User talk:Ariadacapo

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


Salu, Ariadacapo. You filed the deletion request for the NASA F-8 photo. If you find a picture that is already on Commons you can just tag it with "duplicate" (use double template brackets "{" before and after). The deletion request is for problems with the license or its content. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I just did. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
...Didn’t work
I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that the duplicate applies to this case, anymore, as I altered the size of the picture to avoid the duplicate. I just wanted to give you the advice, that, if you'll find another picture that is the same as another - apart from size - that you can use the duplicate. However, if you want to upload a new file, for example the NASA F-8 photo, but it already exists, you can upload a new version of the file, like now 10 MB instead of 200 KB, like I did with the other NASA F-8 photo. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Cobatfor. I hope I didn’t cause too much disturbance. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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

Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Huntster (t @ c) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to tag this file as a copyvio, but the original Flickr uploader had no right to license it as he did. Trust me, I scoured the net a while back for useful images of the Sea Launch vessels, and what's here on Commons is all there is that's actually free. Even photos by Steve Jurvetson, whom I love to pull images from, aren't always appropriately licensed on his Flickr stream :) Huntster (t @ c) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hunster for correcting me. I was so happy to find this beautiful picture that I didn’t hear the "too good to be true" bell in my head, even as I wondered how involved a photographer must have been to be on the boat. Thank you also for reverting the Sea Launch article modification accordingly. I’ll be more careful from now on. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it much...if you have any questions about the legitimacy of an image, just ask on my talk page. I'm pretty good at detecting things like this. Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 9280826af18f59ded117f69b7ad00bc8[edit]

Note de service. Getting started with a TUSC account.

Airfoil schematic[edit]

Hi Olivier, please take a look at perhaps you can make the image What would btw also be useful is an image of the profiles of only rotors (airplane and helicopter/autogiro rotors). Perhaps that different profiles need to be made depending on the number of blades (not sure on this) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File move[edit]

I see you've requested a move for File:Transonic Vapor F-16 02.jpg. This image corresponds with File:Transonic Vapor F-16 01.jpg. Can you request a move for this one also, and I'll move both? INeverCry 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you for your vigilance and maintenance efforts... I deeply appreciate the administrators’ and filemovers’ quiet work. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and ditto for your work. INeverCry 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Runway Visual Range illustrations[edit]

Hi, two days ago I got a message from you concerning pictures licensing violation. I contacted once again the owner of those pictures: and put the email conversation public (with deleted contacts) on discussion pages of those three pictures. Is that enough or should I do more to prevent their deletion? Thank you very much for an answer. Cs wikipedro (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Noticeboard[edit]

Hi, I (very belatedly) replied to you at COM:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Skip Stewart and Patty Wagstaff.jpg (and others) of Skip Stewart. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Files to be deleted[edit]

Refering to the message that you left on my talk page. I actually moved them from Wikipedia Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human...The deletion will in no way be an inconvenience but I will take that as lessons for my future contribs to commons. 8bit-dynamiclist.gif Talk to Me. Email Me. 13:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stephenwanjau, thanks for the heads up. I don’t think that there is much to be learned, nor that this is an important problem overall. I simply see this as a benign, good-faith copyright violation that was not easy to spot. All the best in your future contributions! Ariadacapo (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


I missed the message you left on my talk on the 7th and just noticed it as I was doing some archiving. Thank you for the kind words. INeverCry 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded to you, Ariadacapo, in recognition of your extraordinry scrutiny, precision, and community service.

Thank you for everything you do to make Wikimedia Commons a better place.

Senator2029 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

wheee! Thank you =) Ariadacapo (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Stationary_gas-based_turbomachines_("gas_turbines") has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

added translation "Werkspoor Diesel", as you requested years ago[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo. I've translated the dutch description of File:Werkspoor aanzicht.jpg into English, as you requested more than two years ago on its talk page. I've also added a French translation to the file info page. Considering that my French is just as bad as that of Google translate, would you please be so kind to review the French translation? Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jahoe (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oooh that’s fantastic! Thank you so much! I’m heading to the translation now =) Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too Ariadacapo. :) I'll see if I can find some more on this cute little engine, like where it was deployed and what happened to its three brothers. More pictures perhaps. Since most pumping stations are much smaller and fully electric, it can't be that difficult to find, two or three possible location spring to mind already. I'll post here if I find something, but I'm a slow runner myself, so please be patient. Regards, Jahoe (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
But I need a little clue in identifying. The engine is 6 cyl. 4 stroke; do I see that correct? Jahoe (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Most likely yes, judging by the mechanisms on top. I’m not an expert though. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for now, I'll be back. :) Jahoe (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 32e029ab7e60614ae3d2a01568514c58[edit]

Trying to work around a bug in my TUSC account

Top views of aircraft[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created Category:Aerial photographs of aircraft, and other related categories. Several of the sub-categories of (Views of aircraft) appear to be poorly defined and poorly located in the hierarchy. I suggest the following hierarchy: (Plan views of aircraft) is level 1, then at level 2 is (Bottom views of aircraft) and (Top views of aircraft), with (Top down plan views of aircraft) converted to a redirect to (Top views of aircraft). Below (Top views of aircraft), at level 3 is (Aerial photographs of aircraft). This assumes that (Aerial photographs of aircraft) are all top views, (ie directly above the subjects) and ignores oblique views, but perhaps that can be ignored for now ? I welcome your comments before making any changes.PeterWD (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello PeterWD, first thank you for your tireless work categorizing images. Bits of your work regularly show up in my watchlist and it’s always a good thing! =)
I don’t think that Aerial photographs of aircraft should go below Top views of aircraft. It contains many great photos which just would not fit. I agree with all your other proposals.
In time I would like to turn Views of aircraft into something much more useful, perhaps something that would look like:
  • Views of aircraft (or "aircraft by situation"?)
    • Aircraft taxiing
    • Aircraft in hangars
    • Aircraft taking off
    • Aircraft in flight
      • Aerial photos of aircraft in flight
    • Aircraft in crosswind
    • Aircraft on aircraft carriers
    • etc.
This would be an interesting alternative to our current aircraft type/registration-based approach to categorizing aviation photos. I’m not sure where to start with this, nor that it would be a popular idea. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your carefully considered response, and your kind words. I have just made the first few changes, without including (Aerial photographs of aircraft). I can now see that the sub-cat of that (... in flight) should not come under plan views, but perhaps that can be later diffused into a lower level plan view sub-cat that could also be under (Top views of aircraft). One of the principles I sometimes employ in aircraft recognition is to place images in a category even when I am not 100% sure of my identification, then I and other people can see them in context and decide to keep or discard the categorization for such images. I find that the same principle of trying out an idea is also useful for new or existing categories. In your suggested hierarchy, yesterday I added (Crosswinds in aviation), but I generally ignore (Aircraft in flight) as a mostly irrelevant category, otherwise perhaps we would have to categorize all other aircraft images under (Aircraft on the ground)?? Personally, I don't regard (Aircraft landings) or (Starts in aviation) [ugh] to be very important, being so numerous and sometimes difficult to differentiate between each. Feel free to tweak my identification or categorization (usually made with minimal time-consuming discussion or consensus) - I'm not easily offended.PeterWD (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A400M at Paris Air Show categories[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo, you just made some changes to the category structure of the A400M aircraft at PAS this year. These changes would, in my opinion, only make sense if there was only one A400M aircraft at PAS, but there were three different aircraft there. F-WWMQ was on static all the time, F-WWMZ flew the display on June 19 and F-WWMS flew the display on June 20. Leaving Category:Airbus A400M at Paris Air Show 2013 only as a subcat of Category:F-WWMQ (aircraft) makes no sense to me for that reason. It should either be a subcat of A400M directly or there should be three different Paris Air Show Categories for each one of the aircraft, or a different structure that I missed. I'd be interested in what your opinion is regarding that. Thanks, — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Julian, thank you for the note. I only saw one A400M there so I (wrongly) assumed only one aircraft had been seen there. Indeed, my edits make no sense! Sorry! I am undoing this right now. Please let me know if I forget something. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks for the fast response. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fluid machinery[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo, I've declined your request for a speedy delete of Category:Fluid machinery, first off we never delete categories which are populated, and this was my initial reason for declining. However looking at those sub-categories, the category is not just of machines that are powered by fluids or transmitted by fluids but devices that move fluids and use fluids, e.g. Category:Blowers, the category may need renaming and its contents re-organising, but I think for the moment it should be kept.--KTo288 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the content was clearly turbomachinery, so I moved it there. Some content remains, however, that isn't. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Eclipse Concept Jet - Oshkosh Air Show 2007 - 002.jpg[edit]

Sorry, my error. --JotaCartas (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and no need to apologize! Keep up the good work,
Ariadacapo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Files related to helicopter flight mechanics[edit]

Hi, I don't understand your warning here, and I am not sure why my recent uploads were deleted, as no reason was given, and no records of uploads/deletions can be found. Please respond at my talk page, thank you. TGCP (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I heed your word, and will make a better effort. TGCP (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you are interested in rotorcraft functions, the "new" Helicopter Flying Handbook has updated diagrams which I would like to upload (not the photos acknowledged in the preface), but now I want to be extra careful about it. I have asked FAA, but so far no answer. TGCP (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I just do not know about this one (beautiful document, great find, by the way!). I could not find any copyright statement, either. Probably the best would be to ask more knowledgeable people, at the Copyright Village Pump or in the Wikiproject Aviation. Sorry that I can provide no help here... Ariadacapo (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I asked at the IRC, and they said to ask FAA, so I did - and we may wait for a looong time... Even if they reply to me by email, it would be difficult to use that email as validation. Someone might be bold and upload anyway, but probably not me. If you want drag specified, here is a calculated curve in Figure 26, page 14. TGCP (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
FAA heli-manual 4forces
I thought text was missing from arrows in your Heli-manual edit File:FAA heli-manual 4forces.svg , so I uploaded a new version - now I can't even undo my own edit ?? It says Undo has already been done. I don't know how to use Inkscape properly, so I hope you and others will continue to rectify my uploads. TGCP (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello TGCP, uploads are not reverted the same way as page (wikitext) edits. To revert to a previous file version, you need to scroll down the description page and revert and use the links in the file history table.
I just uploaded a new version of the file. Inkscape is not very hard to use but there are very often issues with fonts on the Wikimedia software, which prevent text rendering on Commons even though it is in the file. The easiest way is usually to delete and re-type the text from scratch in Inkscape, using simple fonts such as "Nimbus Roman 9L" or "Nimbus Sans". I hope this helps! Feel free to experiment! Ariadacapo (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It has now been deleted due to lack of OTRS. As it is FAA material, it should non-controversial to upload it again, with FAA stamp and without OTRS stamp. I don't have it, do you? TGCP (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, TGCP. I have looked into the issue with the help of OTRS volunteers and the file is now restored. I apologize on behalf of Commons that we went too fast here! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it was your upload, as I can't process .svg correctly. I don't fully understand the OTRS process, but it seems from that discussion that most ordinary files from the FAA manual are allowed on Commons - will the next uploads require OTRS or can they be uploaded with just the FAA template? TGCP (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi TGCP, yes, I think the consensus is very clear, that you can upload any files from that document without an OTRS proofcheck, as well as any other file produced by the FAA (not merely hosted or commissioned by them). Simply slap the {{PD-USGov-FAA}} template onto them. In case there is a problem, give me notice and I’ll do my best to help. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cockpit windows of a Boeing 787 (1).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cockpit windows of a Boeing 787 (1).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


Attaching many categories to a media file makes that file more reachable for public reach and makes that more searchable for people especially for students of all types. So I do attach more categories to files to make it people friendly/reachable. Orgio89 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And your deleting of valid clear meaningful categories is clearly certain vandalism act!! Do not delete valid good categories please learn from others!! Orgio89 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Since your primary language is french, in english speaking world Green Technology, Green Energy, Green car are clear valid public terms that newspapers, tv and other press use them. So those categories are clearly acceptable in public encyclopedia like WP. Orgio89 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Go to Commons:Categories. Read. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:LiquidOxygen.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:LiquidOxygen.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:LiquidOxygen.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Categorization of my curve of the sphere drag vs Reynolds[edit]

NASA drawing
New file

Thanks, dear Ariadacapo, for your contribution on my curve (after the equations of Clift, Grace and Weber). May be is it the place to say that I realised that work because the curve after the NASA is quite false (see the irregularity of the ordinates !). Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you for the great work creating this diagram. I think the NASA-based file is quite alright -- it is clearly a sketch, intended to show the overall trend. Your file goes beyond that and provides a numerical description of the phenomenon, which is a great contribution (we had no such freely licensed file). Keep up the good work! Feel free to ask me for help if you need (also in French :-) -- Ariadacapo (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The overall trend ! Well, it is possible... But look at the 0.1 ordinate ! In French, one will say "Ça frise la forfaiture !".
I just write (in French, it's OK for you !) 54 pages on the sphere Cd (with almost as many pictures). I'll publish it in a few days. I'll try to found my own user-page (I thought I did it in French some years ago). Friendly Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ariadacapo ! I just published my text on the Cd of the sphere (in French, as you know)! The address is : . In some days this .doc will be converted in .pdf, but I have not personally the software to do it... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ariadacapo ! I wonder if it will not be useful to publish in the Wikipedia Commons the following picture (after Prandtl, 1904) :,prandtl_1904,colorized.png
and its French version :,prandtl_1904,colorise.png
I only colourized the sketch of the great man ! Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bernard de Go Mars, good work on the report =) I skimmed through it and it looks like an interesting read. By the way, it’s spelled Stokes without a "c" (I know because I have made that mistake, and others much worse that I shall not reveal =)
Publishing the diagram would be a great thing. I recommend that you upload an "original version" separately from your colorized version, so that users may choose which one they like best and adapt them according to their needs. If you need, here is a high-resolution version (this is my favorite diagram in all fluid mechanics, and I’ve been using it for some time). In English one would write "lower pressure/higher pressure" rather than "less/more pressure". Don’t hesitate to ask if you need help.
By the way, you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer -- it’s not an easy task. Keep it up! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't upload the original version, because I am not sure I got one really free of copyrights (this sketch, in the NACA report, is in bad definition). May be, if you have got one (the one you show is very nice), you can upload it by yourself. Concerning my colourization, it brings enough qualities so that I can say it is "my own work" (with a help of Ludwig).
The purpose of that kind of colourization is nothing but to facilitate the comments of the teachers or the contributors, in our case !
Thank you for Higher/Lower pressure, and also for Stokes !
>>>>>>>>>>>you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer<<<<<<<<<<<<< I do simplified a lot, but the problem is hard to explain, especially for me... With thanks, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
When I thing to the problem of copyright, I am not sure I can upload my colorization. What do you feel about it ? Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia
I just uploaded my own picture : . I'm afraid I made a new mistake with the name of the file (it would gain not to have any accent ! By the way, do the categories Reynolds and Boundary layer exist ? How would you translate the French expressions of this picture in English ? Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bernard de Go Mars, sorry for losing track of this conversation.
I have just worked on the categories of your upload. Category:Boundary Layer does not exist but Category:Boundary layer does. If you use the HotCat gadget (to be enabled in your preferences panel) it will auto-suggest/auto-complete category names.
By the way, this file does not belong to Category:Reynolds number since it does not depict or represent the concept of the Reynolds number (see COM:OVERCAT)
There is also no issue with the accents in the filename. You can link to it like so: File:Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia.png.
As for the copyright restriction on Prandtl’s drawing, there is none anymore. It was published in 1904 so it can be uploaded with a PD-old copyright tag (see en:WP:PD for how to determine whether a work is in the public domain or not). Best, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interlanguage link edits[edit]

Hello, I noticed with this edit you made, you removed the interlanguage link citing provision by Wikidata. However, Wikidata did not yet have the association in its database, so this link was not redundant and your removal effectively just disassociated the two. I've gone ahead and added the association to the Wikidata page, but thought I should mention this in case there are other similar edits you made. Thanks! djr13 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Djr13, thank you for the heads up. This was indeed a mistake. I am behind a slow Internet connection, so I deal with many edits at once on Commons. On this one, I must have lost track and forgot to make the Wikidata edit also. I will be more careful. Good that you let me know! Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC).


Could you please explain, how this file could be user's own work? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This file is (allegedly and believably) a scan by the user of a drawing published in 1797 in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why the "source" field says "Encyclopædia Britannica Third Edition ({{own}} scan)". Is it the licensing (obviously erroneous as this is PD-old) that you are questioning? Ariadacapo (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Sukhoi Superjet 100 at Paris Air Show 2013 (2).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sukhoi Superjet 100 at Paris Air Show 2013 (2).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Arbeitsweise Zweitakt.gif[edit]

Wziąłem z niemieckiej Wikipedi. Był na stornie z 2004 roku. Nie mogę sprawdzić jej opisu ponieważ aktualnie storna ta odwołuje się do Commons. Topory (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok dziękuję! Skontaktuję pierwotnego autora do omówienia licencji. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Email re Wikipedia[edit]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect for manufactures rename?[edit]

Re: Category:Airbus Helicopters AS350 Ecureuil Redirecting a category in response to a manufacturer renaming a product line seems awkward to me. The aircraft is what it was when it was built and other sources do not change the name. It is also awkward for users who may have an accurate name for a particular aircraft but no knowledge or interest in the product line history. In my view this could better be handled with subcategories, especially in cases where the manufacturor has changed over time as well. Dankarl (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dankar, I made the edits in good faith because I felt it is much less awkward this way. In my view, when the aircraft design does not change, the name does not matter much. Keeping all the names seems confusing, e.g. it would be hard to know where one given aircraft would fit in a tree such as Eurocopter EC 225 Super Puma 2Eurocopter EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters H225 Super Puma 2. We should probably discuss this at Commons:WikiProject Aviation, do you want to open a discussion there? Thanks for your patience. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is that each iteration get its own subcategory, likewise the B, C suffixes. This would be overly cumbersome for a small category but we have lots of images in this case. Do you know other examples either way?Dankarl (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have just opened a thread at the WikiProject Aviation to discuss this. I look forward to your input and that of others there. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour Ariadacapo[edit]

HELP  !!!!!

comment mdofier mon logo

This illustration was made by (User:Royonx) and released under the license(s) stated above. You are free to use it for any purpose as long as you credit me and follow the terms of the license.

Example :  © Michel Royon / Wikimedia Commons

If you use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, I would be happy to hear from you par courriel (mail royonx At char.svg Thanks !

Ce message en français

c' est mon parrai Phymouss qui me l'a dessine il y a longtemps longtemps je ne le trouve plus ...

je Voudrais enlever la Mention Dr et enlever l adresse mail ''

avec l age tout devient difficile !

Merci pour votre aide +++ (message non signé par User:Royonx)

La réponse est très simple : il vous suffit d’éditer la page User:Royonx/Credits (et sa traduction User:Royonx/Credits-fr). Lorsque vous utilisez le code {{User:Royonx/Credits}}, vous incluez directement le contenu de ces pages (c’est ce qu’on appelle une transclusion en anglais)
J’en profite pour remarquer que la condition "Vous êtes libre d'utiliser cette photo sous réserve de me mentionner et de respecter les termes de la licence." est redondante : les termes de la licence contraignent explicitement les ré-utilisateurs à vous mentionner. Il est inutile de rajouter des contraintes "à la main" : vous risquez de rendre la situation légale bancale ou contradictoire. Dernière remarque, le "j’apprécierai" est au conditionnel, il doit donc prendre un "s". Bonne continuation ! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)