User talk:Pibwl

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Welcome! If you leave a message here, expect answer on your talk page, unless you specify otherwise.

[edit] ...

Hi - is there a reason for removing categories from image-pages? As far as i can see, this is quite useful to create galleries efficiently. Why does this bother you? Categorizing images directly seems the only way to me to get a usable structure into the many uncategorized and unused images here. -- Duesentrieb 00:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing images directly is by some people preferred to creating pages for the images, because it is easier to maintain. I agree with this in many but not all cases. Anyway, I don't think that categorizing images directly does not do any harm, even if they are already on a gallery-page. Please have a look at the discussions about htis on the village pump, especially this one: COM:VP#Categories or 'normal' pages: A new proposal. -- Duesentrieb 01:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] French frigates

Hi ! Thanks for your interest in the photographs of the French Navy ! Just about the "destroyer" thing, the French navy doesn't use this term to categorise their vessels; there are "cruisers" (the only element of this category today is the Jeanne d'Arc, for what I know) and the others are classified as "frigates". It might sound a little bit underrated for the Tourville class or the La Fayette, but still that's the term; also, since the caption is directly taken from the original site (netmarine) and the English is supposed to be a translation, it might be better to stick to frigate, if you don't mind.

Oh, thanks for Image:French Navy1.jpg, I managed to identify them all (through other pictures). I'm very impressed by your correct ID of La Motte-Picquet, you'll have to explain to mw how you did that sometime !

Cheers ! :) Rama 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello again ! I've just uploaded the last images:

• on Image:FS Montcalm2.jpg one can easily identify the D642 Montcalm and the D645 La Motte Picquet (nice illustration of the difference between the ships which had the anti-air improvements and those who did not)
• on Image:French Navy2.jpg you can see the hull number of the Dupleix D641, just on the right of the Var (the tanker). Not exactly easy, but readable if you zoom a little bit -- and if you know that you probably have to choose the last F70 type based in Toulon, which is D641 Dupleix (after D642 Montcalm, D643 Jean de Vienne and the D645 La Motte Picquet).
• knowing this, you just have to re-compose the puzzle from Image:French Navy1.jpg and Image:French Navy2.jpg :)

Cheers ! Rama 23:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T-4

Thanks! It's ok. --[[User:JProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

|jno]] 09:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleted interwikis and transwikis on Hiryu

Note that the transclusion of the category Hiryu was not a typo on page Image:Hiryu burning.jpg

You may not have realized that this resulted in the removal of a half dozen interwiki links for each image, and captions from of different languages for this image. This results in poorer navigation, and makes access from internet search engines difficult if not impossible if no text for certain languages appear on the page. I have restored just the trans and interwikis. Removed the supercats using a noinclude, as their transclusion seems to be controversial ("redundant cats" camp vs. the "more see also links" camp)

Is this satisfactory? -Mak 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Actually, my use of categories in this way may not be the best way of achieving these goals. There is an ongoing conversation about it and I may come back and change this later to some other method of achieving the same. Anyway, just to let you know that this use of categories is very nonstandard and extremely controversial at this point. -Mak 19:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Order Nakhimov 1st.jpg

I have reuploaded the Official Design of the Order instead of a photograph to prevent possible copyright problems. If you have admin rights on Commons please delete all the versions of the image besides the latest Alex Bakharev 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landing ship

If it can be of some help, the drawings of the Mistral, on Netmarine.net, were made by one of the fine people who gave us their blessing [1]. Cheers ! Rama 07:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Breguet 19.jpg

Witaj... zmieniłem licencję na "naszą" bo zasugerowałem się, przyznaję dość pobieżnie, oznaczeniem na kadłubie który wydał mi się znakiem eskadry kościuszkowskiej. Wcześniej licencja była inna, ale ponieważ wrzuciłem tę fotkę dość dawno, to nie pamiętam już szczegółów... Mój błąd, jeśli uważasz że nie da się jej odratować jakoś, to spoko, usuwaj, lub zgłoś ją do usunięcia. Pozdrawiam i sorki za tak późną odpowiedź, ale nie zaglądam tu zbyt często. Voytek s 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varyag

Hi, I replied to your comment at Image talk:Cruiser Varyag in the Golden Horn Bay.png. Sorry it took so long—I didn't notice it right away. Thanks.Ezhiki 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Przecież nie ma czegoś takiego jak zmiana nazwy dla grafiki załaduj ją jescze raz i starą w tedy skasuję, a poza tym nic więcej zrobić nie moŋe :(--WarX 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Just-do-it :)

--WarX 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Yak-38.jpg

I don't think that it is an art photo. However, I've uploaded it using the old tag "PD-USRR", that now has been changed. I found that picture on it.wiki with public domain tag and I've uploaded it on commons. Let me know what do you think. Bye! --SCDBob 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dobrze, że cię widzę...

Czy mógłbyś wywalić stare wersje grafik:

• Image:Wiadukt Millau.jpg
• Image:Remontplacugrunwaldzkiego.jpg

Blokują cache i w artykułach wyświetlają się stare wersje... Julo 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you request this pronunciation file on pl for me?

I see that you speak Polish. If you could go here and request a pronunciation of the name Jan Matejko, and let me know if and when it's uploaded, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks! grendel|khan 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I also trouble you for pronunciations for Szymon Buchbinder and Maurycy Gottlieb? (Also, I think the Anglicized version of the former is 'Simeon', not 'Simon'; is this correct?) Thanks! grendel|khan 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MiG-15

• Co do usuwania - commons duże jest, więc nie myślałem :)
• Co do maszyny - w internecie jest bardzo mało o tej maszynie. Muzealnicy opisali go właśnie jako MiGa-15. Jet to o tyle prawdopodobne, że Krzesiny były jednym z pierwszych miejsc gdzie stacjonowały te samoloty, właśnie te z dostaw z ZSRR, a większość maszyn do muzeum trafiło z jednostek wielkopolskich. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ItalyDefense images

Hi Pibwl, I found some images which were uploaded by you after May 23rd, 2006. Unless you can find (i.e. in archive.org) that these images had previously been released in the PD by the Ministero della Difesa, they will have to be proposed for speedy deletion, because that was the last evident date in which the content of www.difesa.it was expressely licensed as free. These images are:

• Image:Bolzano.jpg, uploaded 19:28, 12 dic 2006

I have to underline that even if some of them could probably fall in the so-called PD-Italy, that kind of PD is not recognised on Commons, so we need to find evidences that these images had been directly released in the PD by the MdD, as described in the Template:ItalyDefense, or they will have to be deleted. In case you find archived versions of the webpages which you found them in, please add links and/or details. Thank you for your kind cooperation. --Gianfranco 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grafiki - własność rządowa III Rzeszy i zasady autorskich praw materialnych - na marginesie PD-Polish

Na marginesie dyskusji o Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish cały pakiet spraw dot.

1. Grafik, których prawnym właścicielem był rząd III Rzeszy (np. MSZ III Rzeszy),lub agencje państwowe ( jak Deutsches NAchrichten Buro) - A NIE OSOBY PRYWATNE- prawa wygasły w maju 1945 po likwidacji III Rzeszy jako państwa -podmiotu prawa cywilnego. Prosi się o stworzenie Template:PD-NaziGov.

2. Zauważyłem ,że niektórzy administratorzy (konkretnie-niemieccy) próbują wykorzystać dyrektywę harmonizującą EU dla generalnej blokady foto sprzed 1945 r.- niezależnie od proweniencji.

3.Tymczasem podstawową sprawą jest kwestia istnienia lub nie MATERIALNYCH praw majątkowych do dzieła, ktore są zbywalne i mogą ulec umorzeniu nawet przed datą śmierci autora.

4.Przykładowo - zdjęcie , do którego prawa zostały sprzedane np.Ilustrowanemu Kurierowi Codziennemu czy DNB,albo wykonane przez pracownika Ministerstwa Propagandy Rzeszy czy DNB , a osoba prawna uległa likwidacji bez następców prawnych prawa nabytego jest zdjęciem w domenie publicznej (prawo zbyte skutecznie nie wraca do zbywcy -autora)

5. Poza tym bardzo dużo starych zdjęć to zdjęcia legitymacyjne, paszportowe etc robione przez rzemieślnicze zakłady fotograficzne , które albo w ogóle nie są ( i nie powinny być )przedmiotem prawa autorskiego , albo jeśli traktować to restrykcyjnie - prawa do nich zostały zbyte przez wykonawcę (twórcę)- fotografa w chwili wyjścia klienta z zakładu fotograficznego po zapłaceniu za wykonanie zdjęcia, niezależnie od tego gdzie pozostał negatyw ( i nikt po wydarzeniach II wojny i komunizmu badać tego nie będzie)

6. Pozostaje kwestia zdjęć amatorskich - bez autorstwa. Jeśli już dziś niektórzy niemieccy admini chcą usuwać zdjęcia egzekucji dokonanych przez Wehrmacht w 1939 r vide : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ciepielow.jpg

pod pretekstem dyrektywy harmonizacyjnej i poszukiwania autora ( gdyby się znalazł - to pierwszy do zawiadomienia - Prokurator IPN)...

a zdjęcia z powstania w getcie warszawskim zostały usunięte to aż się prosi o rozwinięcie tematu.

A prawna sytuacja jest taka,że w prawie europejskim ciężar dowodu faktu spoczywa na osobie,która z tego faktu chce wyciągnąć konsekwencje prawne. Dotyczy to zarówno prawa karnego ( domniemanie nieiwnności) jak i cywilnego , którego częścią jest prawo autorskie. Tzn. o ile nie ma dowodu na zastrzeżenie prawa o tyle ono nie istnieje . W polskim prawie autorskim przerzuca to ciężar dowodu na autora ,zaś wydawca ma jedynie OBOWIĄZEK ZACHOWANIA NALEŻYTEJ STARANNOŚCI - tzn. wiedzieć to co może uzyskać przy zachowaniu zwykłych wymogów staranności. Prawo zakłada domniemanie dobrej wiary użytkownika rzeczy czy prawa tzn. ewentualne naruszenie prawa materialnego może stwierdzić tylko właściciel tego prawa zwracając się z żądaniem do użytkownika o zaprzestanie naruszenia prawa ( i udowadniając swój interes prawny). Tzn. trzeba wykazać naruszenie prawa.

Ponieważ jest to powszechna zasada prawa rzymskiego ,obowiązująca zarówno w prawie polskim, jak i niemieckim inne postępowanie jest uzurpacją i po prostu robieniem ludziom wody z mózgu poprzez świadome mieszanie pojęcia autorskiego prawa osobistego, autorskiego prawa materialnego, zasady należytej staranności, domniemania legalności i zasady cięzaru dowodu po stronie tego, który zgłasza zarzut naruszenia prawa.

Generalnie: często słyszany argument,że każda grafika ma autora należy uzupełnić następująco: KAŻDA GRAFIKA MA AUTORA ALE WCALE NIE KAŻDA MA WŁAŚCICIELA i nie ma to nic wspólnego z datą śmierci autora.

To takie wstępne uwagi , które IMHO warto przemyśleć w długi weekend a potem przegadać z innymi adminami na Commons i na wikipl.

Serdecznie pozdrawiam:

Andros64 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PZL M20 Mewa.jpg

Poważnie ten na lotnisku Bemowo to nie Mewa? --Hiuppo 15:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ano racja - jak możesz to popraw. --Hiuppo 15:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nazwy

Zasada na commons jest taka, że rzeczy łatwo tłumaczalne są po angielsku np. 'Opera building in Bytom', natomiast już 'kościół pw. śś. Piotra i Pawła w Katowicach' po Polsku. Dlatego np. jesus jest redirektem do nazwy w jidysz ;).

Pozdrawiam --WarX 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mentalność Polaka

Witaj! Czasem zastanawiam się dlaczego urodziłem się w Polsce. Czasem jestem z tego dumny, czasem nie. Czasem chciałbym powiedzieć komuś, że jest zwykłym chamem, ale się zazwyczaj opanować zdążę. Czasem chciałbym być bezczelny ale się powstrzymuję. Powiedz mi czym kierowałeś się zgłaszając do usunięcia zdjęcia mych dzieci (których na razie jestem opiekunem prawnym) do usunięcia mimo iż zdajesz sobie sprawę, że inni pl.commonsowcy podają swe prywatne zdjęcia na commons? Nie wiem, czy nie zauważyłeś, ale jest grupa zapaleńców, która usuwa moje fotki mimo zgody na ich wstawienie (vide WKU Gdynia, dM) - chcesz im dać kolejny powód do ataku? Hieny czekają tylko na rozerwanie ciała ofiary i jak wyczują krew rzucają się hordą. Powiedz, jesteś złośliwy, czy tylko głupi? I nie obrażaj się na ostatni zarzut: zerknij na stronę Lou lub Szczepana - prywatne fotki jakoś nikogo tam nie rażą! Jednak na koniec pozdrowię serdecznie Joymaster 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Zastanawiałeś się kiedykolwiek nad osobami które prowadzą rodzinę zastępczą? Czy może znasz taki obrazek z sielankowego serialu pod tą samą nazwą?

Co do kategoryzacji. Nie mam ostatnio wiele czasu (stąd edycje poprawiania linków) a jak już mam - to wklejam masowo hasła pisane w pracy lub z materiałów, które dostałem do opublikowania. Albo wklejam fotki, które zrobiłem wspólnie z rodziną. Co do dM - może i nie są rewelacyjne - ale są. Co do kasowania fotek WKU Gdynia i 2 KOP - to nie wiem jak tłumaczyć, i nie wiem, czy autor zdjęć (lub posiadacz praw autorskich) pisząc do George'a nie jest wiarygodny? Pozdrawiam Joymaster 11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KAtegorie

Nie ciachnąłeś za duzo ? Pmgpmg 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Croix-de-Guerre.jpg

Thuresson 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Medal trud USSR.jpg

Please, notice license change from cc-by-sa-2.5 to public domain, according to Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006. Vlsergey 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Vlsergey 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tłumaczenie

Pozwoliłem sobie pożyczyć [2] :) Pozdrawiam. Nemo5576 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: image:Tx_26.JPG

Możesz to spolszczyć  :) ?
Pozdrawiam Konradr (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duquesne and Suffren

Hi. Haven't you ONI drawings of Duquesne or Suffren class cruisers? Pibwl (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Chances that is I did not upload them, I do not have them, but I'll double-check. At worse, we can make them ourselves. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely do not have that. I have low-resolution photographs of Duquesne, but they are not in the public domain, and not good enough that I could make a drawing out of them. If someone has good enough photographs, I might draw something. Rama (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naval ships of the United States

-- Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fiat Uno (2nd generation).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support OK for me, good angle. I suggest you make the scope "Fiat Uno (2nd generation)". --Eusebius (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KRAZ

Jak bym wiedział, to bym napisał. Szater talk 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:V-2.png

69.112.61.79 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German armoured cars

Hello, I know that the categories of the German armoured cars are not quite adequate, but sombody made the incorrect "Leichter/Schwerer Panzerspähwagen" categories. I would prefer to make individual categores for the different SdKfz. If you feel up to it and have time I would be glad when you could help. Since we have a flood of pictures coming in from the German Federal Archive with no categories, I tried to start it. For the German self propelled guns "Wespe", "Hummel" of "Nashorn" somebody created categories which have only this name. However, in German these mean only "Wasp, "Bumblebee" and "Rhinoceros". Therefore, for example, I would like to have new categories, probably like "Wespe self propelled gun" or so. Cheers --Cobatfor 15:40 12 December 2008

Hello, I think, as wikimedia is English, categories like SdKfz 221/222 would be better than "Leichter Panzerspähwagen", which would be something like "Light armoured reconnaissance vehicle"., Well SdKfz means "Sonderkraftfahrzeug" (special vehicle), but it is an abbreviation and not a German description that many people would not understand. As for categories in general, I think that they should be unique in a way so that they cannot be mixed up with others, but I won't insist, of course, on somthing like "Wespe self propelled gun". Cheers --Cobatfor 23:13 12 December 2008

[edit] Jewish people of Poland 1939 in German photographs

Thank you for your ideas on this issue. I had wondered about possible overlap, but let me give my reasoning. The Germans seem to have been selective in how they photographed the Jews in the various places of Poland they occupied. The general category for Jews in Poland does not discriminate between who was taking the photographs and what their usage might be. For example, I believe in the Stroop report there are photographs of militant young Jews (taken, I believe, by the Jews themselves and later captured by the Nazis during the 1943 uprising) which would be inconsistent with the impression these images appear intended to convey. Who took the photos then becomes important to an understanding of their significance.
In many of the images, the Germans seem to have selected older more traditionally dressed Jews for photographic study, while ignoring younger or otherwise less traditional appearing people, apparently to emphasize the "otherness" of the people they are depicting. Disabled people seem also to be emphasized. There are other studies, I have seen a whole book of them, which collect images of the Jewish people of Poland living ordinary happy lives not much different than those of their German neighbors. Of course, nothing like this emerges from the collection of German photographs.
These images taken by the Germans require in my opinion a separate category to clearly flag them as propagandistic or perhaps trophyist images. There may be a better way of doing this, but I think the idea of flagging the images as being created by the conquerers and, eventually, murderers of these people is important.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, on most of early photos I can see "normal", relaxed people, and I can't imagine that a photographer can take such personal portraits without some liking of their subjects. These early portraits of traditionally dressed Jews are fascinating to me, for they show "real", vivid persons, of an extinct culture, before they were reduced to Ghetto prisoners. By the way, I was always wondering, why the Germans bother to take so many pictures, of great etnographic value, of a nation, that they considered inferior and wanted to destroy... I'd agree with this category, but somebody would have to recategorize all pictures from Category:Jewish people of Poland during World War II. pibwl (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about recategorization, wiki commons will always be a work in progress, and although there is a genuine effort to be objective, ultimately there is a matter of opinion in all categories to a lesser or greater degree.

On the issue of why would the fascist occupiers of Poland study people they planned to murder, well, that is a big topic, and given my limited knowledge I can suggest only a quick sketch of possibilities. While there were widespread brutalities and war crimes starting right away in Poland in 1939 against Jews, and other Poles, the decision to exterminate the Jews in Poland by deliberate and organized mass murder was probably not made until 1942. In the meantime the occupiers ghettoized the Jews, tried their best to steal whatever they could from them, and did their best to turn them into a slave labor force.

While this was happening, the Nazi mythology of racial superiority needed to be fueled by so-called "research" and many of the leading murderers made themselves knowledgeable, at least superficially, about Jewish culture. For example, Eichman taught himself enough Yiddish to be able to read a newspaper. (actually not that difficult due to the similarities between Yiddish and German).Mtsmallwood (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duquesne

I have finally come up with something for Duquesne. It's at File:Duquesne.svg. The top view is still lacking, but I might be able to put it on sooner than later. Thank you for the Russian books, they are a mine of very useful schematics!

Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And here is Tourville: File:Tourville 1945.svg. The comparison of the two diagrammes is interesting to illustrate the transition from anti-surface role towards anti-air.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And finally, Suffren: File:Suffren cruiser class.svg. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Witaj, poszło z rozpędu,żeby to skatalogować - bo to las. Teraz pora na kategorie szczegółowe.

Serdecznie pozdrawiam:

Andros64 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Suplement

Ale dlaczego usuwasz kategorię Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) przy zdjęciach samolotów z kampanii francuskiej - tego za Boga nie kapuję :)

Serdecznie pozdrawiam:

Andros64 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:AEG bomber

Please don't blank pages, use {{move}} if you want to rename a category. Multichill (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I left it to think if it should be category redirect or marked for deletion. Maybe just delete it? pibwl (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything but blanking. I deleted the category. Please don't hop talk pages btw, i have a watchlist and i use it. Multichill (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time somebody expects not to receive answer on his talk page :-) As for blanking: I know it's bad and I don't think you can find any other case of blanking a page in my history. Btw, I have a question, since you're an admin: if I upload new version of my photo (with the same name), shouldn't old files, available in file history, be deleted to save space? pibwl (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's custom at most wiki's I frequent. Deleting files doesn't save space, just hides them for normal users, so don't bother. Multichill (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-013-0075-28, Polen, Jude in Kielce.jpg

Zauwazylem ze opisałeś to zdjęcie jako Mielec nie Kielce. Ciekawy jestem jak do tego doszedłeś i czy także rozpoznałeś konkretna ulice? Pozdrowienia --Jarekt (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Brassey's Naval Annual

Don't you think, that it will be far easier to search if they are sorted in alphabetical order? We could make a separate page with a gallery sorted by year. Pibwl (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I sorted under year is that this category is about Brassey's Naval Annual.. it shows what was published, year by year... if people want an image of a particular ship they can search for the ship's category... but I'm just one contributor and if you and others think differently then of course it will change - majority rules. Thanks for adding more diagrams. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bofors 120 mm gun on ORP Błyskawica 1940 IWM A 672.jpg

Hi, I see you changed the description of this gun from 120-mm Bofors to 4-inch Mk V. The ship's page states she only got the 4-inch guns in 1941, and that they they were Mk XVI... But I agree this gun isn't a 120-mm Bofors, as those guns werre mounted in turrets and were much longer (50-cal)... What are your sources for stating this is a 4-inch Mk V ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)