User talk:GB ruleofgame
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
-- 05:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
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
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
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)