User talk:Petebutt/Archive 2

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

File tagging File:Spad S.27 110320 p296.png

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Spad S.27 110320 p296.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

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 VRT-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:Spad S.27 110320 p296.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

JuTa 12:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Napier Cub 34 front 100221 p94.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Napier Cub 34 front 100221 p94.png. 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 VRT 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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait!

Hello Petebutt,

I have to ask you to stop uploading files from the Flightglobal archive. The permission we obtained in December covers only files that were at Commons then. Further files are not covered by ticket 2016010410016319. I am sorry that we could not obtain more from Flightglobal (maybe someone wants to pull their sleeves and return to them asking for more?), but this is the way things are. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

However, you can still upload files from the Flightglobal archive if they are in the public domain in the U.S. and the source country. See Commons:Copyright tags for details. But I recommend you to still stop from uploading files from that archive without permission from Flightglobal. Thanks! ★ Poké95 01:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Bréguet-Bugatti 32A Paris 1919 290120 p122.jpg

File:Bréguet-Bugatti 32A Paris 1919 290120 p122.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

De728631 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Napier Cub 34 front 100221 p94.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Napier Cub 34 front 100221 p94.png. 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 VRT 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 19:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Petebutt, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

lNeverCry 04:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Cansa c.5.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Cansa c.5.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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!

lNeverCry 06:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Cansa c.5.jpg

File:Cansa c.5.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Basvb (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Morane-Saulnier MoS.30, Hispano Aviación, Wibault 7

Hi, just a heads-up to say that I have made several edits to image files and categories that you have recently worked on. I have separated Hispano Aviación from Hispano-Suiza, as it is in en:wp, noting that here (generally) we also separate aircraft companies from their products as different entities. Also note how I have moved aircraft features (eg wing types) from individual images to their parent categories. In case you are not aware, you can often avoid creating red links with HotCat by ensuring you get a tick next to the OK instead of an X, also Cat-a-Lot enables you to navigate the category tree up and down before you complete the edit. No reply expected.PeterWD (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Strahltriebwerk Derwent.jpg

Hello Petebutt,
please tell me why you changed the name and discription of this foto, although the original uploader claims otherwise Dirk1981. According to en.WP these are different engines: one american, one british.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well it clearly ISN'T an Allison J33!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it is a Nene/J42!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Closer inspection shows the split diffusers of the Nene. So it is a Nene or J42, but it is very difficult to tell them apart with out manuals and/or documentation.

Category:VEB 14

Category:VEB 14 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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Frze > talk 17:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:VEB aircraft

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

Frze > talk 17:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft production

Hi, pleased to see your current work on this subject. I'm inclined to mass shift it all to new Category:Aircraft production, and make a rational hierarchy with manufacturers, aircraft types, factories, workers, era (eg WWII) etc. Probably not controversial, so no CFDs planned yet. Welcome your thoughts, when you have settled current exercise. Watching here.PeterWD (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought similar, taking the line of least resistance.--Petebutt (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Good, I'll take a look at it later. Meanwhile, please ensure each of your new subcats is linked to each aircraft type, also please fix DH.9 red link.PeterWD (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
DH.9 done--Petebutt (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Aquila_A.210

Category discussion warning

Category:Aquila_A.210 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 ∙ +/−

Achim (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Images of aircraft with bad file names

Hello. I noticed that you have started mass removals of the tag "Images of aircraft with bad file names" without any explanation.

In addition, you renamed some meaningless file names with other meaningless ones, as well without any explanation.

Therefore, I don't have any idea why you "moved File:20100626- DSC7260 (4872133670).jpg to File:20100626 DSC7260 (4872133670).jpg", just as an example.

Maybe you are not so familiar with the File naming rules and the File renaming rules. They state "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays.", giving several examples of what is "meaningless or ambiguous". File names like "160714 A DZ829 002" fit exactly into these categories, so why did you remove the tag?

Please be so kind and either rename files tagged with "bad file names" with a correct file name (= the best solution) or stop removing the respective tag. Doing so - especially without giving any reason - might be considered as disruptive editing. Thank you very much for your understanding. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

what do you think i was doing?--Petebutt (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Ahh I thought they were all tagged for the same reason - using characters that may be used as mark-up text such as and ".. thank you for pointing out my mistake, but don't just whinge at me, start changing file-names--Petebutt (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)!
I don't have to "start changing file-names" - I've done that for years, and fortunately I'm not quite the only one. But there is still more than enough work to do; you are more than welcome to start changing file-names to those which "describe what the image particularly displays." --Uli Elch (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Will continue file-moves with descriptive titles.--Petebutt (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Propeller Research Tunnel etc

Thanks for your comment. With some regret, I finally found it necessary to revert or amend a number of your edits, and I hope that it was mostly just a 'bad hair day'. I also hope that you can improve your understanding of category hierarchy per COM:CAT; eg Cooley aircraft is fine, but it must be linked to parent category Aircraft of the United States. Also, as above (MoS.30 etc), I recommend more attention to how Hotcat works, to avoid creating red links, or making new categories that are duplicates of easily found existing cats (eg Navy of Italy) that are not necessarily named in an obvious style :-) Regards, PeterWD (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, despite my occasional brain-farts i do have a low rejection rate!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified aircraft

Thanks for your message, although it didn't come under the correct section heading. Perhaps you misunderstand the term "unidentified" in Commons jargon - for an image, it actually means (for aircraft) that the manufacturer and type/model is unidentified within the category tree, so the image must remain in Category:Unidentified aircraft (or Category:Aircraft) until it can be placed in a more appropriate category. Also, you should never remove all categories from an image or a category, otherwise it cannot be found by users browsing the category tree as required by COM:CAT. I hope that you will re-examine the recent group, in which those with a red colour scheme all appear to be Saab 340s of Mesaba Airlines.PeterWD (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How about putting them in the right category to start with?????????--Petebutt (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I have put a bunch of images in "Unidentified" categories over the past ~2 weeks. I'm working on categorizing media needing categories. I have no skill nor time to categorize every single picture of an aircraft/helicopter/automobile. I use the "unidentified" categories as a first step towards correct classification. Several contributors have helped me in different domains. Badzil (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop hiding away aircraft files !

You have moved dozens of aircraft files from Category:Images of aircraft without type category to Category:Aircraft registrations, effectively moving them out of reach for serious editors (just one example of all too many). Another user has correctly taken them out of that unsuitable category again so that they ended up in Category:Media needing categories again! You caused those files to be pushed through a full circle and a lot of absolutely unnecessary work for other editors. This practice may even be considered close to sabotaging the project.

Files without type category belong to the appropriate category, that is either "Aircraft" or the above mentioned original one. Stop hiding away aircraft files in unsuitable categories! --Uli Elch (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly!! Put them there in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Concerning your unrelated answer to my edit: I'm afraid you may not have understood what I was writing. Putting files into an unrelated category (and thereby hiding them) is not the correct way of handling them. Please read again carefully and try to understand the problem. Otherwise the way you have been editing has to be considered as vandalism and treated accordingly. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Lioré et Olivier LeO H-242-1 - Air France - MARIGNANE. GRAND PORT AÉRIEN.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Lioré et Olivier LeO H-242-1 - Air France - MARIGNANE. GRAND PORT AÉRIEN.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 VRT 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 05:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have done all that !!--Petebutt (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Let it be

to change filenames of my photos! --Ralf Roleček 05:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Check out the naming policies!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Die Dateinamen sind gut. Sie enthalten Datum, Inhalt und Urheber. Dateinamen ersetzen keine Beschreibung oder Kategorien --Ralf Roleček 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
For future uploads you might like to follow the POLICY at Commons:File naming and Commons:File renaming.--Petebutt (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Auch bin mir die Bitte Petebutt, wenn Du schon Bilder umbenennen musst, lass bitte by-RaBoe drin, damit ich auf meiner Bo weiß das es meine Bilder sind. Falls Du Arbeit suchst, ich hätte da mal drei Kats die ich noch ab arbeiten muss. Flug Schwarzheide nach Nordholz dort ist mir mein GPS Signal ausgefallen oder auch von Flug von Rom über Düsseldorf nach Hamburg oder auch von Nordholz Hammelburg 2015 könnte ich Hilfe gebrauchen, ich meine das jetzt nicht als spott oder so, sondern bitte ehrlich um Hilfe. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Vergiß es! Man on a mission, [1] --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Schon beim Anlegen dieser Kategorie ist von einem persönlichen Angriff auszugehen. Petebutt, bitte nenne mir ein Bild, welches Commons:File naming widerspricht, oder den Punkt zur Umbenennung (Commons:File renaming). Bitte stelle ein Schnelllöschantrag auf diese Seite.Du verärgerst nur viele amdere. Hystrix (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal , just a convenient category to house them until re-named. If the category name bothers you I can re-name it.--Petebutt (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
„... just a convenient category ...“ For what? Hystrix (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't help feeling that you are being way too sensitive about something that has nothing to do with you--Petebutt (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lade selbst deine eigenen Bilder hoch, die kannst du dann herumschuppsen, wie du willst. --Ralf Roleček 22:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for scaring off a valued photographer. I hope you provide some original content in the future. --Magnus (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Boeing TX

Category:Boeing TX is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G1 (test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content)

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 ∙ +/−

Novarupta (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your mass removals of "Glider" categories

Good afternoon. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I did not understand the reason for your mass removals (91 since 18 October!) of the Category:Gliders. As an example: the Glasflügel 303 Mosquito is a glider, or am I wrong? Please enlighten me, unless there is no valid reason for these actions. Thank you. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They are under their respective manufacturers which aree in Gliders, so they have NOT been removed just shifted sideways. The premise is that individual aircraftcategories should be in their respective manufacturer / designer categories which in turn are in Glider manufaturers which is in Gliders. Your query raises the question whether the category should be Gliding, not Gliders.--Petebutt (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems is that many of them are not only glider manufacturers. E.g. Schleicher aircraft builds motor gliders as well.
The bigger problem is that this is now about the only group of aircraft without any category describing their use, category of aircraft, layout etc. Nobody would ever accept having a Cessna 172 with "Cessna aircraft" as its only category and Cessna in turn as "General aviation manufacturer". I'm afraid we have to put this new way of categorizing up for discussion; it seems very strange to me and not serving the interests of the users. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petebutt/Archive_2&oldid=659205770"