User talk:Denniss/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Image:Bogart and Bergman.jpg

Please leave it to the administrators to remove requests for deletion of images. Thuresson 00:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Airline image categories

I am not sure why I would remove the category from the image just because it's on a page. Every image deserves to have a category because it is in the category, even if it is listed on a page... If you can show me a village pump section about this with a decision to the other direction I will change my ways. Grenavitar 18:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing images from categories

I see you removed some images from their categories. Could you provide a reason for that? I think images have to be in a category for people being able to find them. --Bricktop 03:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed only imaged I included in articles. Example: all Charles de Gaulle images are nowin an article and have their category removed. Article is present in French Navy and Aircraft carrier. Images do not have to be in a specific category to be found by users or links inside Wikipedia -- Denniss 03:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why do you take this decision on your own? Don't you think that others aren't of the same opinion? I would ask you to revert your edits and then discuss your proposal on a Commons global level --Bricktop 03:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please stop removing categories from the images. The categories are very useful in finding images to certain themes. Thanx, --Gunter.krebs 15:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to revert your edits. Images belong in a category, it's the opinion of most if not all Commons users, except of you --Bricktop 21:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Images belong to a category,yes. But they do not belong to a category if they are linked from an article located in the same category. It should be clear if there's an Atlas rocket article in the rocket section then there should be no atlas rocket image in the category or you will flood the category with images as you now have. If you search for Atlas rocket images then it's easier to find them via the Atlas rocket article than from looking at all the images in category, otherwise these articles should be removed -- Denniss 22:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know that you mean to clean up the categories by removing the images included in articles. But I think (and not only I as you can see on your discussion page) it is nevertheless better by having images included in articles as well as in categories. This allows a user to see all images of this category for example for creating new articles, that include part of images already included in another article, so he need not look in each article. And this is only one example why it's better not to remove images from their categories. I see you are creating new articles, it's great, but please do not remove the category tags from images you use. --Bricktop 23:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like, really don't move category and destroy-ness Grenavitar 04:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi, until the new double system (category AND gallery/page) images should be sorted into a category and the page, because a lot of wikipedia articles just link to the description page OR the category, and using you system would mean, that one system would lack all ore just some pictures. that would be no good deal. so please stop removing the categories, or does these doublepostings hurt you? like i say, in some time some kind of double posting system will be standard anyway. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
What's your problem ? If images are linked from an article within a specific category then there's no need to have these images in the specific category again ! --Denniss 19:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, your private theory about how to do categorization is based on the premise that the standards of what is best for articles should be applied to categories. When you display the
[[category:United States Navy aircraft carriers]]
, our ascetic sensibilities are disturbed because it is not tidy that a lot of pictures are cluttering up the screen. Well you know what? Tough. It's not an article, it's a category. It is particularly nonsensical to delete subcategories. For example, you deleted CV08 Hornet as a subcategory of United States Navy aircraft carriers. The valid question is: Is CV08 Hornet a valid subcategory of US Navy Carriers? The answer is yes. Metadata is important for any object.

Your point that people can find things via search can basically be applied to all categories. Are categories obsolete because we have search? Of course not. Two quick benefits are:

  • automatic see also's
  • encoding of semantic relations.

See Also's. Ok I do a search and get a hit dolittle on a picture of the hornet. I click on CV08 Hornet, and bingo- I have all the pictures of Hornet -- That is, if DennisS hasn't unhelpfully deleted those tags. Or I could click on World war II ships, or... You get the idea.

Explicit encoding of semantic relations. It is useful to know the following semantic relations: CV06 Enterprise IS_A US_Carrier. CVN 65 Enterprise IS_A US_Carrier. CV06 has other relations: IS_A "World War II ships". Now, because these are machine encoded relationships, you can do interesting things, such as: show me all US Carriers in World War II. Try that with full text search sometime- it simply is not possible. Such benefits do not come at high cost, because categorization is easy this way. Simply by encoding an article CV06 Enterprise, they inherit all the categories that CV06 belongs to for free. So please, stop your jihad against categorization.

Such Category searching is NOT pie in the sky. This feature currently is being worked on and it will be a great boon to Commons. Further information on Category search here. But if DennisS's approach prevails, it will be useless because all images will be stripped of category tags.

I would prefer to discuss this at a global level because you do have an arguable position. It's just one I don't think the vast majority of Commons folks believe is correct. I saw that there was once a discussion on village pump about categories vs. articles, but sadly, it was moved or expunged. Where is the central location for discussing this issue? Mak 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DennisS, you did not reply to my arguments except to run a bot to continue in your category blanking vandalism. Really. Please do not resort to bullying tactics. Folks, this is a bot running mass reverts. DennisS is not even bothering to consider whether a category is correct or not- he is simply reverting to "His way". Consider the log:

(diff) (hist) . . Image:Crew verlässt USS Lexington.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Lexington brennt.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Yorktown.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Yorktown hit-740px.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:Midwayschlacht Bild06.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Wasp (CV-7).jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Wasp (CV-7) brennt.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Langley (AV-1).jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Langley (CV-1).jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Ranger CV-4.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Saratoga.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:USS Saratoga versinkt im Pazifik.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . Image:Spanish Army Chinook.jpg; 14:02 . . Denniss (Talk | contribs) 


Did DennisS consider whether any of these were correct cateogizations or not? If he did, he considered 13 in 1 minute's time.


DennisS, this is a warning. No one appears to agree with your idea that gallery articles make categories unnecessary. If you choose to run a bot, two can play that game. But really. You are just wasting everyone's time. So why not discuss this like sensible people?

Mak 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion on this issue.!!! Ok. So take a look at this. DennisS favors the "Normal Pages" proposal- while the vast majority favour allowing the placement of category tags directly on images. Here are the votes:

  1. Use normal pages (85)
  2. Use category pages (84)
  3. Use a mixed system (34)
  4. Use a merged system (Andre's proposal) (4)
  5. Use a merged system (Duesentrieb's proposal) (123)

Totals: Those who favor exclusive use of gallery pages: 85, while 161 wish to continue to allow putting category tags on images.

Unfortunately, DennisS has taken it upon himself to enforce the minority view by enforcing the "normal pages" scheme. Everywhere I see images which no longer have ANY tags. The culprit who blanked perfectly legitimate category tags is DennisS. He leaves no comments or rationale. He does not wish to discuss it here. Fine.


Proposal: Until a decision on the Articles versus Categories issue is reached, folks are prohibitted from seeking to enforce either the exclusive category or the exclusive article position as DennisS does. Category blanking (removal of all tags central to the subject matter of the item) is to be regarded as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. How does that sound?

-Mak 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Royal Navy categories

Hi, I was wondering what is the reason for deleting Category:Royal Navy battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc? It seems to me that flattening these categories causes needless duplication. When I created them, I mirrored the categorisation scheme on en, which seemed pretty sensible and mature. Thanks. Gsl 03:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to categorize them so much - they are Royal Navy ships from their nationality, Battleships/cruisers, whatever from their type and WWI / WWII / whatever ships from their timeline. The en wikipedia looks a "little" overcategorized in some areas .... -- Denniss 03:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, and I'd been thinking that the Commons is undercategorized. Look, z.B., at Category:Destroyers or Category:Submarines. Battleships isn't so bad yet, but wait till pictures of all the other ships get added. Splitting them into navys, if not all the way down to classes, seems pretty sensible to me.
Wwoods 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compression

Hallo Denniss, ich würd dich bitten die unnötigen "Kompressionen" zu lassen. Gibt nicht wirklich eine Notwendigkeit dafür. Speicherplatzmangel ist nicht gegeben und die Bildschirmdarstellung ist quasi immer ein thumb (je nach Einstellung). Gruß Darkone (¿!) 12:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dem kann ich mich nur anschliessen. Durch eine Kompression erreichst du nur das die Qualität des Bildes verschlechtert wird. Speicherpaltz sparst du damit überhaupt nicht, denn nachdem du eine komprimierte Version eines Bildes hochgeladen hast, liegt sowohl die alte Version als auch die neue auf dem Server. Das heißt dadurch wird noch mehr Speicherkapazität verbraucht. --Bricktop 00:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Village pump

Hey, look Commons:Village_pump#Categories_vs._Articles. This is our debate, state what you wish to state and then live by whatever the decision is. Grenavitar 23:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Redundant

Answer on my talk page. -- Duesentrieb 11:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Dittaeva just had the same idea as you and changed the template - I have reverted that, but invited him/her to Template talk:Redundant, where I have copied our previous discussion. Have a look if you like - perhaps the usage of the template should indeed be changed, or we could create an alternative one. But let's talk about it first -- Duesentrieb 14:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Denniss. I noticed you tagged Category:Boeing 777 for speedy deletion. I reverted you, since it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. Please see Commons:Deletion guidelines for a list of what qualifies.

I understand that there is a page, Boeing 777, as well. Personally, I feel it is useful to have both categories and pages. A regular page has a number of advantages, including

  1. it can be searched by Special:Search
  2. the content can be organized and moved around like in any wiki page
  3. most importantly, the page can include pictures that wouldn't fit in the equivalent category. For example, Boeing 777 could include a picture of the factory where they're made, but that factory wouldn't go in Category:Boeing 777.

But categories have their own advantages. Among them,

  1. an image can be added to a category without having to modify any other pages
  2. if a category is removed from an image, the change will appear in the history, and will pop up on watchlists
  3. having an image in a category asserts something about that image, which gives more information than simply having the image on a page. For example, in the Boeing factory example above, not all pictures on the page are images of actual Boeing 777s.

Furthermore, if there are hundreds of images in a particular category, it would make sense to have a page that only uses some of the images. For example, any picture that anyone uploads of a Boeing 777 ought to go in Category:Boeing 777, but it might not be good enough to go in Boeing 777. I actually felt that Image:Denver International Airport, United Airlines Boeing 777 being serviced.jpg wasn't good enough to go in the page, which is why I put it in a category instead.

If you still feel that Category:Boeing 777 must be deleted, feel free to list it on Commons:Deletion requests. Cheers, Dbenbenn 11:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I give up

Denniss, sorry, but I've finally, after much trying, given up on understanding how to decide on categories for a pic, how to decide if it should have an article or whatever. I also don't want to go back to uploading to Wikipedia. Therefore I am going to upload to Commons and rely on very nice people like yourself to find and categorise my pics. The only alternative is my ditching Commons and going back to WP, which I have seriously considered. What are your thoughts? I wonder how many other people have dipped their toes into Commons, seen the (apparent) categorisation complexities and given up - Arpingstone 07:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

When I'm moving one of your great airliner images to the commons I add them to Category:Boeing (or Airbus, Embraer ...) and to Category:Airlines. I only use Category:Civil Aircraft if this special aircraft does not have an article. I prefer adding them directly to articles (if they are existing). Please do not stop uploading your images to the commons - they are great and always welcome here ! -- Denniss 12:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for your helpful reply. OK, I won't give up, and will follow your guidelines. Thanks for your kind words about my photos - Arpingstone 20:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Kleiner Dank

... Du weißt schon wofür. Klasse, solch Kleinigkeiten übersieht man dann ja doch gerne ;-) --:Bdk: 03:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Move tab

Hi Denniss. Recently you wanted to move Varig to VARIG. Instead of copying the text and then marking the old version for speedy deletion, please just use the "move" tab near the "edit" tab, or Special:Movepage. Thanks, Dbenbenn 14:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No - I did not want to move or redirect Varig, I wanted to have it removed. You may have noticed Varig is still visible in Category:Airlines despite being redirected to VARIG. It was still visible in Airlines despite moved to Aircraft. That's why I wanted to have it deleted because of a suspected database error. Should I recreate the deletion request or are you able to delete the old article/redirect ? --Denniss 15:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Please don't tag Varig for deletion. The category will sort itself out eventually. The software isn't perfect, and sometimes things like this take a day or two to get fixed. Dbenbenn 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

CH-47 Chinook

Denniss, if I add a picture to an article on Commons, in this case CH-47 Chinook do I still need to add a Category of some kind to the image's Image Description page on Commons? Thanks - Arpingstone 08:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No - the only category an image needed to be in is the license category. Category is only needed for general categories like Helicopters if there's no article for this type of aircraft existing. --Denniss 12:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks - Arpingstone 21:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Bilder von der ILA 2002

Hallo Denniss, es ist geschafft. Ich habe alle Bilder (die es würdig waren) von der ILA 2002 hochgeladen. Ich hatte gesehen, daß du hier und da Korrekturen durchgeführt hast. Danke dafür. --Jwnabd 09:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gern geschehen - sind ja auch einige tolle Bilder dabei --Denniss 12:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images by User:Decumanus

Huch, du sprichst ja deutsch :) Also, kurz: die Bilder scheinen OK, jedenfalls ist der Copyright-Vermerk in Ordnung. Siehe meine Disku-Seite für eine vollständige Erklärung. -- Duesentrieb 20:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verwirrend aber nun klar. Danke ! --Denniss 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Airline category

Hi. I noticed you changed Air Norterra (Canadian North) from the Boeing category to Airlines but you forgot to create the article for Air Norterra. I've done that. At the same time I changed the First Air and Kenn Borek Air from the original categories I had them in to Airlines and created articles for them. I disagree though with deleting Bell Helicopter and Hawker Siddley. I believe they better represent the correct versions of the manufacture's name.CambridgeBayWeather 03:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of difficulty following your logic in categorizing aircraft. I noticed that you had moved the Canadian North Boeing 737 picture to the 'airlines' category. So to follow along I moved the First Air AT43, and the Kenn Borek DHC6 and E110 to 'airlines' as well. Today I see that you have moved the Kenn Borek DHC6 to the 'civil' and 'de Havilland' categories. At the same time the E110 pictures are no longer in any categories. Now logic says that either the Kenn Borek pictures should be in the category 'airlines' or the First Air picture should be be in the categories 'civil' and 'Hawker Siddeley' and the Canadian North picture should should be in the 'civil' and 'Boeing' categories. Are you basing the 'airline' category on airline size? If so then Kenn Borek's fleet of 50 aircraft is larger than both First Air and Canadian North put together. Also Kenn Borek has a greater worldwide presence than both First Air and Canadian North put together. Can you provide me with some information before I put up anymore aircraft pictures. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather 02:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Airliner images should be in an airline specific article and in a plane specific article. That's why I removed the Kenn Borek images from airlines and moved them to civil aircraft and/or manufacturer category. --Denniss 10:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
OK. While I'm not sure that I agree with that system it does make some sense and I will use it. I notice that Airliner defines airliner as "but typically, 20 or more passenger seats or an empty weight above 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) qualifies an aircraft as an airliner." So the First Air A748 would then probably qualifiy as it can hold up to 40 passengers (although it's empty weight is under 22, 680 kg). Also neither of the two pictures of the Kenn Borek E110 have any categories now that you removed them. Should they not be in "Civil aircraft" and "EMBRAER"?

Confusion

Denniss, thank you for your shouted message in bold type on my User page (but I’m not deaf, just stupid). I’m not getting very far in understanding how to choose categories when I place a pic onto Commons. The bold type makes it obvious that you are irritated by my inability to get this right. So it’s time to talk about an example:

I have recently uploaded a picture of a British Airways Boeing 767-300 ethnic fin design (strangely called Blomsterang) under the file name ethnic.b767-300.g-bnwu.blomsterang.arp.jpg and I've parked it in a gallery at article British Airways. It's the aircraft flying right to left exactly over the top of a tree. Did I put it in the right article and, if not, how do I decide which is the best article for the pic?

This pic could be categorised as Airlines, British Airways, Boeing, Boeing 767, Civil Aircraft, Aviation and so on. How do I choose from among these categories and how do I make the pic appear under those Categories (or Articles?)?

Here’s what I’ve tried: On the pic’s Image Description Page I’ve put [[Category:Airlines]] but that makes it appear among the pics at the bottom of the Category:Airlines article. This looks odd because there's a Boeing 767 category above that it surely should be in (but it isn't). I’ve also put [[Category:Boeing]] but, again, that makes the pic appear at the bottom of the Category:Boeing article when there's a Boeing 767 category above that it should surely be in. Your help would be greatly appreciated - Arpingstone 15:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, here are more thoughts:
If I had put the pic into article Boeing 767 then how could I also get it to appear in article British Airways since British Airways is not a Category? In other words, I don't see how someone looking at the BA article would see the pic!
Conversely, now that the pic is residing in article British Airways, how can I make it appear in article Boeing 767!! It seems that because there's a mixture of Articles and Categories on Commons I cannot index the pic under all the descriptions I would like to.
The problem seems to arise because Boeing 767 and British Airways are Articles but Boeing and and Airlines are Categories. Commons seems to consist of a mixture of these two sorts of file which, I think, is causing my confusion. Best Wishes - Arpingstone 20:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
First, sorry for being too affensive. Use the upload form to ad images to categories, add [[Category:Boeing]] and [[Category:Airlines]] to airliner images if you don't want or don't have enough time to add them to articles. If adding them to articles then please add them to their specific airline article and to their specific plane article. OR leave them at airlines and manufacturer categories. Example: Add a BA B767 image to BA and B767 or Boeing and Airlines or a mix of both. I prefer adding them to both articles. When I find images not categorizes or only half categorized I usually collect them in the cat needed and then I add them to their specific article in this cat (if enough time available) --Denniss 22:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Airline pics

Thanks for your reply, very helpful. Just for my education can I check if I'm understanding the reason for your changes to some of my airline pics. You've been removing the cats and putting the pics directly into the relevant two articles. Do you recommend that I follow this method and not put a category on future airline uploads but instead put them in the two obvious articles (such as Boeing 737 and ezyJet)? - Arpingstone 18:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It's best to haven them in their related articles. If you are lacking time then use the easy way and upload them only to cats and add them to articles later. --Denniss 18:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Air France messup

Sorry about the mess I made with placing the Air Atlanta pic.. I have absolutely no clue how I came to make such a strange mistake! - Arpingstone 10:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturer categories

Denniss, thanks for adding the Category:Airbus (or whatever) to my airliner pics. I will add the Manufacturer Category to my future airliner pics - Arpingstone 09:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Uploading images from other wikipedias

Denniss,

the images I upload are either public domain or GFDL. I have therefore the right to modify them, and thus to change their resolution.

I uploaded low-resolution images because I don't see any reason why we should use a greater amount of server ressource when it is not needed. This is my personnal opinion, you may not agree with me, but that's the way I do.

Best regards.

Cdang 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Beschreibung" entfernen

Hallo Denniss, warum entfernst du immer die Überschrift "Beschreibung" bei meinen Bildern? Wenn das dort nicht stehen soll, dann sollte das besser aus der Vorlage entfernt werden. Viele Grüße, JuergenL 09:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:15 Phantom landing on Eagle Mediterranean Jan1970.jpg

I'm sorry but I think this is one F-4 Phantom II, I don't know all planes but on the en:HMS_Eagle_(R05), in 1970, the only plane called Phantom was the F-4...--Dav 59 08:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm sorry, I didn't see the en:Blackburn Buccaneer, but why the tittle is « Phantom landing on Eagle Mediterranean »? I'll do more attention in the future...--Dav 59 08:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems the uploader or the creator used a wrong name cause he misidentified the plane himself. Or these images were cut from a bigger image showing Phantoms --Denniss 12:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kategorie oder nicht?

Hallo Denniss,

wenn ich bei einem Flugzeugbild keine Kategorie angebe, dann schreibst du Category:Airlines rein, wenn ich Category:Airlines einfüge dann entfernst du das wieder? Weißt du eigentlich was du willst? Gruß, JuergenL 11:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ich entferne die Kategorien nur wenn ich die Bilder in entsprechenden Airline-Artikel einfüge. Sonst lasse ich die natürlich drin. Das gleiche bei den Herstellerkategorien wie z.B. Airbus oder Boeing. Bitte bei Upload von Verkehrsflugzeugen möglichst Hersteller und Airlines als Kategorie hinzufügen oder in entsprechende Artikel integrieren. Danke.--Denniss 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sikorsky HH-60.jpg

Hi, what is the source for this photo? Thuresson 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/hh-60.htm --Denniss 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Honeker

Machen sie bitte honeker zuruk.Wieso?

Do you have a license for your Honecker image ? If yes please upload it under a different name because it's different from the fully licensed image already available . Do not owerwrite this image again ! --Denniss 14:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello ich habe gedach das das ist officielle DDR Foto für solche dinge gedacht.Habe ich unrecht?Auserdem diese foto ist schon alt.Bitte wen sie haben Zeit erkleren sie mir das damit solche fehler nicht nochmal vorkommen.Danke.Jaro.p

Boeing E-4

Why recoil?

Much more comfortable to unite all information about an airplane in one category, and after its everywhere to specify.

Image:Full flow staged rocket cycle.svg

Hi Denniss, you tagged this image as redundant with the .png version. I think we need both versions.

The .svg image is needed for easy updates, but it doesn't render correctly (look at the black arrows in the center).

The .png export renders correctly and is used in articles.

Let me know if I'm missing something. --Duk 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

At least add the svg version to the article or the Rocket category and remove the redundant on both, don't leave the svg uncategorized. --Denniss 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just a suggestion :) --Duk

Image:Gemini 12 - Agena Target Docking Vehicle.jpg ...

Oha, da haben wir nun ein paar dutzend Bilder mit der Bildbeschreibung siehe deutsche Wikipedia und dort dann den Schnelllöschbaustein. Da hilft nur Bildbeschreibungsseiten nachzuübertragen, sonst kriegt der Admin der das in der de löschen soll ne Krise. Ich fülle die gerade die dortige Kategorie mit Gletschern und habe daher leider kaum Zeit, das Problem einfach abzuwälzen geht aber auch nicht. --Saperaud 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kannst Dich bei dem bedanken er die Bilder ohne Text kopiert hat, war ja schon dankbar das wenigstens der Link zum Ursprung enthalten war. Hat mich einige Stunden gekostet alle verschobenen Bilder mit NowCommons zu markieren und in Kategorien einzusortieren. In de und en funktioniert das aber ganz gut das der Admin die Bildbeschreibung entweder auf Commons überträgt oder wenigstens lokal wieder herstellt. --Denniss 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Naja Stück für Stück abarbeiten, jede Woche ne Schnelllöschkategorie mit 200 solchen Bildern ist wahrlich keine Freude. Übrigens sind mir da recht viele deiner SLAs über den Weg gelöscht. Wenn du die Zeit hast diese als SLA zu markieren, so wäre es vielleicht auch überlegenswert einen Schritt weiter zu gehen und als Admin zu kandidieren. Je mehr wir aktive Leute haben die in der Lage sind ihren "Müll" selbst wegzuräumen desto eher findet mal jemand Zeit URVs zu löschen. --Saperaud 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

wikiquiz

Hi, I saw you uploaded a new wikiquiz-logo. If you're gonna use it for a wikiquiz-like thing, please tell me, so I can take a look. I'd love to see what happens with it, and to search for inspiration :) greetings, Effeietsanders 21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jackie Stewart after winning the 1971 Monaco Grand Prix.jpg

Hello Denniss. I see you have placed a {{permission}} tag on the above, which states that the permission obtained "does not include third party use". Do I now need to obtain and include such a statement from provider Rainer Nyberg?
Thanks, David Kernow 09:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to have a permission to use a free license like GFDL or cc-by/cc-by-sa, modification and commercial use must be allowed. For more Info please read Commons:Licensing --Denniss 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

uploader asks copyright holder for a free license, please keept this image until end of January --Denniss 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and my apologies for not monitoring this page for your response. What you indicate means that all the Formula 1 images I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will need to be deleted. I have now marked them all with the {{permission}} tag. David Kernow 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:QuinaltSpruce 7246c.jpg

Hi Denniss, thank you for fixing the copyrights on the above image and four others. It is much appreciated. Best wishes for 2006. --Wsiegmund 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Walden69

Sorry, I made a prove with a banner, but it's an error. Don't worry. I make flags with inkscape, but I only have comprove it's right when I upload. In catalan wikipedia "arapaho" has a arapaho flag in commons. —Walden69 11:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cajal-mi.jpg, copyvio?

Why did you put a copyvio warning at this photo? It's a self-made photo by Ramón y Cajal. He died at 1934: these photo is in the public domain. Sanbec 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This image is not self made or are you able to verify this ? Images have a copyright of 70 years PMA means the author/photographer has to be dead for 70 years for the image to be PD. Are you able to verify who took this image, date it was taken and date the photographer died ? If you are able to prove the author/photographer is dead for 70 years then this image should be PD unles local laws say something different (depends on where it was taken). --Denniss 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. If you answer at your talk, I haven't a notice.
  2. Yes, is self made, "autorretrato" means self made portrait. You can see at the source.
  3. I known the spanish law.
  4. When you place a tag on a image description page, please also notify the uploader.

Sanbec 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add a short description in english to avoid confusion in the future! --Denniss 05:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My missing license tags

Thank you for adding license tags to images I've uploaded and forgotten to tag. If you come accross any more please could you use the tag {{user:Thryduulf/cc-by-sa-all}} as that adds the image to my Category:Photos by Chris McKenna - provinding an easy way for me to track my photos. Thanks, Thryduulf 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Niederösterreich Wappen.png, copyvio?

Hello there,

you tagged the image as a copyviolation. I send an email to the Niederösterreichische Government, asking for usage for Wikipedia purposes. They told me to use the image on their website, the link which is provided in the image. Coat of arms are public domain and may not be used for commercial purposes, but enyclopedic purposes are allowed. Therefore I am really confused now, I would appreciate it if you could explain, thanks alot. Gryffindor 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Licensing, commercial reuse must be allowed. If you have a written permission then please add this info to the image discussion or description page. Who told you COA are in PD? This always depends on local laws, nothing in general.--Denniss 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dennisss / Deniss

Hi, I have blocked the user names Dennisss and Deniss for an indefinite time since he/she apparently tries to impersonate you. Thuresson 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Denniss 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:S vs pelton schnitt 1 zoom.png

Guten Abend Denniss, ich habe bei dem Bild oben die GFDL nachgetragen, die aus einem mir nicht erkennbaren Grunde gefehlt hat. In der Diskussion zum Bild ist nochmals die Mail wieder gegeben, mit der mir Voith-Siemens die Verwendung unter der GFDL frei gegeben hat. --Markus Schweiss 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwie kann ich da von GFDL nichts entdecken, ebensowenig die Erlaubnis zur Kommerziellen Weiternutzung als auch zur Veränderung der Bilder. Mag zwar paranoid klingen aber die Bedingungen sowohl für die Commons als auch für de sehen das nun mal vor. --Denniss 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Da kann man unbesorgt sein. Nach einem persönlichem Gespräch mit dem Unternehmen wissen die Verantwortlichen, was sich hinter der Lizenz verbirgt und kennen die Konsequenzen hinsichtlich der Modifizierbarkeit von gespendeten Bildmaterial. --Markus Schweiss 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Juan Belmonte

Hello, the image [Image:1101250105_400.jpg] it'd been used in the [Juan Belmonte] article in Wikipedia in english under this license [Category: Fair use magazine covers] so I just made a modifucation to use the same image in Wikipedia in spanish..., then I see you just propose it to be deleted, this picture is the very same in use in other articles in english wikipedia, I just claim the same rights for wikipedia in spanish that wikipedia in english already have. Please see this case carefully. Thank you. --Rolf obermaier 12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed at the Commons, maybe even not in the spanish wiki. See Commons:Licensing --Denniss 12:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Militar plane breaking speed sound.jpg

Could you please take a look to this image? I think same image is already on Commons, but I couldn't find it. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:FA-18 Hornet breaking sound barrier (7 July 1999).jpg --Denniss 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Palermo panorama.JPG

I see that You marked this image as unknown. I find this image on the italian wp, where the user uploading it givers this comment "foto scattata dall'utente Mattaurizio" which I interpret as foto released by user Mattaurizio. The user is Mattaurizio. I think his/her intent is to release his/her own work for use on wp. Unfortunately the user has not been active long after that, so I don't think there is much chance of getting a response. I don't know if that is enough to consider it GDFL, but I hope so, as it is a picture I would like to use. Haros 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Candian military forces images

Please stop uploading images from these sources and falsely claiming they are yours and PD !! They are for private use only and violating Commons image licensing policy !!

These are MY IMAGES!!! They are not from the Canadian Air Force or any website of the Government of Canada as you claim. Cward 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ah ja clear ..... You or you as IP are placing these images in the en wiki instead of images with source stated as various canadian forces websites. Strangely they are almost all the same images you are stating as yours .... --23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

These photos are not from any Canadian Forces website. If you think otherwise, please go and look. Cward 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to tell us two or three different users at the english wikipedia uploaded your images but stating a wrong source with different national canadian forces? Sorry but this is really unbelievable. And changing the image source at en wiki to different newssites makes them even a copyvio in en, too (not fair use anymore). --Denniss 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot comment on who has uploaded my images to en wiki, as I am a photographer who has shared these images with many others. I also dont appreciate you deleting ALL OF MY IMAGES. If you are claiming that MY IMAGES are from a Government of Canada website, please provide the link and proof. Cward 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked on en.Wikinews

Do not delete images which are in use on en.Wikinews without a good justification. Do not change images which are in use on Wikinews. Deprecating an image standard is not considered a good justification, especially when A) Browsers do not support the use of .svg B) Mediawiki does not support the use of .svg. Commons naming convenstion is not considered a good justification.

- Amgine / talk 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Denniss 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
<grin> I have no authority on Commons, nor interest in it. Just making the comment on your user page here, as per your suggestion on Wikinews. Feel free to continue to make Commons redundant and useless to the WMF projects as you wish. - Amgine 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kategorien bei den Kapitellen von Boyle Abbey

Hallo Denniss, ich bin nicht sehr glücklich über Deine Aktion heute nacht, bei der Du ohne Begründung oder Diskussion ein Schwung von Bildern aus der Kategorie Category:Boyle Abbey/Capital in die neu angelegte Kategorie Category:Capitals of Boyle Abbey verlagert hast. In anderen Fällen, ich erinnere hier an Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Chapiter, wurde es zuvor genauso gehandhabt. Ich erachte Pfade in Kategoriennamen für sinnvoll, wenn Unterkategorien für Teile eines Kunstobjekts angelegt werden, also z.B. für alle Kapitelle einer Abtei oder alle Kapitelle aus einem Buch. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also erstens sind Schrägstriche in Kategorien unüblich und auch eher nicht erwünscht und zweitens habe ich nur einen vom Admin Dbenbenn eingesetzten {{Merge to}} ausgeführt. Wenn Du Dich beschweren willst dann bitte bei ihm. --Denniss 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Denniss, hier geht es nicht um Beschwerden, sondern um ein vernünftiges Arbeiten im Team. Eine der Voraussetzungen dafür ist die Nachvollziehbarkeit von Edits. In diesem Sinne sind solche Edits, wenn sie ohne Text im Summary-Feld oder ohne Kommentare auf den Seiten des Hauptautors erfolgen, nicht sehr höflich. Es ist nicht der einzige Fall, wo ich Kategorien mit Pfaden verwendet habe und andererseits werden sicherlich noch einige Menge Bilder kommen, die einer ähnlichen Struktur unterworfen werden müssen. Damit nicht mit viel Aufwand alles hin und her editiert werden muss, könnte doch so ein Hinweis oder Kontakt ganz praktisch sein, oder? Jetzt haben wir bei Boyle Abbey das Chaos (anderswo wie bei Viollet-le-Duc ebenso, das stammt allerdings nicht von mir) durch unterschiedliche Stile von Kategoriennamen. Soll das so bleiben? Wohl nicht. Deswegen möchte ich Dich ganz herzlich darum bitten, mich auf eine Seite zu verweisen, die die Politik zum Benennen von Kategorien in dieser Hinsicht klärt, oder andernfalls müssen wir nach einem Konsens suchen. Ich kann mit vielen Lösungen leben, aber Inkonsistenzen fände ich bedauerlich. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:48_Mercury_convert.jpg

May I ask why you reverted the license of this picture back to noncommercial? Did you overlook my edit summary? --Dschwen 13:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, you are making my life harder than it needs to be the whole 3D Illustration crap has already wasted days of my life. --Dschwen 10:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You should ask yourself why you did upload several images tagged as non-commercial to the Commons, violating the image licensing policy here .... Please ask the uploader on en to remove the non-commercial restrictions and all is fine. If he doesn't then I'll retag them with noncommerial again and mark them for deletion. --Denniss 01:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You should ask yourself, why you are intervening without bothering to check the huge discussion going on at en:Wikipedia_talk:3D_Illustrations and en:User_talk:3dnatureguy etc. Just chill, the pictures on en are meant for deletion anyways, so why bother with them? Give it a few days please. The original uploader 3dnatureguy (alias navtiveborncal) is a wiki newbie. The pics in question were his first contributions. After these he licensed everything with GFDL. The whole thing is a huge mess in any case and a few people (amongst them me) are spending considerable time sorting it out. So I ask you again to please hold off for a few days. Thank you. --Dschwen 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Coats of arm of Savoie

Bonjour,

Vous avez décidé de remplacer Image:Blason Savoie Ancien.png par Image:Blason73.PNG. Je ne suis pas contre le fait de supprimer les images redondantes, mais pourquoi lui attribuer un nom correspondant à un département de très loin postérieur au comté de Savoie. De plus, en France, les armoiries des département n'ont pas de valeur officielle et sont plutôt donné de manière indicative.

Donc, pourquoi avoir choisi ce nom pour le blason ? Odejea 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Et attention, il y avait sur commons des liens vers Image:Blason Savoie Ancien.png :

Odejea 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion duplicates

Hi Denniss, I noticed you are tagging lots of image duplicates as speedy deletes. Thanks for doing this dirty grunt work! :) I was wondering how you find them? Because I have a look at the uploader's contribs sometimes and it doesn't look like they contact you. So is it sheer luck, or mind-reading ability maybe...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I usually tag them as speedy if the uploader uploads images twice or with a different name during a short time. Typically images/photographs are easier to checkusage and to tag as speedy than flags/Coa. --Denniss 09:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of, I hope you are reading Commons:Village pump/Policy proposal:No deletion of improved versions of images? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter? How I categorize the images I download? I don't know how ? Walden69 17:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cambodia.svg

Hi. You marked this for deletion as redundant to Image:Flag of Cambodia.svg, but the flags are distinctly different shades. Are you happy to only keep the second one, which is rather more "pink" than "red"? For now, I've removed the deletion tag. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Marking PNGs as redundant to SVGs for deletion

Hi Denniss, the policy is not clear at that these PNGs (such as Image:Chimbote flag.png) should be deleted. So I'm going to remove them from CAT:CSD and list them on this page: User:Pfctdayelise/Duplicates. If a clear policy emerges that such images should be deleted, I'll happily delete them then, but until then I'm going to be cautious. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Denniss. Have you read Commons:Village_pump#No_more_unilateral_deletion_decisions? I strongly suggest that you don't mark any more PNG images for speedy deletion as "redundant" to SVGs until there is a clear guideline or policy on this. At the moment there is not and it is unnecessarily upsetting for local project users. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

US Navy photos

Hello. As for Image:HIJMS Kirishima 02.jpg - this is probably a work of a Japanese sailor, not employed by the US Navy, so how can it be described as a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties.. It is only a photograph collected by US Navy and described as: To the best of our knowledge, the pictures provided in the Online Library of Selected Images are all in the Public Domain. Therefore I believe we shouldn't mark them as "work of US govt", or we should change text on this template. Pibwl 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sibiu.png

Hello,

I've seen that you have tagged Image:Sibiu.png as own work. It is GFDL and here is the explination that I also added on the talk page:

We have had the same discussion related to Image:Sibiu in Romania.png which is a similar map, with a different color scheme, and you can find the discussion here. The most important thing is this:
Actually, the cartographyt is based on a map made by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which is in Public Domain: the first one (political) I processed that map and converted it into a vectorial image which I used to create all the maps of Romania I uploaded. bogdan | Talk 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

So I hope this clears it all, and we can let the GFDL tag that Bogdan decided to use. Orioane 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cambodia.svg again

Hi. It may indeed be that this image has the wrong colours, but determining that is a non-trivial matter. Different coloured flags may be useful for different purposes, eg print vs screen. I would prefer it to be listed at COM:DEL if you think it really, absolutely 100% must be deleted. Personally I would mark it with a note explaining why you think the colours are incorrect and with a link to the 'better' one. Cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jal.747.newcolours.arp.JPG

Isn't it better to keep the version that doesn't make mention of the file dimensions, ie keep this one and delete Image:Jal.747.newcolours.arp.750pix.jpg? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should the old image be deleted just because it has been uploaded under a different name? It is widely used under the old name, there's no problem with the filename used. --Denniss 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, good point. I didn't check the usage of the other one. I agree. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

angebliche Copyvio

Hallo Denniss, seit wann ist denn ein Bild unter CC-By-SA-2.5 bei uns eine Urheberrechtsverletzung? Ich denke, da liegst du falsch und du hast die Angabe einfach übersehen. Bitte kontrolliere deshalb alle deine Edits, das musst du schon selber übernehmen. Konkreter Anlass: ich wunderte mich über diesen Edit von dir. Gruß, -- Schusch 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

tja, keinerlei Aktion deinerseits ... tsts ... ich habe deinen unberechtigten "copyvio"-Vermerk dann mal wieder entfernt. Du solltest lernen, zu deinen Fehlern zu stehen. Aber es könnte ja auch sein, dass du das hier übersehen hast. -- Schusch 11:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Airliner Images

I have the statement from the author of Air France 777 pics (Philippe Noret): "Phil" <pnoret@wanadoo.fr> delage32@voila.fr 15/01/06 à 19h13 RE:

Reply-To: <pnoret@wanadoo.fr> From: "Phil" <pnoret@wanadoo.fr> To: <delage32@voila.fr> Subject: RE: Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:13:27 +0100

bonjour dans un 1er temps, je ne vois pas d'inconvenient à continuer notre collaboration. au vue de la resolution des photos figurants sur le site (c'est la le danger) elles sont inexploitables pour toutes autres editions de taille superieure, mais il existe des cons partout ;-) par contre, je vais transmettre à mon avocat (obligé, qd l'on a faire a des sans-genes) afin d'avoir son avis sur la question. je vs tiens au courant cordialement Phil



Message d'origine-----

De : delage32@voila.fr [1] Envoyé : dimanche 15 janvier 2006 13:06 À : pnoret@wanadoo.fr Objet :


Bonjour, je vous réecris (en fait c'est le 3eme mail que je fais, je soupçonne mon ancienne boite mail de ne pas envoyer mes messages :( ) au sujet de l'autorisation que vous m'aviez donné pour l'utilisation de vos photos sur wikipédia. J'ai beaucoup utilisé vos réalisations pour illustrer divers articles comme par exemple: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777_29009/263 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777_29011/314 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France Meme le wikipédia anglais les utilise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 !!!! Cependant, les clauses d'utilisation d'images sur Wikipédia ont quelque peu changées. En effet, les contributeurs sont aujourd'hui obligés d'importer des images à licence libre. L'une des licences libres la mieux adaptée à vos images serait la licence Créative commons dont vous pouvez lire les conditions ici: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/ Vous l'aurez compris, cette licence permet l'utilisation libre de vos images avec pour seule restriction la mention de l'auteur (en l'occurence votre nom). Je comprends qu'il puisse paraitre délicat de mettre ses images sous licence libre (notamment si vous souhaitez en tirer profit). Je voulais donc savoir si vous me laissiez toujours l'autorisation de mettre vos images dans wikipédia sous les termes des clauses ci-dessus. Si vous me donnez votre accord, les images que j'uploaderais sur wikipédia deviendront donc libres, si vous refusez, je serais malheurement obligé de retirer vos photos de wikipédia et des articles qu'elles illustrent.Si vous préférez, on peut meme aménager l'accord que nous avions passé, en limitant l'autorisation que vous me donnez à certaines images que vous aurez au préalable séléctionnées et dont vous accepterez la licence libre. En réalité, mes besoins en matière de photos seraient de une par avion (je fais une fiche par avion, j'ai déjà réalisé toutes celles sur les 777 d'AF). si vous voulez me donner une autorisation partielle.

En vous remerçiant d'avance et en espérant pouvoir continuer à illustrer wikipédia de vos photos d'exeption

Alexandre Delage

Eyone 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Market data

Hallo Denniss! Nur falls es dich interessiert: ich habe den Löschantrag für die Bilder in Category:Market data erledigt, die noch verwendeten in Category:Market data/inuse wie gewünscht verschont. --Gruß Crux 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories vs articles

as a reply to a not on my talk page:

I moved some of the pictures to a category because they didn't had one or the category was to general, categories are the only way to find pictures, manual created articles need a lot of maintenance and don't work automatically. It seems some others already disagree with you in this matter so please keep the pictures in ther right place. --Henristosch 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:100 6677.jpg

Servus! Hast du bei deinem Schnelllöschantrag für dieses Bild wirklich überprüft, ob das Bild "unused" war? Dazu gibt's nämlich Commons:Tools/Check-Usage. Ich hab das Bild sowohl auf nl.wikipedia als auch auf en.wikipedia noch gefunden. Bitte, in Zukunft wirklich an allen Stellen die Bildlinks austauschen. Danke --Franz Xaver 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Logoboy95

Thanks. I blocked him for 2 weeks since I am not really familiar with the whole blocking thing, but from the discussion on COM:DEL I think he will be blocked permanently. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. His IP user page is/was here: User:71.14.102.85 --Denniss 02:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:AV-8A.jpeg

Hello Denniss. You added no source tag to this picture. You are, of course, right... it's my mistake, I forgot about the source information. Now I have small problem with this picture, because I know the source (www.usmc.mil), whilst this site temporarily is not working. Similar to this sites www.navy.mil and www.army.mil are working properly, then I think that it is problem with usmc site. Question is that: information about source www.usmc.mil is sufficient or I must add exact link to this picture? Regards, Voytek s 14:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please always add as much info as possible if using images from US military sites. It is requested to use the given image caption (at least the part directly relating to the image) and a link where you found this image. Very often these image got a unique image number (usually to be found in image caption). I still have some of these images to be moified with source etc myself and I am trying to do this as soon as I find them. Links may be moved/removed but the unique image number should be enough for the image to be indentifyable --Denniss 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Denniss. In regards to Image:AV-8A.jpeg, if you don't trust this image to be from the US Military, can't you please list it at commons:Deletion requests? I trust the source to be the US Military, so I don't see the point of the {{no source}} template. / Fred Chess 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)