User talk:Ain92

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Category:Hanomag AL 28

Hello Ain92!

This edit by you is partly not correct because not every AL 28 was a truck of the Bundeswehr. Please undo this. Thank you in advance. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. Well, I made this edit vecause I'd read in Russian sources that this 4x4 truck was developed for military service. If your sources say it was initially intended for civil service and adopted in Bundeswehr later, you can remove the odd category. Or else you can create Hanomag AL 28 in military service or something like that. If you see something that can be improved, improve it! ;-) Ain92 (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This truck was initially designed for this organisation. This Wikipedia:Be bold-thing applies to Wikipedia but not for Commons; especially not for users who do tons of edits - as such it is far better to contact the editor in order to avoid future similiar failures. Thanks for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's my fault, you're right. I changed category for Mil. trucks of Germany, is it OK? Of course, I offered you to be bold not instead of informing me, but together with it. Ain92 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Парк Хэхуачи

См. ответ на моей странице обсуждения. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

When marking duplicates

Hi. When marking a file as a duplicate, please do not delete the template, just add the extra template. It makes the evaluation process a lot easier that way. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and we cannot speedy delete files of alternate formats as duplicates. If they are to be deleted, they need to go through a normal deletion process as per Commons:Deletion policy. Normally, I would just wrap then in {{Other version}} and poke them into the other version = field.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I used to do it only when I was sure when all the useful information was copied to another file. However, I won't remove the {{Information}} from now on. And what "alternate formats" do you mean? I have marked no files in the case of bitmap/vector graphics mentioned in the policy. Ain92 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

  You have marked files as {{Duplicate}} and that is a request to speedy delete the image, as per this edit. Maybe you were looking for {{Other version}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • No, I wasn't. I haven't noticed any difference between these photos untill now, could you please do as here? Ain92 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

    You are still marking cropped images as duplicates. To note that the community can carry cropped images, they are different, there is no specific reason to delete. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the deletion, it is to remove duplicates as there is zero benefit in having them, whereas cropped images appear that way purposely. We are not saving disk space, so look to deletion is when things are outside of the scope of Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Sorry, it was unintentional. What about purpose of deletion, I'm doing all this marking of course not to save disk space (moreover, in Russian Wikipedia I belong to the inclusionists), but I just want articles to use images of higher quality. Maybe there's another way to automatically replace old images with new ones than deleting them? It would be the most convinient variant. Ain92 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

      There is the ability to replace linking of one image with another through CommonsDelinker, though it is currently out-of-action. That said, it is not the job of Commons to force upon the wikis the opinions of Commons-denizens. They may have chosen to use a specific image for a specific reason, also acting from Commons should be done cautiously and with checking. It shouldn't be done on whim, or personal preference alone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

      • So you know, when the CommonsDelinker is going to be repaired? What's "denizens"? And did you call replace of this with this a whim? Ain92 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't merge as {{Duplicate}} cropped images, so please don't use that as the reasoning. The guideline to which you point is about versions of images where the versions are visible and comparable, duplicates is about a clear deletion. They should not be speedied, they should go through a normal deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not nominate NARA images for deletion

NARA sourced images acquired through the in-residence program should neither be nominated for deletion, nor deleted. Also would you note that images that are of a different quality, image intensity, etc. that makes them different images, not necessarily exact duplicates. So pretty much if there is some judgement calls, these shouldn't be speedy deleted, but go through a normal deletion process where the community can comment. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I was wrong. Where can I read policies about this NARA program? Ain92 (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Talk to User:Dominic  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

MG TD != Ferrari

Could you please explain this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMG_Sports_car_1949.JPG&diff=101917508&oldid=51325492 and also Category:Ferrari Rosso?

These are MGs, not Ferraris.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Of course not Ferraris, it's a technical error — I wanted to move several images of red MG TD to Red roadsters as I did with black ones. I've already fixed it. Ain92 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to support you: regarding Category:Athens War Museum

Hello Ain92!

I can transfer all files from this flickr album within a few minutes. But if I do so, you must stop your flickr transfer in order to prevent the creation of duplicates. Afterwards, you can work on the transferred files. As such you can spare your time. What do you think? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good night, High Contrast and thanks for your attention.

• You can't transfer all of the images from the album because for some of them author prohibited commercial usage. Also I've already transferred all of the images that seem to be interesting for me and I'm not dying to categorise dozens of photos of uniforms, ancient weapons and the like. In conclusion I'm going to bed soon. So it seems reasonable create a subcategory of To be checked and upload all files you can there.

• Best regards, Ain92 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Which to save

I appreciate the effort you are making to eliminate duplicate images, however I think it is simple courtesy to keep the earlier upload, particularly when it links the original source rather than an image-scraping site. And is more deeply categorized to boot. Dankarl (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sysops unify information when deleting dupes, so the remaining image takes all the best from the duplicates (including categorisation). I misread the date of your upload as 2013, not 2012, I apologize for inconvenience. Ain92 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for the explanation. In my experience, the information unification by sysops is pretty spotty, so I always try to do it myself if I nominate a duplicate or one of my uploads is nominated. Dankarl (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Romanian Krupp 75 mm field gun M1904, Tasmania.jpg

File:Romanian Krupp 75 mm field gun M1904, Tasmania.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!

Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

location of this photo (copied from my discussion page)

Hello. Where have you taken this picture? Thank you in advance. Ain92 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i've taken this picture in Peterhof Captainm (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Flow92

I looked into this problematic user and filed a report here. Please weigh in if you'd like. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I can add only the fact that Flow92 practice "crossed" categorizing, just as with Fordson WOT and Fordson WOT 6/8, and this is similar to behaviour of Zweileben mentioned on latter one's TP. And I'll watch this case of course. Ain92 (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Exhibitions in Khabarovsk

Вот так (по многочисленным просьбам трудящихся) :-))

Накидаю на досуге всякое-разное.--Andshel (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Austin K2/Y

Yes, I agree it certainly looks that way and fits with what little I have about them but it seems to be an overcat. It seemed to me the trouble is they appear twice and so are double counted. First as Austin Military vehicles (which I left) and then again (as you have restored it) as a variant of a K2. Is there a different solution to this? Eddaido (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I wanted to ask community what to do in such situations a long time ago, but it would take for me too much time to formulate and translate my thoughts in English. However, I will try to explain the problem in few words.
• I see at least two cases, when the most reasonable actions can come into collision with COM:CAT in the part of overcategorisation. I'll try to illustrate a different from this one with an imaginary example:

1. If picture displays, e.g., an Austin K2 and some other Austin military vehicle(s), which I don't want to create a subcategory to place (because it would be the only one image or because I'm not sure about the correct designation) or just simply can't identify it (or them) and so far place it in some sort of Category:Unidentified….
2. We have a tradition to place modifications of vehicles, weapons etc. in the category of the basic vehicle, such as here. So we can see sometimes it can cause the situation that, as you said, "seems to be an overcat".

• So I ask you to think about other similar cases and look for discussion on the forums. About a year ago I found noting. As far as you seems to be a native speaker it probably will be easier for you to formulate the problem than for me and maybe ask for different solution on forums. Thank you in advance, Ain92 (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Army History Museum and Park in Kecel

Hello! Thank you! About the row of artillery pieces, I have pictures just from two guns, because I made more than 300 pictures there, than my camera's battery went dead. That was very annoying for me, because I missed most of the artillery and all of the airplanes there, but I hope in the future I can visit the Park again. Anyway as I remeber there were examples of WWI artillery of Austria-Hungary, some WWII guns like PaK 35/36 and leFH 18 and a few post WWII era guns. Cooper6 (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. After I'd twice confronted with such difficulties, I bought a second accumulator for this case. =) I found on the Flickr quite a lot of photos from there (e.g., [1], [2] and [3]), there're some rusty gun barrels, and in the row you haven't photographed a 8 cm 5/8 M., some Kruppsche 7,5 cm Feldkanone L/30 and a 10,5 cm l.F.H. 18/40. The post-war guns should be very mass-produced Soviet ones, so they are of much less interest (unless they're Czechoslovak Škodas). Ain92 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Belgrade Renault FT

If you feel that the change you suggest will improve Wikipedia, then it would seem to me that it would be helpful and collaborative if you made that change. Returning to a previous, incorrect version does not seem to be a way of improving matters. I don't know what your change involves, so maybe you could go ahead with it yourself. Regards, Hengistmate.

• Hello.
• I believe that FT-17 is an incorrect designation, but it's against COM:CAT to replace a "blue" (existing) category with a "red" (non-existent) one. You have to create new category with right name, copy all the text from the old one, then place {{catredirect|%new_category_name%}} there and then the bot will move all the files from the old category to the new one.
• Regards, Ain92 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:PTS amphibious transporter at the Międzyrzecz Fortification Region.jpg

Hello!

What are you doing with this file? --High Contrast (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. Sorry, I had misunderstood a Russian source about PTS so as unlike PTS-M the former don't have a searchlight (actually they both had, but of different models). Ain92 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Ain92⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

S and P photos

Dobri den/Hello, yes, I have more photos for the S and P Museum. You can see and download them from my website (look in the Canada-Artillery and Armour pages) at www.SilverHawkAuthor.com. Harold sends

Re: Cañón Schneider de 105 mm L 17,8 Modelo 1928

Yes, off course. As stated in Commons:Categories: "Category names should generally be in English, (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions, such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English-language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)". "Cañón Schneider de 105 mm L 17,8 Modelo 1928" is an equivalent in Spanish for "105mm L17.8 M1928 Field Gun" (in English), as you can read here. Really, the desambiguation [Schneider] is not necesary. Regards, --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Ain92,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How can I help?

Not quite sure if I can add anything myself comment wise but I'll do what I can. As far as who took the picture, I'm a Crew Chief (not pilot if it matters). It was taken right outside to the east of Qargha'l. The river is directly fed from the Qargha Reservoir, which is a lake that has a to the east. It was taken late fall, early winter before the snow season so it was still running low, which you can see the silt showing. Farmers that depend on the river were either harvesting or preparing to harvest at the time of capture. The nearby Lake Qargha I believe is a salt lake, and a small stream (small at the time) directly north of Qargha'l seemed to be feeding into this river, which seemed to come from much farther up north in the mountains. Farther east of the river there were some boats and many more farms. In the early fall, this river provided for one of the greenest places I've seen around Kabul, much to contrast the neighboring high deserts. The altitude is also much lower than Kabul, sitting ~2000ft MSL verse ~5000ft MSL at Kabul International, so it's also much hotter and humid year-round.

If there's anything specific you're looking for, I can try and find out. I think I also have another picture or two of this particular river if it'll help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phickmanfresh (talk • contribs) 11 April 2014, 20:41 (UTC)

• Hello again and thanks for the comment. I checked Google maps, satellite images and a 1980s Soviet 1:50,000 map including the northern part of Kabul, found both Qargha village and reservoir (and also ~2150 m above MSL mountain of the same name), and the river flowing there is so small that it isn't yet named! Is there an only Qargha Reservoir near Kabul? The geotag appears to be north from the Darunta Reservoir (its level is about 600 m ≈ 2000 ft above MSL). Do you agree the river on photo is Kabul River? Best regards, Ain92 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• After reviewing the map a couple more times, the river that runs east from Kabul wanes into the mountains just south of where the source of the previously mentioned lake/river sits. I would say they're two different bodies. I found a few more pictures of the small river and if you're still interested, I'll look to see if I captured the Kabul river at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phickmanfresh (talk • contribs) 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So, do you insist the river on photo is that small river near Qargha? How do you estimate typical width of the river on photo? Ain92 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. It is definitely the river near Qargha'l. Typical width is approx. 100 - 200 yards. There was what looked to be a guy a little further east fishing in a boat, so there must be some depth. Didn't seem that deep in the late Fall though.
      • Do you mean the river at 34°32'36"N 69°03'24"E? It isn't even 10 m in width! Also it's much higher than "2000ft MSL". Ain92 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Descriptions_at_the_Bovington_Tank_Museum

Category:Descriptions_at_the_Bovington_Tank_Museum 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!

Nilfanion (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Meeting in St.-Pet. on 12Jun2012, photo 58.jpg

спасибо pour ce remerciement . It's easier for me to find cars in Commons when they have the good ID. As I think most people think the same way, I try to help as far as I can.
Regards.
BarnCas (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• (= Well, so do I, but I'm more often dealing with military vehicles then civilian. Ain92 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Тип 92

Несколько запоздало отвечая на ваш вопрос, если это ещё актуально: Тип 92 — собственная японская разработка, хотя и использующая шнейдеровские конструктивные особенности. --Saə (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Humber Super Snipe in military service your reversion to an overcat

Hi Ain92.
Is your thinking about this the same as your thinking in Category:Austin K2/Y above?

Can you find any support at all for your (I am sure mistaken) opinion? If so would you please let me know very soon. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to inconvenience you again.

Could you please explay exactly where you see an over-categorization? I reread COM:Categories#Over-categorization and can't see it here. Thank you beforehands. Ain92 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the category in question (Humber Super Snipe in military service) appears on this page twice Category:Humber vehicles. First under Category:Humber Super Snipe in military service and then again (the overcat?) under Category:Humber Super Snipe. It has to be one or the other just not both.

Please tell me if it does not make sense. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's all right, compare with Eivør Pálsdóttir, which is given as an exmaple on COM:CAT – it's "included" in Faroe Islands four times twice. Ain92 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Military cupolas

You are thinking tank turrets. There are other types of military cupolas. -- PBS (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/14591824043/
• File:Gun or Mortar cask raft and proposed Cupola ship.png
• File:Tour_de_Belem_detail_1_082006.JPG (see w:Belém_Tower#Exterior)

-- PBS (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• It was you, not me, who added Gun turrets of armoured vehicles there. Ain92 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Gvtbr36 beograd.jpg

File:Gvtbr36 beograd.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!

Sealle (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work

	Very good work I appreciate you
	Good work Ainsleykg (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Pakistan ethnic map.svg

File:Pakistan ethnic map.svg 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!

And File:Pakistan ethnic map v2.svg as well. Notifying you on behalf of someone who created a malformed request. Don't shoot the messenger ;) Riley Huntley (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jpg

Template: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 template, 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!

Simon04 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ausschnitt

Hallo! Du hast da einen Ausschnitt angelegt: File:Enniger_Substation_(380_kV_to_110_kV),_aerial_view.jpg. Da ich nicht der Autor dieses Ausschnitts bin, sondern nur des Ursprungsbilds, passe ich mal alle Angaben an. --XRay ^talk 06:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, Dietmar.

First of all, thank you for taking and uploading the picture, it's nice and provides a good overview of a high voltage substation (the same goes for File:Münster, Umspannstation Roxel -- 2014 -- 9289.jpg which was made closer to nadir so the details of substation can be seen even without the crop IMHO).

Regarding the authorship attribution, I haven't changed anything assuming CropTool will do it automatically. If you are concerned by the situation where a new file doesn't mention the cropper, express your opinion at Commons talk:CropTool (because I don't mind).

Regards, Ilya Ain92 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Martin Manhoff и общественное достояние

Приветствую! Здорово, что вы загрузили эти найденные фотографии. Я сам думал, что они как раз нужны в проектах Викимедиа. Но точно ли нет сомнений в public domain-статусе фотографий? Я не видел обсуждения этой темы, сам не знаю нюансы о применимости конкретно PD-USGov. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Здравствуйте. Само "Радио Свобода" пишет, что помощник атташе Мэнхофф при съёмке похорон выполнял свои должностные обязанности, поэтому я считаю PD-USGov вполне применимым в данном случае (хотя остальные фото я не загружал, поскольку неясно, с какими целями действовал майор — он имеет право на охрану фото, сделанных по собственному желанию). Если вдруг кто-то решит выставить на удаление, тогда придётся углубляться в прецедентные решения судов и прочие нюансы американской правоприменительной практики, конечно, а пока я и так вполне уверен. Ain92 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Тогда понятно почему вы остальные не загрузили. Было бы хорошо узнать статус других фото и видео. Вы не планируете спросить об этом у "Свободы" или историка Дугласа Смита? Так как он и передал фото, то ему должно быть известно находится архив в общественном достоянии или правообладателями являются наследники Манхоффа. Здесь есть ссылка на его facebook-страницу и электронную почту. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Сорри, не особо есть лишнее время сейчас этим заниматься, всё равно образовательная ценность тех фотографий несравнима с ценностью съёмок похорон. "Радио Свобода" обещает ещё много материалов опубликовать (вы можете подписаться на рассылку), может там найдётся что-то стоящее. Ain92 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Hello. I am from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. We are organized Art month.([4]). We need a silver version of this (+) barnstar. Please create and report me. Regards, --Neriman2003 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Ain92,

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 Ain92,

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) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Ain92,

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:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-756-0218-27, Dänemark, Geschütz der Küstenbefestigung.jpg

The 12 cm. H.s.K. L/45 M/12 mentioned in the file description is a Swedish naval gun made by Bofors in 1912 and can be found on Swedish, Danish and Dutch ships.Snowdawg (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Actually the Danish gun was designed by a Danish officer named N. E. Lomholdt, built by a Danish arsenal and has nothing to do with Bofors AFAIK: [5]. Do you have reliable sources stating otherwise? Ain92 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Interwar_armoured_cars_of_the_Soviet_Union

Interwar armoured cars of the Soviet Union 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!

Josh (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Векторизация растровых карт

Добрый день! Вы значительно улучшили первоначально созданную мной карту Битва за Сталинград . Я вижу, что есть потребность в векторных картах, но создание вручную процесс очень муторный. Вы не знаете софт или ресурсы по векторизации растровых карт.Alex Rott (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Добрый день! Я всё делал вручную в Inkscape. Хотя я кое-что умею делать в геоинформационных системах (например, QGIS), на создание нормальных карт (хоть растровых, хоть векторных) моих навыков сильно не хватает, к сожалению. Ain92 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Инскейпом я как раз и создавал первые карты. Видимо скилл надо прокачивать, чтобы качественнее карты получались. Alex Rott (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Странные щиты силовиков

Добрый день! Разбирая фотографии со вчерашних акций протеста, столкнулся с вопросом, который не могу разрешить самостоятельно. Вы случайно не знаете, чем могут быть странные щиты у двух силовиков справа (судя по форме, это внутренние войска)? Здесь пишут, что это может быть муляж щита-электрошокера или же (менее вероятно) настоящий щит-электрошокер. Здесь утверждается, что щиты-шокеры приняты на вооружение, но там нет фотографий. Есть пара фотографий того же дня с другого ракурса, но они столь же неинформативные. Всего таких щитов в этом переулке было 5 или 6 (из ~35 в первом ряду). Ранее я их не замечал (да и о случаях применения щитов-шокеров не сообщалось), а на этой фотографии есть щиты того же чёрного цвета, но без полосок. Homoatrox (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• День добрый, я присоединяюсь к гипотезе Дениса Бурковского, очень хорошо освещающего технические средства силовых структур, что это муляжи на основе обыкновенных алюминиевых противоударных щитов (в РФ разные, но почти неразличимые визуально варианты имеют обозначения ЩП-1, "Витраж-А" и "Витраж-АТ"). Конструкция противоударных щитов-электрошокеров, насколько я могу судить, всегда основана на пластике, и неудивительно, что производящийся в РБ вариант (СИС2-К.212) выглядит совершенно по-другому: https://energobelarus.by/market/prochee_1/shchit_protivoudarnyy_s_elektroshokovym_ustroystvom_sis2_k_212/ Ain92 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Спасибо! Homoatrox (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gas_masks_of_Brazil

Gas masks of Brazil 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!

Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Cannone da 75/27 modello 11

Hello, You reverted my addition of Category:Schneider artillery to Category:Cannone da 75/27 modello 11. Didn't Schneider sold the design to the Italian Army?

-- Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Nope, Schneider had nothing to do with it at all. They had competing designs (very different ones and much more of them than present at Commons), one of which lost to the gun in question in Italian trials. The winner was designed by French colonel Deport and produced in Italy. Ain92 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response. -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki-Working

Hello dear Ain92!

I just noted your revert, so i had a closer look to your contributions. Your revert is not a big problem for me; sometimes things are fluid or in double hierarchic structures; especially here on commons.

Because of your international engagement you might perhaps like to read some of my ideas and problems on wikidata + Wikidata talk:WikiProject Military History. My Idea is, that it is always better to work together ... far better than against each other :-) In case of questions you can reach me in german Wikipedia by Portal Diskussion:Waffen or Portal Diskussion:Militär or directly via my german userpage. Best Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• The reason for my revert is simple: horse artillery is a subtype of the horse-drawn artillery (along with the foot artillery, the distinguishing feature being gun crews riding horses as opposed to walking or riding on carts), not vice versa. Unfortunately I neither read nor write German (hence not going to your de-WP pages), and machine translation couldn't help me find out what are the ideas you wanted me to read, but I'm open to collaboration indeed (feel free to ask me about historical artillery/tank terms!), and you could copypaste the needed part here so we could discuss it in English. Ain92 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Vickers .303

Do you realise that there are a lot of .303 Vickers? The K gun for one. If you want to give it a more specific name then this would need to be the "Vickers medium machine gun" (which isn't perfect as a name either).

Thanks for filtering out the Colt-Vickers photos, as that's not something I had the time for. But weren't a lot of these re-worked for .303 later in the war anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it would be best to just have a category for the British Mk. I (something like Category:Vickers .303 Mk. I machine guns, possibly a separate one for the slotted-jacket aircraft Mk. I*), while everything else should be in the common "Vickers machine guns", as it's not always possible to identify the calibre from the photo even if it's positively the inverted Maxim action: e. g., some commercial water-cooled Vickers (medium) MGs exported with Vickers ships (think of Japan and Latin America) could be chambered in whatever calibre the customer wants, and minor visual difference will only be in the feed tray.
• As an important side note, I removed some of the Maxim guns from your new category. I believe that Maxim guns manufactured by Vickers should be in the Maxim machine gun because it's not possible to identify the manufacturer without markings (for example, identical British Maxims were made by Maxim-Nordenfelt, Vickers-Maxim and RSAF Enfield).
• As long as the machine gun has the Browning-type ladder rear sight, you can be sure they weren't rechambered because the ballistics are different. If some were (I have seen none), they should have received the British sight. Ain92 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Andy Dingley: Do you have anything to say? I'm actually interested in your opinion. Ain92 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)