User talk:Alexpl

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

Archive 1

Kleber photo[edit]

I just reverted your addition of the post-war photo of Kléber to the relevant article as all Marius Bar images published after 1922 are still in US copyright until 2025.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

LoL. Iirc, I made a drawing of Riedel sometime ago, maybe that will work better. Alexpl (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I think that the ensigns on your drawings of Strasbourg and Dunkerque are the wrong way round, are they not? Rama (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You´re right. Its a shame I didnt realize that earlier. Fixed and thx. Alexpl (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Great SVG images![edit]

Hello! It's a true pleasure to see your PNG works and this is more pleasure to see you recently added SVG images. I am really inspired. Thanx a lot! --Maxrossomachin (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You´re welcome! Alexpl (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Alex, why? The Battleship Fuso. Anatomy of the Ship - is not a source? I can check image, if you have doubts for it... --Sas1975kr (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have that book and it doesnt fully match. The drawing was a collaboration with another user who mailed me, but I cant reach him any more to get the sources he used. I could do a new drawing with my own sources, including Anatomy of the Ship, but I dont know which proceedings seem adequate in such a case. Alexpl (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no limit to perfection. If the drawing is correct, why remake it? It is better use your free time on something else. For example, on KMS Bismarck. I can draw armour layout for it, like this. --Sas1975kr (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not correct. Thats why I wanted to collect all the sources used - to point out where the mistakes come from. I would estimate some 20 % have to be redone to be useable in Wikipedia articles. Alexpl (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ship drawings[edit]

Hello Alex, I really enjoy your drawings of WW2 warships. Would you be cool with the thought that I use parts of them for a board game I am planning? It would be necessary to make big alterations to the images to allow for the gameplay I am planning. I'd give you credit of course. Looking forward to your answer, Peter

NP. There should be a license posted under each drawing, which will allow you to do that. But before you invest your time, be aware of the "share alike" [1] part of the license-agreement, which forces you to use the same license on your contribution. Good luck! Alexpl (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I just posted a big happy response and only then realized that I have to show the license on every image. So it will not be enough to have it in the manual and on the box which I hoped for. Then I cannot use it, because there are a lot of playing pieces and it would ruin the look. Probably have to fire up the editor myself :) Thanks a lot anyway.
No. -> "For Licensees" (somewhere in the middle) -> "Attribution" -> "How do I properly attribute material offered under a Creative Commons license?" -> "...CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found..."
A short note copyright note, pointing to a manual or something, sounds reasonable enough for me. Alexpl (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. So, even if it is not necessary to provide complete license information on each playing piece, I'd still have to put some form of copyright note/pointer on everything? While I totally understand why you demand it, I'm afraid this is still too much to be feasible in practice. It would be different for a collectible card game that lists the card's artist, as these cards have a lot of text on them already. But the playing pieces for my game will only show an image (part of a ship e.g. the main battery), and there would be a few dozen of these on the board, to create a fleet of custom ships. Having even a small line of text on each of these is just too distracting.
However, just had the following idea: Would it be an alternative to have the copyright notice on only a few of the pieces? Ones that are used in every game? Something like "copyright info for all card images: see manual pg. 2"
I assume those playing pieces are small-sized and some level of detail will be lost - compared to the original image. So of what size are we talking? If its small enough, I guess "reasonable" could mean "negligible". Alexpl (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The pieces are 5x5cm cardboard and show a specific ship part e.g. cannon or part of the bridge.
Oh ok, as long if it is not digital, I´m relaxed. So, as far as my work is concerned and as long as it is only pieces of an image printed on cardboard, I´m fine if the full license/attribution to the images used, are given in the manual only. For any larger more "complete" image on cardboard, a short copyright note / CC Logo on, or near the image + license/attribution in the manual is fine with me. Alexpl (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand. The only digital images would be for promotion purposes where I will show the full license + copyright info every time (and also state that the original pictures have been edited). There will also be a notice on the board, and if any larger pieces/more complete images are used, also on those. Thank you very much for your time, and your art of course.
Alright. Good luck with your project. Alexpl (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

File:The British Army on the Western Front 1914-1918 Q5459.jpg[edit]

Hi there, a friendly note to say I corrected your categorization of this photo from Category:BL 6 inch Mk XIX gun to Category:BL 6 inch Mk VII field gun as per Descriptive text and the appearance of the two recoil cylinders below the breech. If you are in doubt about identifying British WWI and II artillery I'm available to assist. Cheers, Rod in Sydney. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I did so many of those, that a few mistakes cant be ruled out. Alexpl (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Image used without proper credit[edit]

Just an FYI - Wikimedia DC caught Foreign Policy using your image without proper attribution. I've joined in tweeting at them to address it, but there's been no movement as of yet. You may need to send them an email. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, but that article seems to be only a few days old. Let´s give them some time. Alexpl (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Credit obtained! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Well done! Alexpl (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Tuning AK[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you added Category:Tuning AK to several files, which is being discussed as part of a CFD. I was wondering if you could tell me what a Tuning AK would be? Thanks, --Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 23:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought that covers all Ak´s upgraded with additional parts, after having left the factory. Picatiny rails, stocks a.o.. Alexpl (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


File:1MSD-Orbat.png — in which graphics editor is it done? — Nickel nitride (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that was GIMP Nickel nitride. Alexpl (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you add sources to your Ise image?[edit]

Hey Alexpl, Sturmvogel 66 is working on en.wp's article on Hyūga, which uses File:Ise1944.png. Could you add sources to that image, like you did fpr File:Musashi1942.png a few years ago? Thank you :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Alexpl (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Puttershoek.svg[edit]

File:Flag of Puttershoek.svg 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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Quistnix (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello Alexpl,

Sturmvogel 66 is working on Japanese aircraft carrier Zuiho for A-class review and higher? Could you please add your sources to the image. Thanks, --Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you leave the drawing out of the article for now, since I cant provide sufficient sources in the near future. Alexpl (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one that brought it up at the review. I was confused at this in the description, Own work, likely based on Peattie, (specifically, the word 'likely'). It was worded like the uploader was different than the content creator. Now that I have looked through your contributions, I can see it is clearly your work. May I ask though what the word likely was meant to represent there? I assume, based on another conversation on your talk page, that it was a collaboration with another individual, or that perhaps you just had the individual pages and not a whole book. Sorry for the disturbance, your work overall looks fantastic and is something to be very proud of! Kees08 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: Thank you. The "likely" was just a language insecurity. Some aspects of the ships armament came up in an e-mail discussion with another WP-author and I wanted to illustrate the findings. I had the strong suspicion that Peattie wasnt the first source to come forward with details of the rocket armament, but couldnt identify an alternative back in 07. Maybe User:SnowCloudInSummer can add sources to his drawing to illustrate the article. ed.: The details in the file desc. were added by user sturmvogel. Alexpl (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Soviet WWII destroyer Soobrazitelny[edit]

Hello Alexpl,

Would you be interested in creating a 2 view drawing of the Soviet World War II destroyer Soobrazitelny similar to the ones you've made for Japanese battleships? Due to restrictive Russian copyright laws, on enwiki we don't have any detailed photos of her that we could use to illustrate the article. There's a good drawing that you could work from in Alexander Hill's Osprey book Soviet Destroyers of World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Searching for "проекта 7-У" provides some material and it looks like an interesting project. But unfortunately I´m afraid I wont have the time in the near future. Alexpl (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


PTS-3 ?


Firstly, congratulations for your good vector graphics. I like them very much!

Can I ask you for a simple drawing of the amphibious vehicle PTS-3 of which there is no free photo available on Wikimedia Commons?

Would be great to get a positive answer of you! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That -> is actually a PTS-3, if i´m not mistaken :) Alexpl (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)