892-05-07 1892-05-21 1892-07-02 1892-07-16 1892-09-10 1892-09-17 1892-10-29 1893-04-01 1893-04-08 1893-04-20 1893-06-01 1893-07-06 1893-08-24 1893-09-14 1893-11-23 1894-02-22 1894-04-05 1894-05-24 1894-06-07 1894-06-14 1894-09-13 1894-09-27 1894-10-18 1894-11-15 1895-05-09 1895-08-22 1895-10-10 1895-10-24 1895-12-12 1896-01-30 1896-04-30 1896-07-16 1896-07-30 1896-08-13 1897-05-27 1897-07-01 1897-07-15 1897-08-05 1898-10-06 1899-03-02 1899-03-09 1899-03-16 1899-04-27 1899-08-17 1899-09-28 1899-10-12 1900-02-08 1900-08-09 1900-11-22 1900-12-06 1901-01-03 1901-03-21 1901-03-28 1901-05-30 1901-06-06 1901-06-13 1901-06-20 1901-06-27 1890-01-11 1890-01-18 1899-09-21

All done. Thanks. /Lokal _Profil 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note. Don't know if you spotted it but for the darvillsrareprints page there are normally larger image versions even for the "sold" images even if the are not linked to. E.g. on [8] the Searle print is "sold" and non clickable. But still available at [9]. Another useful tool is tinEye where one can stick the low res antiquemapsandprints image and sometimes find highres versions on other webpages e.g. [10] (link expires in 72 hrs.). You might have known about both or not have a need for either but figured I should share =) /Lokal _Profil 13:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much for adding categories to Mr. Bernini's pics. Hopefully in the future even Italian users will help. --Elitre (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Berryman

Why were the pictures of Frank Berryman (File:Allen Berryman Syria 1941.jpg and File:Frank Berryman 1918.jpg) moved to Commons? I had not uploaded them to commons in the first instance because of the watermarks, per Commons:Watermarks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the watermark issue is a guideline or preference rather that a total prohibition, and I thought the benefit of having all the Berryman images in a category on Commons outweighed any concern over the watermarks. Some of the watermarks can be removed, but the image with signature has the watermark over the signature so there's not much that can be done there. Do you want me to request a moderator to remove it from Commons ? regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:VCRichardRaymondWillis.jpg

Re:How do you remove watermarks ?

I use a graphics editing program, Photoshop CS to be accurate. Vearthy (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not El Alamein

Hello
I came across this file (File:El Alamein 1942 - British Matilda tanks.jpg), and thought it needed moving ( I've explained here) but I don't know how to go about it. I notice your name on the edit history there, so I thought I'd ask for your advice.
Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (belatedly!) for replying to my query and for your advice. As it turns out, the welcome notice on my page has a rename option (the one on yours doesn't; older model?) and I probably should have taken the time to read it. Anyway I've templated the file; I'll see how it goes. If there's no joy I'll try what you said, though I haven't the confidence in commons to try it yet. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:French370mmRailwayHowitzer1917.jpg

Pay attention to licensing

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:French370mmRailwayHowitzer1917.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

The reason given by the user who added this tag is: The claims on the website have no value for copyright status on the image. It might be possible that this photo is ok for {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{PD-old-70}}

--Lilyu (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rachelsee.jpg

Hello Rcbutcher!

How did it happen that you added these categories to this file? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I made a big mistake there, sorry, I don't know what I was thinking about ! regards, Rod

File:U1-Gesamtansicht vom Heck her.JPG

de:User:Schoringer whom you named as author doesn't exist on de-WP. Do you have a possibilty to find out the right account name? --Martina talk 21:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of the original uploader is in the Original upload log section, which came from the DE Wiki. This indicates that such a user did exist. I think the actual user pages are not automatically created - they only get created when some content is placed on them. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dinosaur-Garden-Queensland-Museum.jpg

some iwm :)

hi, ur ul-ing of larger iwm photos is awesome, im already delectating in some! if it is not a too big hassle 2u, could u get also updated versions 4
File:Twin 5.25 inch AA guns Primrose Hill 1943 IWM H 032322.jpg and
File:HMS Gloucester (1909).jpg? (oops, glou is already done.. wow great!) +maybe
File:5.25 inch gun Port Moresby 1944 AWM 075214.jpeg

yay thanks man!--Aaa3-other (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:HMS Azalea WWII IWM FL 1300.jpg

Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NCQuarterKittyHawk1903.gif

With categories that have been existing for more than a short time, we usually would place the template {{category redirect}} rather than {{badname}}, there are a few exceptions to that rule. This is especially useful for those using HotCat, as if they find something like 10in artillery in the lookup function then it will automatically apply the redirected category name. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BL 9.2 inch gun ammunition diagrams.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 01:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:HMT Angle WWII IWM FL 667.jpg

Saibo (Δ) 15:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lashenden (Headcorn) Airfield

The Category:Lashenden (Headcorn) Airfield that you created would appear to duplicat Category:Headcorn Aerodrome. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I'll redirect Category:Lashenden (Headcorn) Airfield to Category:Headcorn Aerodrome. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMAS Vampire 4.5 inch guns Flickr 6914904541.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 10:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alfonso_XII_class_cruiser

Category:Alfonso_XII_class_cruiser has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Antramir (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Royal Dublin Fusileers.jpg

Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Siloso sign Flickr 368693552 e6cf68c159 o.jpg

File:Matilda II tank UK July 1940 IWM H 2622.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 03:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country

2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Badzil (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Toronto k538.jpg

File:Lancaster bomb bay Jan 1944 IWM CH 18554.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BL 8 inch howitzer Mk 8 CWM 3-Brightened.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Battles of the Isonzo

Affected:

File:Italian troops at Isonzo river.jpg

Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IWM template

Hi, I can see you have been reformatting some of the Imperial War Museum uploads, thanks for helping out. I am a bit concerned that you have removed the explanatory text I added based on my emails with the IWM IP copyrights manager (see example diff and User:Fæ/email/IWM). The problem with removing the explanation, is that later folks that review the copyright status will click on the catalogue link and see the IWM non-commercial use only licence being a potentially valid claim by the IWM. I am considering changing all the templates for all 12,000 of my uploads to include the template you have used (as part of a data-ingestion variation and can replace the standard information template). This will also avoid duplicating images in a parent and child category unnecessarily. I'll avoid touching anything you have done so far, happy to leave this up to you, but you may want want to consider holding back from doing a lot of these until I've had a chance to get the clearer alternative underway (hopefully this week, though I do have a lot on right now). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers artillery identification help needed

Rod, would you be able to identify some of the guns of the cruiser Category:Uruguay (ship, 1910)? MKFI (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Amiral Aube main gun LOC 24308v.jpg

Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Kenley Sqn photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kenley Sqn photo.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the file because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the file, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the file itself. Please update the file description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you.

Stefan4 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Stefan4 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:SpitIntl Illust3.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:SpitIntl Illust3.JPG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the file because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the file, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the file itself. Please update the file description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you.

Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luftstreitkräfte

Hi, I notice that in 2011 you created Category:World War I people of the German Air Force, that appears to be a duplication of the existing Category:People of the Luftstreitkräfte, and the latter is both a parent and child of the former. I'm no expert on WWI German forces, so perhaps you might merge those two cats, and any related anomalies, or at least make it clear in description headers for the likes of me what the difference is. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for pointing that out. I've moved all the images and categories to Luftstreitkräfte and redirected World War I people of the German Air Force to it. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:AWM011961BobbyGibbes.jpg

Denniss (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquito TA719 at IWM Duxford Flickr 4868023130.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Messerschmitt Bf109, Hurricane and Spitfire in flight at RIAT Fairford 2010 Flickr 4825430570.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nakajima J1N.jpg

Der Weltkrig im Bild

Hi Rcbutcher, They deleted all the files that where nominated for deletion. The reason was this: Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 07:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So i guess this means our arguments had no meaning or any significance. Can i conclude that any arguments whatsoever have no use at all if there is no clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence? does this means that we never have to answer whit the keep option anymore because it will not do any good? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep trying and contributing. Wikipedia/Wikimedia takes a lot of patience. The big picture works very well even if in the small picture some silly things happen. Freedom ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, Thanks for the motivating words. See you later :) Alfvanbeem (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General upgrade?

Hi, a while ago you made this edit which removed a licence. I'm not sure if other files that used my custom templates were similarly affected, you might want to double check what happened, just in case many more files had similar problems. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your moves

Please revert your moves on aircraft categories, you haven't discussed these changes to the structure and have no consensus for it. Bidgee (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to create categories for discussion (though list it as one case), and inform WikiProject Aviation of the discussion. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery ship

I've just noticed your edits on File:HMS Canterbury FL7489.jpg which I seem to have miscategorised some time ago! After a bit of digging, I think this is the former SS Canterbury; we have an article at w:HMS Arpha. No idea why they got the old name, but the pictures seem to match. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that - it's probably this Canterbury, which replaced the earlier ship. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:HaGoTankBovington.jpg

Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:M4 Sherman in Bovington Tank Museum.jpg

Ju Ta 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Payne

(WP is SO slow at the moment that it's hard to keep track of which edits have actually been saved. My apologies if there's a "synchronisation" problem.)
Please note that the Australian War Memorial themselves have stated that they have released photos into the public domain. This matter has been debated many times in many places by many minds who know MUCH more about copyright issues than I do, and than I ever want to.
If there is a problem with whatever the currently claimed license is, I have little doubt that the photograph would qualify as fair use of a historical event. After all, he is the LAST Australian recipient of the Imperial Victoria Cross, and also the ONLY living Australian of the Imperial Victoria Cross.
I am not, and don't pretend to be, a copyright expert, but the level of knowledge I have suggests to me that there isn't a problem. If there is a problem, I would VERY MUCH appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I can bring it to the attention of an "expert" who can address those issues.
Many thanks for posting on my talk page - most appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! If you're trying to confuse me (and I warn you, that isn't hard), you've succeeded!!!

There now seem to be conversations on 3 or 4 (or more?) pages. How about you nominate ONE page as "the" page, and we consolidate all the bits and pieces onto that one page? I have the impression we agree with each other, but as I said, it's not hard to confuse me ... Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are slower than others, then there's me ...

OK - (regarding this edit) Brain now engaged. (Thanks.) (As an aside, on such matters, it would be impossible to offend the AWM, but yes, I agree, that's not relevant.) Start again:

OK, thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (What's the terminology? Roger. Wilco?)[reply]

LONG list of expletives deleted!

I've made 8 attempts to upload the photo to en:wp, but there's a new user-unfriendly brain-dead wizard that refuses to allow me to do it.

I have MANY better ways to waste my time, all-of-which do NOT lead to me wanting to re-program my computer with an axe.

Help?

Pdfpdf (talk)

Copyright status: File:22 Squadron RAAF Boston and armourers New Guinea 1944 AWM OG1540.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft categories

Hi, in case you have not noticed yet, I have carried out a big cleanup of the Category:Supermarine Spitfire warbirds. Due to the variability, duplications and errors in sub-cat names there, I have converted all the sub-cats to the 'standard' registration cat format, [xxxxx (aircraft)], plus additional sub-cats for the (often hidden) civil registrations. This ensures that users can hopefully find images via any registration or serial as well as via aircraft type. I know from your talk history that an editor raised this subject with you before. Personally, I have never liked the registration cat format, but we appear to be stuck with it. However, I have occasionally modified it for disambiguation of same registration used on multiple aircraft, so perhaps an intermediate format could also be used in relevant cases, eg museum aircraft. So, for example we could have [xxxxx (Spitfire IX)] instead of your favoured format [Spitfire xxxxx]. This would follow a common practice on en:wp and Commons of separating parameters by placing one within brackets. An additional benefit of this format would be that we would not need to manually add a registration sort key for each sub-cat. If appropriate, we could propose this on Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation. I welcome your agreement or comments. I'll be watching here. PeterWD (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, read and understood. The reason I used the Aircraft type+Serial category names is that it's really irritating and timewasting to find a parent category such as Battle of Britain Memorial Flight and not know what types the aircraft in it are. If I'm just looking for Hurricanes there I would have to look at all the categories to find all the Hurricanes. So I would support e.g. [xxxxx (Spitfire IX)]. Regarding all the different IDs a plane can have or has had in the past, I provided them in the category description when known, which is searchable. I agree we need a standard category name format and if I create any in future I'll conform with it. But I think the current format is unsuitable for the reason given above, and needs to be discussed and hopefully modified. I'm happy to participate constructively in any discussion on this. My approach is that whatever best meets our customers' needs should be the way to go. Regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, thanks for your thoughts. I'll try to write a proposal for WikiProject Aviation for perhaps this time tomorrow, using some existing examples of mixing the standard registration format with other methods. So far, I've identified Category:G-BOAD (aircraft) and Category:N740 (aircraft) as possible candidates. PeterWD (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress, or more likely lack of. The place for getting consensus is Category talk:Aircraft by registration, but there is an unresolved CFD there, and some of the talk contributions display lack of rational thought, analysis or open mindedness, so I'm scared off that for the moment. I have experimented with placing registration (or serial) ahead of description, but it only seems practical for very short category names, as in my N740 example. To me, longer names don't look good in Category:Aircraft by registration, so I've had to fall back on the two-step method as in G-BOAD example, while working on cats for N515NA and N7001U, and for NC91008 I had to chop the aircraft type down to just DC-3 in the descriptive cat name to minimise the length. (BTW, now discovered that MoF has 2 DC-3s marked NC91008, and another 727). I'll continue thinking and exploring.PeterWD (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:43 Squadron RAAF Catalina taxiing May 1945 AWM NWA0904.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battles

I found out that you created two almost identical categories:

Category:Battle of Coronel on 9 nov 2007 05:42 and
Category:Battle of the Falkland Islands on 24 jan 2008 00:26‎

Assume we are talking about the same battle. I am not specialised in naval history, so I think we have to integrate these categories. I know another battle of the Falkland Islands:

Category:Falklands War‎

What do you suggest? --Stunteltje (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of Coronel" was a German victory, "Battle of the Falkland Islands" was what the British called their victory in the succeeding battle i.e they were separate battles in 1914. "Falklands War" was what the British call the1982 war, Argentina calls it "Malvinas War". I agree that this can be confusing to non-Brits and possibly "Battle of the Falkland Islands (1914)" and "Falklands War (1982)" may prevent confusion. But much discussion would be necessary first ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definately. I feel that this concerns politics and although being a blunt Dutchman, I know that just changing will be dangerous. I'll do a suggestion in the village pump and from there the discussion will start in the right place. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Dutch village punp and wrote:

Ik verwacht een (politiek) gevoelige discussie over het samenvoegen en/of hernoemen van een paar categorieën:

Category:Battle of Coronel gestart 9 nov 2007 05:42 and
Category:Battle of the Falkland Islands gestart 24 jan 2008 00:26‎

en de bijbehorende:

Category:Falklands War‎

De "Battle of Coronel" was een Duitse zege, maar Engeland zegevierde uiteindelijk in de daarop volgende "Battle of the Falkland Islands", oftewel het zijn twee verschillende zeeslagen in dezelfde oorlog van 1914. En of het de "Falklands War" was in 1982 of de "Malvinas War" hangt van het land van de gebruiker af. Ik dacht dus aan Category:Battles of the Falkland Islands (1914) met subcategie Category:Battle of Coronel en daarnaast aan Category:Falklands War (1982) om het eenvoudig op te lossen. (Met redirects vanaf de overeenkomstige categorieën van de Maldivas). De vraag is dus, waar kaart ik dat het beste aan in Commons, zodat iedereen er z'n zegje over kan doen en er hopelijk geen editwars over ontstaan. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Coronel was in the Pacific. Battle of Falkland Islands was in the Atlantic. Two totally separate battles, part of World War I. But I agree about redirect for Malvinas, to Falklands War (1982); and I agree geen editwars ! Rcbutcher (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Pilot Officer Rasmussen of 5 Squadron RAAF Mareeba March 1944 AWM NEA0392.jpg

Yours sincerely, YiFeiBot (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:356 Squadron RAF Liberator over Ramree Island Jan 1945 IWM C 4941.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

Affected:

File:Beaumont hamel newfoundland memorial.jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Defence of Duffer's Drift prologue. The book is attributed to a Lieutenant N. Backsight Forethought, otherwise known as Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton..jpg

Hi, I've replied on the talk page - the image should be speedily removed, while the book's cover (another image) should go as a thumbnail to Wikipedia so I can write a fair use rationale for it - that should be an uncontroversial move. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Drakeford and Jones at Hughes RAAF airfield NT Nov 1942 AWM NWA0418.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

Hello. I usually agree with Jim's logic, but I am not sure I do so in this case. In any event, I've left a brief note on his talk page questioning the use of U.S. copyright law to make a determination on Commonwealth copyright law, and we'll see what happens. I'll let you know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Delville Wood South African National Memorial

Affected:

File:049 South Afican Memorial, Delville Wood France.jpg

Labattblueboy (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWI posters

Hi, as you have been helping with improving scans of wartime artwork, I thought I'd drop you a head's up about my recently started uploads from the Library of Congress at World War I posters in the Library of Congress, a collection which includes non-US posters. All files should be in jpg and tif format, so if you want to help by cropping any, the best thing would probably be to crop the high resolution tif, and create the result as a new jpg as a linked derived work. --Fæ (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Portrait Gallery

Hi, I notice you have recently uploaded two images from the NPG; Frederickpile.jpg, Aylmerhaldane.jpg. The NPG claim copyright on both and are not currently making either image available for use on wikipedia. As I understand it Wikipedia policy would not regard one of them at least to be free of copyright. Next month, the NPG have a planned review of their licencing arrangements and I hope they will relax their current restrictions by which the images they hold can be used on wikipedia. The appearance now of these and other images both on wikipedia and in wikimedia commons is unfortunate timing. Please can you hold off uploading anything else from this source outside of the terms of their licence arrangements and consider removing from commons any more of their images you have uploaded. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bertha gun004.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:AFB Ysterplaat Ariel.jpg

File tagging File:Camden Town tube station.jpg

File tagging File:Canada Water tube station seen from across Canada Water.JPG

File tagging File:Carlingford-Mechanics' Institute and Memorial Hall 1923-1987.jpg

File tagging File:Camden Town tube station.jpg

File tagging File:Canada Water tube station seen from across Canada Water.JPG

File source is not properly indicated: File:417SqnCrest.JPG

File tagging File:Castle ponferrada.jpg

File:ChapelHillMallJCPenney.JPG

File:Channakesava temple 1.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:Chattar Park View 1.jpg File:Chattar Park View 2.jpg File:ChCh Meadow.JPG

Hi Rcbutcher. Please fix your uploads in Category:Language templates with no text displayed. Thank you. Leyo 20:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization"

Hi, some categories have been tagged as {categorize}, therefore p.e. that edit has been fixed. Please also check Commons:categories and avoid so-called "over-categorization". Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, thanks in general. btw: you may add p.e. "January 2011 in India" instead of "2011 in India", as well for imho the most other yountries. Regards, Roland zh (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify this temple ?

{moved from my talk, as started here, quotation start:}

==Can you identify this temple ?== Hi, You seem to be interested in Indian temples - can you identify this ? File:Temple tatanagar.jpg. It does not look like a few other photos I found of the Gol Pahari temple near Tatanagar station. Thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{quotation end}

Hi Rod, in fact i'm not, maybe i have some minor knowledge referring to South Indian issues i'm interested in ;-) In case of doubt those media generally may be placed p.e. in "Unidentified temples in Kerala" etc. or for India-related unidentified media long-time-ago i tryed to use wiki respectively g...le assistance by the file description trying to identify such buildings. So you're unsure, please categorize as Category:Unidentified buildings in India respectively sub-categories and maybe another couraged Wikimedian as you with better specific local knowlege will categorize much more specifically. Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorising

Same issue. The image was already in the ship category categorised that way. File:Chi-Cheemaun.jpg. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:A World We Can Change Expo Energy FACTory GI.jpg

File tagging File:Hipping Hall Exterior.jpg

File tagging File:Hiroshima day 06.JPG

File:TMWatershed.gif

File:Oberlin, Ohio sign.JPG

File tagging File:Tabubil epot.jpg

File:OceanIslandInn.jpg

File tagging File:Uafortsmithbaldor.jpg

File:OceanIslandInn.jpg

Royal Arthur

In Commons we use the Commons way of categorising, not the way the national Wikipedia's use. They differ from country to country. For naval ships we use the year of first commisioning here and not the year of launching. Please revert.

See here for the date. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange to me : why should ships have different names on Commons than they do on e.g. EN Wikipedia ? Who are "we" ? Where was this decided by a group of experts ? Personally I don't care which of the years we use so long as Wiki is consistent across its different repositories. It can't be (1891) in EN Wiki and (ship, 1893) in Commons. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:HMS Hood in Vancouver Harbour 1924.jpg

And also:

File:HMS Leander in Burrard Inlet.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuw for wiki.jpg

Copyright status: File:HMS Goldfinch officers at Halifax 1900s LAC 3332950.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:USS New Hampshire at the Quebec Tercentenary LAC 3361860.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Coaling party of HMS Indefatigable at Halifax LAC 3332934.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Fastening message to pigeon May 1917 LAC 3381018.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for cleaning up the various CEF categories. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Welcome to Coningsby sign Flickr 8643001590.jpg

Obvious in Template:Rename

I cannot rename as "obvious errors" as per a recent request. An obvious error is "standing on an arm" when it is a leg. If there is an error that can be proved via research then we need to step through the hoops with the use of Template:Fact disputed. Start the talk page discussion, etc. Then we can look to a rename with the use of an additional parameter used as the argument and point to the discussion.
In the recent request the source says Syria, so please use File talk:451 Sqn RAAF Hurricanes Syria 1942.jpg to go through the process. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:NA-50A Peru AF.jpg

File tagging File:Turnstile controversy Tampines Junior College.jpg

File tagging File:Heron House Tampines Junior College.jpg

File:SOS tech details.jpg

File:Chaukundi3.JPG

Filemover

You're an experienced editor, and your rename requests look good, so I've made you a filemover. INeverCry 01:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple-Minor Temples at Jagannath Temple Puri.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:Tahoe19882.png

Copyright status: File:Hoisting in in paravane on HMS Rodney 1940 IWM A 2146.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:PStMCL1010018.JPG

File:CHF Grotto.jpg

File:HFC Old2.jpg

File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg

File:MraukU entranceboard.jpg

NO. 10 group ops room

Sorry, just saw this message again and actually read it this time. Your original response came in before I saw the first post, so I never really looked at it.

Actually the reason I removed the Middle Wallop tag was because, according to my references, No. 10 was not located Middle Wallop, but at RAF Box. But I can honestly say I don't know which one it really was, and it seems the description with the image is authoritative...

So, may I task you with the job of doing a tiny bit of research into this and finding out where this room really was?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note on transfer

Hi, thanks for transferring File:Tommy Burns-Hartopp Vanity Fair 25 October 1900.jpg to the Commons. Please make sure to always check your transfer, so there is a proper license shown and it is made clear that the medium you uploaded is in the public domain in the U.S. and the country of origin. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Thameenmap1.jpg

Extended content
File:Thameenmap2.jpg File:Thameenmap3.jpg

Yours sincerely, 1989 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Generals Lambart and Graziani in Italy 1918 IWM Q 26848.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:BL 5.4 inch howitzer shrapnel shell cast steel Mk I diagram.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:BL 6 inch 26 cwt MK I howitzer buffer and recuperator diagram.jpg

Ju Ta 22:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File:M1 at Dublin Airport.jpg

File:M8 signage schematic.JPG

File:Lyon Part dieu shopping center.JPG

File:Macchina di Santa Rosa.JPG

File:Cheonho-dong.jpg

File:Cheonho-dong.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Starts in aviation

Since your are very active in the aircraft categorization scene, please note my opinion "Wrong category name" on the above talk page. I'd be interested to hear what you think about it.
Concerning your question about my category on File:Boeing 767-31K(ER), Airtours International Airways JP5839237.jpg and the somewhat rude comment by someone else: I have no problems being politely asked (as you did) for the reasons of my edits. It would be just too time consuming to explain the specific reasons in length with every individual file. As an example look at my edit on this file File:2010-07-31 A310 SATA CS-TRG LPPD 02.jpg. It had been in Category:Airliner take offs, but with open reversers and spoilers extended it would be a real tough job to get airborne! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you expert inputs. We have a great archive here and it needs to be properly documented. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Jeeps, Jeep trains, and J--p-m-t-v-s

There are a number of photos of various jeep rail adaptations filed under a term, "jeepomotive", which is essentially an ambiguous journalistic play on words. I've moved a category, but the files still remain in the old one, and I do not know how to handle it exactly. Anmccaff (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle Dub.jpg

File:Castleduino 1.jpg

Food for thought

Wouldn't it be better to have

Regional Express aircraft on final approach at Sydney Airport

or

Regional Express Saab 340 aircraft on final approach at Sydney Airport [option 1, if disam is required]

or

Regional Express aircraft on final approach at Sydney Airport (Saab 340) [option 2, if disam is required]

Rather then;

Aircraft on final approach at Sydney Airport
Saab 340 at Sydney Airport
Saab 340 on final approach
Regional Express aircraft at Sydney Airport

Just a thought... Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see final approach, landing etc as an attribute of the aircraft model, not the airline. I.e. the destinations etc are an attribute of the airline, but flying characteristics are an attribute of the airplane type. An airplane type XYZ lands the same way for any airline. I am available to discus this ! Rcbutcher (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content

{{Speedywhat}} notice removed.

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knighting

Knighting has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jonund (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherkasy medical College.jpg

File:M2 kalarkahar 2.JPG

Deleted content

{{Speedywhat}} notice removed.

Yours sincerely, Alan ^(talk) 11:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Aircraft at unidentified locations"

Hello - today it's my turn to ask you for something. I stumbled upon the "Category:Aircraft at unidentified locations". Noticing that some photos have been inserted into this cat which show just sky, but do not contain any clue whatsoever to find out the location, I think those should not be labelled as "unidentified". An example is this one. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in "unidentified location" because that is factually correct, to at least put them somewhere, whether or not they can be later located. It is possible that location can be identified by metadata : date + aircraft registration/type + airline, or by looking at metadata of original source, or by contacting the author. My attitude is that most such images are locatable, info in the metadata is as useful as the image itself - that is detective work !
In the case of your example photograph, author Philippe Noret - AirTeamimages, all his photos seem to be at Paris-Charle de Gaulle, I will contact him.

Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that the original photo uploaded on 14 Jan 2006 by EyOne (taken by Philippe Noret, Charles de Gaulle, 23-January-2005) was replaced on 1 April 2006 by a totally different image not in Philippe Noret's collection. Seems to be an example of Wiki uploader screwing things up, needs reverting to correct sourced version. So - another mystery solved.Rcbutcher (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diadem (ship, 1942) --> Category:HMS Diadem (ship, 1942)

Hallo Rcbutcher, the passus „HMS“ is not a part of the ships name. This is long time konsens by wikimedia commons. --Trzęsacz (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you intend to change USS xyz, HMAS xyz, HMCS xyz, SMS xyz etc too ? You're insane. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not change it. But it's still wrong. That's the whimsy of the Americans and Brits. Others take the not so important, although there are also these names. --Trzęsacz (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: here you can see, the DEFAULTSORT is wrong. You must give the natural nominative of the ships name category, {{DEFAULTSORT:Diadem (ship, 1942)}}. --Trzęsacz (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:60cm Thor Granate.jpg

File:HM0.jpg

File:Main Hall in Ivy Wagner College.jpg

File:F-86A-116thfis-RAFSG.jpg

Category:Modern_artillery

Category:Modern_artillery has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jotzet (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft registration categories

Hi, I notice that you have been creating aircraft registration categories that do not follow the usual conventions that we have long established. First, the primary category name should be in the form Category:UR-CRD (aircraft). If such a category already exists for another type of aircraft, only then should you make a new category such as Category:UR-CRD (Falcon 900), using the shortest type name for just sufficient disambiguation. That will then help categorise re-used registrations for a few countries such as Australia, Germany, Norway, US, etc. Second, you should normally add the aircraft type category, eg Category:Dassault Falcon 900, only to the registration category, not to the image. The image, being in the registration category, can then be removed from the aircraft type category, thus saving valuable screen space there. Third, the registration category usually contains a minimum of three category elements - Aircraft by registration, Aircraft registered in countryxx, and the aircraft type name. This will help consistency throughout the category tree. I hope this helps explain the practice. Thanks in anticipation.PeterWD (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the existing "usual conventions that we have long established" are/is totally inadequate. Registration numbers get frequently re-used. To be any real use the category needs to specify which particular usage of the registration it refers to. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I acknowledge that all schemes for indexing or categorisation are inadequate, but that is irrelevant here, so we should all follow common practices. Commons policy in COM:CAT states "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure". So, top registration category should always be in the standardised form XXXXX (aircraft), to disambiguate it from other subjects such as XXXXX (bird) or XXXXX (city) or XXXXX (mathematics), etc. Most users will perhaps never have heard of a "Hawker 800" or other aircraft types familiar to enthusiasts, so we need to use the word "aircraft" as disambiguation. Re-used registrations illustrated in Commons images can have additional disambiguation categories, but they should also come under the higher category of XXXXX (aircraft), so that users can browse or search for that on a first attempt, and then browse the category tree from there. Users (eg without knowledge of registration prefixes) should also expect to find all the registrations of a country in a category such as Aircraft registered in CountryXX.PeterWD (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laying a British mine Battle of Albert July 1916 IWM Q 115.jpg

File:USS Delaware Mark 5s.jpg

File:USS Delaware scrapping.PNG

File:USS Florida.PNG

File source is not properly indicated: File:Royal Dublin Fusileers.jpg

Category:TK-FIT (aircraft)

Hi, just a heads-up on this category you created - it's an evident typo for TF-FIT, for which we have Category:TF-FIT (Boeing 757-256). The incorrect version can be tagged for speedy deletion after the image is moved away. BTW, the category should have additionally come under Category:Aircraft registered in Iceland, so that users can browse to the registration category from Category:Iceland. This principle also applies to about 10 Challenger 850 registration categories you created. Regards, PeterWD (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, need to concentrate. Yes, I will follow the established procedures, this is indeed a team effort. However - I still maintain the current "system" is highly unsatisfactory. Many aircraft, especially smaller ones, have varied careers under various registrations, and the same registration can be used by many aircraft. That's why I used the category names I did. However, if the purpose is to track individual aircraft, only categorizing by serial number would give a unique category, which appears unfeasible. The current "system" is so flawed it needs to be overhauled or scrapped as it's about as accurate as categorizing cars by license plate number. The result of casual users wanting to "browse the category tree" under "AB-CDEF (aircraft)" will lead them to different aircraft, and will exclude other photographs of the same aircraft. We need to decide what we're trying to provide here - an accurate record of an aircraft or pretty pictures. I don't see any value in a system that just gives you images of all aircraft that carried a particular registration at any time. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Iowa (BB-4) Fires Guns During Spanish-American War.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:Kadena 09-216.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:Russian cruiser Zhemchug 01.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:7pr-f5.jpg

File:7pr-f5.jpg

HMS Perfection

Hi. Did your see this? --Sas1975kr (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-block.JPG

File:Library Level 4 Painting.JPG

File:E4a Painting Wall.JPG

File tagging File:Southeast Missouri State University Old Normal.jpg

Syntax error

Hi, I have seen several uploads from you with this error last days. Could you check your upload for things like this? Jcb (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of this problem, I will fix it in future. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alc-b45.jpg

Template:Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport year

For the sake of factual accuracy, the 20th-century categories should say "(year) at Anchorage International Airport" and not "(year) at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport". I don't know enough about template programming to figure out how to make that happen, though.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the issue is here : English article calls it "Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport" and that's what the Commons Category is named. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the name "Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport" became effective on July 8, 2000. That means that we have five categories which contain that name, but refer to a time when the airport wasn't called that, but rather was called "Anchorage International Airport". There's also the fact that we really don't need five categories for a grand total of ten files, as that ghettoizes rather than organizes content and makes navigation harder rather than easier, but I'm getting tired of making that argument and having it fall on deaf ears time after time.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you also created Template:Anchorage, Alaskayear. I tried to edit it so that all the subcategories don't sort under only one heading. Once again, template programming isn't my thing and I wasn't sure that my edit fixed it, so I reverted it. Any help you can give on these, please let me know.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've renamed the pre-2000 categories and left the original name as a redirect. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar case is Johannesburg Airport, which has had 3 names to date. It does not have a "Decade" template, and I don't see how it can be made to work in such a case. Anyway, the Decade template adds nothing to the website and should perhaps be removed from Ted Stevens Anchorage by year. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I don't know why this "Talkpagelinktext" thing is inserted as part of the signature on your talk page every time, as I don't see it occurring on any other talk page.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that has me surprised but not worth the effort to find the answer... Rcbutcher (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops_of_Kensington

Bishops of Kensington has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Drbones1950 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops_of_Guildford

Bishops of Guildford has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Drbones1950 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claire Lee Chennault Taipei.jpg

File:Higham Ferrers Bede House.jpg

File:AtomicTestingMuseumNevadaTestSiteMap.jpg

File:Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC.JPG

Category:Music in the United States

Category:Music in the United States 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 category, 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.

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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lionel Decoster (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oasis Compound, 6 days later.jpg

Category:Wounded_of_World_War_I

Wounded of World War I has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Catfishmo (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passed away

Please see w:User_talk:Rcbutcher#Passed_away. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian POWS of World War I

Category:Romanian POWS of World War I is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Empty Category

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Needles Old Battery Information Board Geograph 1729505 cb560c73.jpg

File:Needles Old Battery Information Board Geograph 1729505 cb560c73.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Needles Old Battery Information Board Geograph 1729505 cb560c73.jpg bjh21 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main building Loyola College Chennai at night.jpg

File:Mabini Building.jpg

Category:2008_Summer_Olympics_kayakers

2008 Summer Olympics kayakers has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

129.45.116.43 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:VCCharlesHazlittUphamGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCCharlesHeaphyGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCNelsonVictorCarterGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCBenjaminHandleyGearyGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCAndrewCharlesMynarskiGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCPaulTriquetGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCIanWilloughbyBazalgetteGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCWilliamLeefeRobinsonGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCCyrilJoeBartonGrave.jpg

File tagging File:VCFrederickYouensGrave.jpg

Agriculture in the United Kingdom in World War I

Why did you not name this cat "Agriculture in Britain during the First World War"? That is it's official title! - Broichmore (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ephomz2.jpg

File:Ephomz6.jpg

File:BL8inchSAPKMkIBNTShell1943Diagram.jpg

File:Dallas Farmers Market.jpg

File:OpusStacks2.jpg

File:Hk route 5.JPG

File:Hms raleigh.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dubai Marina

Affected:

File:Dubai Marina 2010.jpg

Yours sincerely, . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holloman_High_Speed_Test_Track

Holloman High Speed Test Track has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

71.197.33.39 07:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lapu-Lapu Shrine

Affected:

File:MactanShrineEntrance1.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:MactanShrinePainting1.jpg

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHGritaly 120304-07 (Acropolis Museum 1).JPG

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victory Monument (Verdun)

Affected:

File:DenkmalVerdun.jpg

Yours sincerely, Labattblueboy (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold_War_and_Modern_artillery_ammunition

@ Josh:

Rcbutcher passed away 28 April 2017. Please observe w:User_talk:Rcbutcher#Passed_away. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabilal Muhtadin.JPG

File:Gradska dzamija u izgradnji.JPG

File:Mesdzid u Nasubasicima.JPG

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Outdoor advertising in Saint Petersburg

Affected:

File:StopSignSaintPetersburg.jpg

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 11:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS C3 AWM A05731.jpeg

File:Willow Run Factory.jpg

File:Willow Run Factory.jpg 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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Signaleer.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marc Hamburg Vanity Fair 29 April 1908.JPG

File:Marc Hamburg Vanity Fair 29 April 1908.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: File:Leslie Ward - Vanity Fair, Musicians, ^Impromptu^, Mark Hambourg - B1979.14.496 - Yale Center for British Art.jpg is same but higher resolution)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Pigsonthewing.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taichung Tzu-shan Temple 2.jpg

File:Taichung Tzu-shan Temple 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 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 2001:B011:A401:1E1E:A9CD:AA26:9EB0:A512.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taichung Baojue Buddhist Temple3.jpg

File:Taichung Baojue Buddhist Temple3.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 2001:B011:A401:1E1E:A9CD:AA26:9EB0:A512.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taichung Tzu-shan Temple 6.jpg

File:Taichung Tzu-shan Temple 6.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 2001:B011:A401:1E1E:A9CD:AA26:9EB0:A512.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taichung Lin Temple2.jpg

File:Taichung Lin Temple2.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 2001:B011:A401:12F7:10D9:9677:EB9D:9B33.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earl of Denbigh Vanity Fair 23 August 1894.JPG

File:Earl of Denbigh Vanity Fair 23 August 1894.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion. Wikimedia Commons doesn't permit uploading personal files unless you are using them for personal use or an educational purpose.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images and best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Mdaniels5757.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:LittleDavid.ogv, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Szr123.jpg

File:Szr123.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Estopedist1: Please respcet that Rcbutcher has passed away in 2017. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Bronze eagle from the german rechs chancellery.jpg

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Rosenzweig: Please respect that Rcbutcher has passed away in 2017. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli Elch: Such notifications are automatic and mandatory accd. to Commons procedures, they are not disrespectful (or whatever it is you are trying to say). There is no need to tell everybody leaving such a notification here to "please respect that Rcbutcher has passed away in 2017". Regards --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brigade_of_Gurkhas

Brigade of Gurkhas has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jmabel: Please respect that Rcbutcher has passed away in 2017. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli Elch: Ah, had no idea. Was just hitting every page I thought might potentially be interested in the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Officers in Egypt.jpg

Yours sincerely, Felix QW (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]