User talk:Snowdawg

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Snowdawg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Fiat 634 102.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Fiat 634 102.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Fiat 634 102.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Krup24cmKL35-Puerto Belgrano.png

And also:

• File:24 cm L 40 K 97 Skoda twin turret.jpg
• File:French battleship Condorcet NH 42847-crop.jpg
• File:Cannons of SMS Prinz Eugen-7cmk16.jpg
• File:Cannon-190-39-Tripoli-32015.jpg
• File:Cannon-190-39-Tripoli-32011.jpg
• File:Cannon-190-39-Tripoli-31989.jpg
• File:Cannon-190-39-Tripoli-32003.jpg
• File:Mb-2-180.jpg
• File:Alighieri5.jpg
• File:76-30 lancia ro.jpg
• File:76-40 R.M. MDICAT.jpg
• File:76-40 R.M. Navale.jpg
• File:Breda Mod. 31 binata.jpg
• File:Breda Mod. 31 binata puntamento vincolato.jpg
• File:Breda mod.31.jpg
• File:Cannoni Dante Alighieri.jpg
• File:Salva di artiglierie.jpg
• File:Interno torre trinata.jpg
• File:Garibaldi155.jpg
• File:Phyrexian - Marina militare 064.jpg

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!

Affected:

• File:Tarnovski-Tsar-Selo.jpg

And also:

• File:Bathurst class corvette armament-2.png
• File:Bathurst class corvette armament-1.png

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

152-45 affusto piedistallo.png

Notice of impending speedy deletion

152-45 affusto piedistallo.png is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD GA1 (gallery without images or other media files) 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.

 

4nn1l2 (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Прототип Т-28.jpg

File:Прототип Т-28.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Объект 112.jpg

File:Объект 112.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Inserting wrong types into aircraft files

Good afternoon. It has been noticed that you have repeatedly marked aircraft files with wrong type names. A Piaggio P.149 is not a Ryan Navion, a HP Victor is not a Vickers Valiant.

If you are not so familiar with aircraft types or if unsure in individual cases, please simply refrain from inserting "something". Thank you very much for your future co-operation. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been more: This is clearly not a Chinook, not another Valiant. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been having problems with the cat-a-lot interface on my laptop. There are too many thumbnails per page and they're too small, so I lose my place on the page. Also, the pop-up for the category selection takes half the page so I end up with images selected I don't want for batch assignments. Under gadgets, there's a thumbnail resize option which should help.Snowdawg (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Tips for cat-a-lot:

* When you slowly and carefully "grip" the top line of the cat-a-lot box, you see the vertical arrow and are able to draw the vertical length downward, thus reducing it (same like an entire "Windows"-window), or:

* You click onto an empty space within that box and move the entire box to any place on the screen.

* "thumbnails too small": I've set the zoom factor on mine at 125%, and for me the problem is solved. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Festung Norwegen 155mm cannon.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Festung Norwegen 155mm cannon.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA) or (CC0) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Elisfkc (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Sockelflak - German AA cannon.jpg

File:Sockelflak - German AA cannon.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. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Older versions are found elsewhere on the net. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Mhhossein ^talk 16:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Overcat of aircraft

I have noticed that you have moved a large number of aircraft photographs from Category:Military aircraft in flight to the aircraft type (e.g. Category:North American T-6 Texan with this file) however they are already categorised with that via the registration (civil) or serial (military). I would recommend that you no longer categorise photographs with Cat-a-lot, since it is clear you don't have a clear understanding to ensure an overcat situtation doesn't happen. Bidgee (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And it's OBVIOUS you don't have a clear understanding of who you're patronizing. So go ahead and revert everything or report me for vandalism. Your choice. Snowdawg (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Unidentified naval missile launcher

Could you please have a look at this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wehrtechnische_Sammlung_der_Bundeswehr_(38928850014).jpg

It is clearly AIM-120, but with a ship based launcher, like the Sea Sparrow.--Arado (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You can see on the nose of the missile 120A which together with its appearance would lead you to believe it's a AIM-120 derivative. There are land-based variants such as Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System or SLAMRAAM. I don't recognize the launcher though.Snowdawg (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice work

Good work on the damaged photos, Thanks for your help Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings

---

Hello. This is a reminder for you that removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page without addressing the identified issues is discouraged according to our community guidelines. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details). If you have received warnings for copyright issues, please familiarize yourself with our policy on licensing. You can also ask for help at the village pump or the help desk if you need assistance.

--Sealle (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again: Inserting wrong types into aircraft files !!

A year ago, I had asked you NOT to insert wrong type categories into Photo files (see above "Inserting wrong types into aircraft files", 29 July 2018). I wrote: "If you are not so familiar with aircraft types or if unsure in individual cases, please simply refrain from inserting "something"."

Unfortunately, you did not adhere to my friendly advice. for example, you put a completely wrong type category to file G-BBNK, which clearly is not a Beech Baron but a Piper Aztec.

So please STOP inserting wrong informations if not completely sure! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegial

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

--Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for one week. The reason for the block is Special:Diff/352427291 (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--4nn1l2 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

File:USCGC Taney at night.jpg

This file has not been uploaded completely due to a software problem (see phab:T190988). Please re-upload it by clicking on "Upload a new version of this file" link below the section titled "File history". Then, please remove the {{Incomplete upload}} tag from the file description page. At least 30 days after the addition of the tag, volunteers will assess the quality of image and may crop it if being in use or deemed useful. Otherwise, the image may be deleted summarily (CSD#F7).

4nn1l2 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop

Don't add files that are already properly categorized to more general categories. Avoid COM:OVERCAT. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 2 weeks. The reason for the block is continous overcategorisation after having been asked to refrain from it, and a warning (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--De728631 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "No reason given" Decline reason: "No reason was given. Even if we are meant to take the below as a rationale, it both fails to address the issue ("I'm not intentionally overcategorizing these files" is not relevant; overcategorisation may be disruptive irrespective of whether motivated by good or ill intent) and adds failure of good faith ("Or is it your intention and the intention of a few opportunists to deny me something that I enjoy doing so they make me subservient?")--a pondersome tack given your 30 May 2019 block. COM:BLOCK requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

I'm not intentionally overcategorizing these files. I'm trying to go through the "Category:Aviation files (check needed)" files and properly identify and categorize them. At the top of that category, it is asking for people to go through and sort them and that's what I'm trying to do. The problem is there are often 100 pictures of an aircraft like a C-47 and it is easy to see they are all the same aircraft from the thumbnail view but what I can't see is what categories they already belong to without viewing each image one by one which is impractical when there are 57,000 files to go through. I can select them all and remove the check needed category but that doesn't mean they are properly categorized or identified. I asked for help because I don't know of any tool or option I can use to make these categories visible when viewing a large number of files. What I was met with were insults and demands instead of help. Show me a tool that I can use to view the categories these files belong to in a thumbnail view and I won't overcategorize. Or is it your intention and the intention of a few opportunists to deny me something that I enjoy doing so they make me subservient? Snowdawg (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be impractical to check each of these images individually, but that is exactly what this category "check needed" was made for. Sorting them with cat-a-lot is clearly not the way to go forward here, because most of the time there is no automated way to tell parameters like location, time and previous categorisation from the thumbnail preview. If there was such a way, this very maintenance category wouldn't exist.

That said, all insults and snarky comments I have seen so far in this matter have come from you. Nobody here is trying to deny you anything, let alone make you subservient, but there are certain rules and guidelines in this project that we all need to follow. These overcategorisation edits of yours are clearly causing more trouble than they are helpful – even if they are unintentional. You have been asked previously not to put images into redundant categories, but when people repeatedly remind you of it, you start yelling at them. That is not the kind of attitude we like to have here. De728631 (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

None of this would be happening if there were better tools available. Why can't the categories that an image ALREADY belongs to be displayed beneath the thumbnail with checkboxes instead of having to view each file one by one? That would solve the majority of overcat issues and make it easy to fix files in bulk that are overcategorized. Instead, we have to play games where EVERYONE assumes the worst of everyone's intentions and get into editing wars. But I suppose it's really a much better option to just have an endless supply of banned users instead. Snowdawg (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

While I guess it would technically be possible to display the categories for each file in the gallery preview, it would quickly clutter the entire page since many images are a member of some 10 or more categories. So that would be counterproductive again. Anyhow, I'll leave the decision about your unblocking to an uninvolved admin. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually I just found a gadget in the user preferences: "Gallery details". When activated in the preferences, it provides a link in the toolbox menu to toggle the details in gallery view. This does already list all categories for single images as well as the source code of the file page. I didn't know about this until now, but this might be what you've been looking for. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I have seen that one before but unfortunately, that's for viewing one file at a time. Here's what I see when sorting files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot_of_category.png. What would be really great is if a person could select multiple files in the thumbnail view and either hover over the images or right-click and see their categories. Or for that matter if there was a collapsible category tab under the filename and dimensions. The problem I have been having is I will select 20 images from the same user, with the same subject, same naming scheme and the categories aren't consistent which is a major pain. So I select them and try to use the lowest common denominator for its description but then someone gets bent out of shape that I overcatted 3 out of the 20 images. This is a general problem with the Commons UI and it happens when I try to sort uncategorized files too. I don't mind sorting these images because I enjoy doing that, what I would like is a way to make it more logistically achievable. Snowdawg (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The idea of the category is to look at each file one at a time, not move them in bulk. If you were to be unblocked, it would need to done so with restrictions (no auto or semi auto tools to be used for maintenance categories). I do agree, that there was a gadget that gave out the information (e.g. description, source, author, license and categories), which would make reviewing each file quicker but it doesn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother doing anything with maintenance categories anymore. At some point, these backlogs will become too big a burden and the files will just be purged without evaluation. If something exists in those categories and it isn't properly identified, to begin with, it might as well not exist. Snowdawg (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Even your admins agree that tools currently do not exist for what I was trying to achieve. Users are encouraged to help clear these backlogs and when they try someone is always horribly offended when something is misspelled, misidentified, or miscategorized even if it wasn't their mistake in the first place. The message is always stop what you're doing because I'm annoyed and if you don't I will call the cops. It's mind-boggling because I deal with things that have been misspelled, misidentified, miscategorized all the time and I have NEVER tracked down the person who did it and demand they stop because it annoys me. Did you ever consider that if someone regularly complains about something procedural like overcategorization or miscategorization that THEY have a problem and NOT the person who did it? Did you ever stop to consider that cynical people are NOT assuming good faith and that YOU are being played to further THEIR agendas? Did you ever stop to consider if there are a dozen generic categories like silver airplane, red rudder, and fixed landing gear that adding the make and model of the aircraft isn't the real issue and that the generic categories should be removed instead? Or is it VIRTUOUS for me to abdicate personal responsibility for fixing things and instead demand other people serve me? If leaves blow into your yard nobody needs to go to prison. Just be a boy scout clean it up and move on. Snowdawg (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Snowdawg,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Snowdawg,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please enable e-mail to be eligible to win a prize in Wiki Loves Monuments!

Thank you for uploading images for Wiki Loves Monuments!

However, we have noticed you have not enabled e-mail. To be eligible to win a prize the contest, you need to enable e-mail. This is what to do:

1. Check the top right of your screen, and log in if you have not done so already
2. Go to your preferences
3. Scroll down to Email Options
4. Enter your email address and click "Allow other users to email me"
5. Click Save
   

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Snowdawg,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:LuAZ-969 MLRS.jpg

File:LuAZ-969 MLRS.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Druschba 4 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

File:00024794.jpg.1782e3ab261637a78248e06119bbab19.jpg

File:00024794.jpg.1782e3ab261637a78248e06119bbab19.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:340 mm Mle 1912 L47 railway French railway gun.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:340 mm Mle 1912 L47 railway French railway gun.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:340 mm Mle 1912 L47 railway French railway gun.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Tæ 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Snowdawg, I have deleted your uploads from Category:Canon de 340 modèle 1912 à glissement because there was indication that any of these files had a free licence at worldwarphotos.info. We always need to know if and why each upload is in the public domain, so it is not sufficient to rely on the claims made by such websites that "all materials presented comply with copyright law", and Creative-Commons Zero, as you applied it, apparently was not appropriate either. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Their disclaimer can be found here https://www.worldwarphotos.info/photo/ . They didn't indicate which source they came from or who the photographer's name was.Snowdawg (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, that disclaimer is not a valid copyright information for our purposes, and it does not include the Creative Commons Zero licence either. Therefore we can't use these images at Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the source for identification?

Unfortunately I could find no information what kind of 164-mm guns were employed at Chavonne, and neither a single picture of canon de 16 cm Mle 1887 is available online. How did you identify it? Ain92 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Page 202 of Naval Weapons of World War One by Norman Friedman says: "In October 1914, twelve 16cm guns (M1887, M1891 and M1893) were emplaced at Toul, at Verdun, and in the East. They were rendered semi-mobile beginning in the summer of 1916. Of these guns, two were captured at Verdun in February 1916, two in the Chemin des Dames on 27 May 1918, and one on 9 June 1918 after the German offensive at Metz." It's not a real common caliber and the versions which were made from a steel liner with cast iron reinforcing hoops were rated in cm instead of mm. The ones forged from steel were rated in mm. The gun looks like a trunnionless barrel and the sleeve with the trunnions houses a spring rather than hydro-pneumatic recoil system like later guns. Later guns had trunnions and eyelets forged into the barrel and these hooked into hydro-pneumatic recoil cylinders below the barrel like in the 1893 model. So it's probably a M1887.Snowdawg (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I had prepared a detailed post about three times as long as your answer linking four French sources at Gallica, I even thought I've sent it, but actually I haven't, then my browser crashed and the post has been lost. =C Do you think you could read French with a dictionary? If yes, please look up some search queries like "cannon de 16" "mle 1887", "cannon de 164,7" "modele 1887" etc. at gallica.bnf.fr, and you will find out that actually all three mentioned guns were made of steel without any cast iron, the French seems to use caliber rated in millimeters and centimeters fully interchangeably and not three but over a dozen of different models of 164-mm naval guns were used on the WWI Western Front since it was such a common naval caliber in France, so I don't think it's possible to identify the gun by a process of elimination. Ain92 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• According to this book on WWI Railroad artillery "Romanych, Mark (2017-08-24). Railway Guns of World War I. Heuer, Greg, Noon, Steve. London. pp. 5–15. ISBN 9781472816412. OCLC 999616340." the author says that guns rated in centimeters were of mixed construction. Which correlates fairly well with the descriptions from this website which describes the same guns with cast iron construction http://www.fortiffsere.fr/artillerie/index_fichiers/Page2829.htm regarding the Canon de 24 C modèle 1876 which translated says "a cast-iron gun which the tube is made of steel". It also makes a certain amount of sense that the shorter more bulbous guns weighed more and had thicker reinforcing hoops because the cast-iron was less dense than hardened alloy steel. Also with the switch over to nitrocellulose smokeless powders steel was needed because of the more powerful explosives. With the switch to steel guns now weighed less, could be made longer due to greater rigidity, were higher velocity, and longer-ranged. However, French coastal defense guns of the period can be hard to identify because you see model 1887 gun on model 1897 carriage or 1887/1893 gun where the second number indicates when it was modified to use smokeless powder.Snowdawg (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I know about the Fortiffsere very well, however we are not speaking about 1870s but 1880s, so I don't trust the railroad artillery book contradicting the French sources. I actually found three sources out of four: sont entièrement en acier (are entirely of steel), a huge list of guns (not going to reproduce it here with comments as I did in the lost post) and one more modification. Note the smokeless powder (Poudre B & BTR) they were designed for from the start: (haven't seen this source before). Ain92 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Fatal konsultation.jpg

File:Fatal konsultation.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. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: fake license, not own work Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

VLu (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kaiser Wilhelm II. 1915 bei der Verleihung des Eisernen Kreuzes an Karl Neuhof (1891–1943).jpg

Copyright status: File:Kaiser Wilhelm II. 1915 bei der Verleihung des Eisernen Kreuzes an Karl Neuhof (1891–1943).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kaiser Wilhelm II. 1915 bei der Verleihung des Eisernen Kreuzes an Karl Neuhof (1891–1943).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 08:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:轢き潰される「研三」.jpg

Copyright status: File:轢き潰される「研三」.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:轢き潰される「研三」.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Italian human-controlled torpedo.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Italian human-controlled torpedo.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Italian human-controlled torpedo.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

VLu (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Updates of images of active Commons users

Hello, if you believe that an image of mine should be improved that please, contact me. As you can read in the description page I discourage users to do so for a row of reasons. The fact that you uploaded a version which was 10 times smaller I'll ignore and assume that it was a mistake and not vandalism. If you do that again then I cannot assume good faith anymore. Poco a poco (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I just wanted to change the contrast. I was not aware that it was resized. However, after reading your reply please do feel free to take it personally and report it as vandalism.Snowdawg (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Please read COM:OVERWRITE. Bidgee (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)