User talk:Rsteen/Archive 2009-2016

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

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Rsteen!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−

It has been found that Image:Aversa duomo rilievo.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 07:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 729acfe6492697d755ce897b708b4368

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token e6ee031bc80729968ca7261d8ec4c80f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! e6ee031bc80729968ca7261d8ec4c80f

TUSC token 953c31ddb8b15bb05fd51c20b4c47963

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:SMS_Hansa_(1872).jpg

File:SMS_Hansa_(1872).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 ∙ +/−

Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:SMS_Kronprinz_1867.jpg

File:SMS_Kronprinz_1867.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 ∙ +/−

Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sms drache ram 1866.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Sms drache ram 1866.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

Nanae (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was not aware that this was a recent drawing. Yes it should be removed - and I have found an old photo to use instead.--Rsteen (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Sms drache ram 1866.jpg

File:Sms drache ram 1866.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 ∙ +/−

Sreejith K (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance in these matters. However, I took the trouble of actually reading what the first deletion note said, and it asked for an entry "if you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page". In fact I realize now that it is a copyright violation, and therefore I do not have any intention of explaining otherwise at the file's talk page.--Rsteen (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

File:SMS Kronprinz 1867.jpg

File:SMS Kronprinz 1867.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 ∙ +/−

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rowbarges

The vessels in the third Anthony Roll are not galleasses either by name or design. They are called "rowbarges" and are considerably smaller than the "galleasses". Even those of the second roll are actually difficult to classify since the term "galleass" was used more as a description of function than actual design. Note that they don't have all that much in common with Mediterranean galleasses. That's why I created Category:Galleasses of England.

This was not unusual at the time and you can note similar usage of the term "galley" for small frigates with "sweeps" like the Charles Galley or Captain Kidds infamous Adventure Galley. There were also US "row galleys" that were essentially just gunboats. These have virtually nothing in common with the Mediterranean-style galleys and are not described as galleys by modern maritime historians.

Overall, ship designations before, say, 1750 are fairly inexact. A perfect example is the "galleon" which can refer to just about any major ship with gundecks used between c. 1550 and 1650. The ambiguity of the term is commented on by Rodger in Safeguard of the Sea. But more specifically, he laments "the promiscuity with which modern authors apply it to almost anything afloat" (p. 212). Except for British ships, of course, which are often classified by backdating the rating system, even though it was inexact to begin with and had little to do with actual ship design.

Peter Isotalo 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I erred in categorizing. There was no category for "rowbarges" and no real description for them. However, on the Norwegian wiki, I found Liste over de engelske galeasser, where the "rowbarges" are indeed quoted as small galleasses, apparently based on information in Arthur Nelson, The Tudor Navy 1485-1603. So, I gather you disagree with mister Nelson? --Rsteen (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hauch(1862)-3506-1980-n.tif

Thank you for uploading File:Hauch(1862)-3506-1980-n.tif, however the license tag CC-BY-SA may not be correct, as the description (and likely date of creation) place it in the public domain. Could you verify and update? Also, a link the webpage where the image is from is very useful. Thank you for all you do to make Wikimedia Commons better!  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  13:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Senator2029. Thank you for the kind words. As I wrote in the description of the file, it stems from the collections of the Danish National Museum. The Museum is in the process of making its entire collection of old photos available to the public - but the process is moving at a very leisurely pace. Because of my interest in the photos I have obtained copies via email - directly from the Museum, and as the photos are not available at the Museums website, I cannot make a link to them. The license tag is based on what the head of the Museums Photo Department has written on Facebook, and I have no idea if the eventual license will in fact be CC-BY-SA, PD or another open license. Sometimes things are a bit complicated, but the quality of the photos makes it all worthwhile. --Rsteen (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Barroso at Curuzu 1866.jpg

File:Barroso at Curuzu 1866.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 ∙ +/−

Revent (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Not a photo of the original"?

Hello Rsteen! I'm a little puzzled by your edit here: [1]. When you're saying that "This is just a 1943 reproduction (a copy done by someone else). It is not a photo of the original", do you mean that the picture printed in 1943 was not showing the original painting but rather another artist's copy/repainting of it? Or did you simply mean that the picture has gone through the process of being printed in a book before being scanned? In the latter case this must be a comment that could be made about thousends of pictures here at Commons, but is that really a valid ground for declaring the picture not to be "original"? /FredrikT (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello FredrikT. Yes I mean that it is another artist's remaking of the painting. If - for instance - you compare the background to the right, you can see that the original has a lot of details that are not redone on the copy. Making lithographic copies of paintings was a very common technique in those days, and - as far as I know - for many years it was the only possible way of reproducing paintings in books. --Rsteen (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I must say I'm not convinced. I'm rather sure that this is a printed colour photo, and that the small differences in colour and details are just the results of limitations in the processes of colour photo and printing techniques at the time. And the text under this picture definitely states "Selvportræt. 1803. Kunstmuseet."; nothing about it being a remake by someione else. /FredrikT (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@FredrikT. You may be right. Colour separation of photos existed at the time, but it was expensive. I have no access to the book you cite, and therefore no way of reading what it says about the system of reproduction. Still, I do believe that the recent photo does a better job of representing the painting. --Rsteen (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No doubt about that! The details on the printing by the way are very limited; they just say "Clicheerne udført af 'Clichéfa'". /FredrikT (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RE:File:Eckersberg Marmortrappen som fører op til S. Maria in Aracoeli 1816.jpg

Thank you for your advise, not problem i have just correct it. --Albertomos (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok Albertomos. Thank you for your swift reply. There are still many fantastic paintings in Itally, and I try to see some new ones every year. --Rsteen (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Naval buildings

I don't understand your logic in rm cat Naval Buildings from File:ChathamHDStables0031.JPG and friends. They are naval buildings dating back to before HMS Victory was built- and the other shots are prototypes for naval buildings all over the world. The correct action would have been to create a sub-cat and mv them there? Am I missing something- or was it a genuine error?--ClemRutter (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello ClemRutter. Well, the logic is, that these nice photos are already in Category:Chatham Dockyard, which is already in Category:Naval bases in the United Kingdom, which is already in Category:Naval bases by country which is already in Category:Naval bases, which is already in Category:Naval buildings. So they are already there. I am sure you are familiar with the guidelines for Commons that advise you to put the files in the most descriptive category, and not make redundant entries further downstream. Well, this is what I have tried to do. Regards --Rsteen (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Gotya. I am looking at it from the Category:Buildings by function tree- hence the double entry. I couldn't see another solution though.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation notification: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hello Rsteen,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to dansk on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is available for translation. You can translate it here:

The priority of this page is medium.


Please help us to translate the speedy deletion policy in many language so that non-english speaker can read it as well.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Rsteen (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation notification: Template:Abbedabb/ESC/i18n

Hello Rsteen,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to dansk on Wikimedia Commons. The page Template:Abbedabb/ESC/i18n is available for translation. You can translate it here:



Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 20:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Rsteen (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation notification: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015

Hello Rsteen,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to dansk on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Picture of the Year/2015 is available for translation. You can translate it here:



Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 05:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Rsteen (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation notification: Commons:Bots

Hello Rsteen,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to dansk on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Bots is available for translation. You can translate it here:



Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 02:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done--Rsteen (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dupuy de Lôme airship

Hi, thanks for your message. Your reasoning might well be better than mine, that was based solely on disambiguation, having been very confused between two airships for which the 'name' Dupuy de Lôme was associated. Perhaps a compromise might be to make a new Category:Dupuy de Lôme airship (1872), and leave it out of the Category:Airships by name.PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation notification: Template:Abusefilter-warning-baduploads

Hello Rsteen,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to dansk on Wikimedia Commons. The page Template:Abusefilter-warning-baduploads is available for translation. You can translate it here:

The priority of this page is medium.


Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Rsteen (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Custoza (ship, 1875).jpg

Hi Rsteen, is there any way you could be more specific on the source for this photo? I'd like to use it on the en:SMS Custoza article I'm writing, but without a source I won't be able to. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. The photo is from Gogg, Karl. Österreichische Kriegsmarine 1848-1918, Salzburg, 1967, page 87. Glad to be of assistance. --Rsteen (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this edit because the USCGC Sea Fox is not a US Navy vessel. Geo Swan (talk) 10:54, 8 September 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 Rsteen, 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.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rsteen/Archive_2009-2016&oldid=232272377"