User talk:GB ruleofgame
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- 05:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
More Backgrounds for Wikimedia Commons [Category:No.1 Torpedo] By Major Contributor
[edit]This category archives the photographs of No.1 Torpedo blamed for the ROKS Cheonan sinking of Korean Navy corvette Cheonan. JIG, the Joint Investigation Group, concluded that this torpedo remnant was a critical evidence proving that North Korea is the criminal of the sinking the ship and the killing 46 crew.
Prior to Beginning;
- • The term 'No.1 Torpedo' is not official nor widely accepted naming of the torpedo remnant.
- • All the photographs in this category were taken by me.
JIG's chains of reasoning were;
- • a wreckage of a torpedo was salvaged at the same location where the ship was attacked and sank,
- • it has some Korean letters("1번") meaning No.1 in English,
- • that torpedo remnant's shape and structure have matches to the technical drawing of a.k.a North Korean export version torpedo CH-02D, reportedly acquired by seceret agencies,
- • the ship and the torpedo(remnant) have the same explosion residues identified as amourphous aluminium oxide,
- • the ship and the torpedo have similar rusting status as they were both immersed in sea water for the same period (about 50 days).
The first few arguments constitute circumstancial evidences, and only the later few are physical evidences that can be evaluated by the people outside of the system that made the conclusion. The very later reasons cast doubts;
- • the white 'adsorbates' samples from the both of the ship and the torpedo failed to be idenfied as aluminium oxide, (There hasn't been a clear call yet.)
- • the white substances on the torpedo were purely corrosion products according to my photographs.
- • In regards to rusting, JIG's reasoning had been based on a.k.a 'joint visual analysis', in plain language, a guess.
But No.1 torpedo tells different story. This category is about what the torpedo itself says.
While being constructed, you can access and use the photographs of No.1 Torpedo in my blog under the same licence contition as Wikimedia Commons applies; RuleOfGame (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Category names are in lower cases, not title case
[edit]Hi, on Commons, category names are in lower case, not title case. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that, sorry. Thank you for your advice and other helps. Frankly, I didn't recognized that you were there correcting my mistakes, I was just thinking there was a sort of automatic corrections. :) RuleOfGame (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)