Broichmore

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Broichmore!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- 06:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC Joyce Green site map 1911 airfield edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hiya,

thumb

I saw your request for a digitized version of the RFC Joyce Green map. I'm not sure what the copyright restrictions are on that map you uploaded, but if it's helpful, I've colored it and converted it into a vector format. This is my first time trying to make graphics for the commons, so please let me know if this is of any help at all. --Sinclairsolutions (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sinclairsolutions and Sinclairsolutions: Thanks for the great map. Yes we have to replace the original map file. I have done a lot of research recently and discovered a number of inaccuracies in it; which works in our favour. Please e-mail me and I will send you the results of my research. Best regards --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:RFC Joyce Green site map 1911 airfield.jpg edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:RFC Joyce Green site map 1911 airfield.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:RFC Joyce Green site map 1911 airfield.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Green Giant (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Kane Churko 2016.png edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kane Churko 2016.png. 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:Kane Churko 2016.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Rongxian Giant Buddha - Flickr 7020610761 67a8990828 o.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Rongxian Giant Buddha - Flickr 7020610761 67a8990828 o.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Elisfkc (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Rongxian Giant Buddha Flickr 6874487744 e83d48fe27 o.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Rongxian Giant Buddha Flickr 6874487744 e83d48fe27 o.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Elisfkc (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rongxian Giant Buddha edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry，I had not notice any chimney below the Buddha, maybe it was destroyed.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your DR edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, just FYI: I moved your DR to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albrecht dürer salvator mundi.JPG, in case you've had the page on your watchlist. Regards, --Achim (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

ManFromNord (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Blue Funnel Line house flag.png edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Blue Funnel Line house flag.png. 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Sitush (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Straits Steamship company house flag.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Straits Steamship company house flag.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Sitush (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Marion Line company flag.png edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marion Line company flag.png. 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Sitush (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Marion Inglis in 1910.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Marion Inglis in 1910.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Sitush (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

bs files edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi BeckenhamBear,

You send me an email about a deletion request, I prefer to handle these concerns onwiki. The files File:Emilio_Car_side.jpg and File: Janine.jpg are in use on a wiki and therefore I think they are in Commons:Scope. Basvb (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

They are on User Talk pages, they have no place on the Wiki per policy --BeckenhamBear (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Popotla gateway on the main road driving North 2005 57316340 3814dc4469.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Popotla gateway on the main road driving North 2005 57316340 3814dc4469.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Majora (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Fox Studios Baja 50800739 97a478a616.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Fox Studios Baja 50800739 97a478a616.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Majora (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Fox Studios Baja 2792956704 9014e261c5.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Fox Studios Baja 2792956704 9014e261c5.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Majora (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Fox Studios Baja 6793469 19f8a2a961.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Fox Studios Baja 6793469 19f8a2a961.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Majora (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Where Titanic sunk seen from Popotla 2005 57319702 ce8832f471.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Where Titanic sunk seen from Popotla 2005 57319702 ce8832f471.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Where Titanic sunk seen from Popotla 2005 57319702 ce8832f471.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

And also:

Yours sincerely, Majora (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

please use highest resolution available when uploading files edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you edit an image like File:Chapel Saint-Maurice "Memorial Walthère Dewé" 2011 P1030327.jpg please use the highest resolution available. I have overwritten your file with the full resolution image rotated by 2 degrees. -- Common Good (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

How did you achieve it? Where do you think I went wrong? Whatever I did the file size went from 737kb to 177kb, yours increased to 1.29mb. I attempted to recreate what I had done (using Windows Photo Editor) and my file size went from 737kb to 808kb. Should I be using Windows Photo Editor, I assumed it was lossless. What should I use, All I want to do is fine rotation and cropping (with a grid as a guide). Any help would be useful? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:The Bridge of HMS Canterbury 1918 IWM ART 1311.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:The Bridge of HMS Canterbury 1918 IWM ART 1311.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/Sun Pier, Chatham edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there,

In cases like this, where it's an obvious mistake that you (the original creator) want deleted, it's usually okay to tag it as {{Speedy}} without having to put it through a deletion request.

Just make this clear in the reason; something like "Original author/uploader requests deletion; created in error."

Hope this helps,

Ubcule (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Category for paintings of naval battles edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Broichmore. You have just changed the category of "Paintings of naval battles by Nicholas Pocock" from "Marine paintings by Nicholas Pocock" to just "Nicholas Pocock". Not a big deal, really, but still - what was your reason? I hope you agree on the definition of "Marine paintings" as paintings that portray the sea. Marine paintings are one of the 11 genres of paintings on Commons, so care should be taken to include all subcategories herein. And I believe that paintings of naval battles is a proper subcategory. So the move you have made distorts this system. Maybe you were not aware of this, or maybe you disagree, but please state your reasons. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this concept to my attention. Is there a policy (guidelines) somewhere? I decided to have a crack at organizing NP yesterday there was a significant number of images outside of his existing cats, so I added them in. The great majority of his work is Naval Battle (120), then straight forward peacetime? maritime (77), and 49 (portraits, notes, maps, partial landscapes, misc.). I re-allocated battles to NP because that is his main body of work. Frankly for Pocock I would have had only 1 cat, despite him being profligate, he is largely almost exclusively Maritime. I have had a look at [Category:Marine_paintings]. Unwittingly I seem to have followed the spirit of this hierarchical structure. Marine paintings by artist is at the same level as Paintings of naval battles or not? This is a minefield; Drawings (he did some) are at the same level as Paintings, yet he has no cat for that. More importantly I don't see cats for Watercolours or Works after (the artist) to cover engravings, Lithographs, aquatints etc. done by others. Both of which are important during his period. Interested in your thoughts? The more I think about it below the artist level the cats should all be at the same level, unless they have to be split by decade or year. Broichmore (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, you're not the only one looking for guidelines here - I've been there too. I have written a short introduction in the discussion for Category:Marine art. Marine art is the root, then you have marine paintings, marine drawings, marine prints etc. side by side. Below them you have - relevant for this artist - paintings of naval battles, drawings of naval battles and prints of naval battles. And for Pocock you need to use the categories with the addition "by Nicholas Pocock". It will quickly become a lot of categories, and the point is that you only create them if there is enough relevant material for them. So, some of the NP categories have not been made yet - feel free to do so. Watercolours count as paintings. Prints made after NP's paintings and drawings can be credited to him. I did not check, but if there are paintings made in his style, but not by him, they should have a category as "Works after Nicholas Pocock". Marine art is a very popular subject, and people upload works in the strangest places. It would be nice to have some help arranging it all - if you should feel the urge. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open! edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Broichmore,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Category: Black Star Line edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @Broichmore: why did you removed the category Category:Black Star Line from images of the Yarmouth? Looking forward to your repsonse. MassiveEartha (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Black Star Line (BSL) as a cat was removed from those images because they all pertain to Yarmouth (ship, 1887). The Yarmouth (ship, 1887) is now a sub cat of the BSL. This is in preparation to my issuing an article about the ship: Yarmouth (ship, 1887) which was the flagship of the BSL. Do you want to read it? Broichmore (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

your mysterious messages on my talk page edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please would you explain what you are talking about. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Broichmore: Just tell me what you are on about that relates to me. Eddaido (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list) edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Simple question: Can you put some white lines in the text? It reads more comfortable. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a go, thanks. Broichmore (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It works, thanks. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737778 b6724f1e5d.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737778 b6724f1e5d.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737779 ecd2545d92.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737779 ecd2545d92.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737780 334794da8f.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737780 334794da8f.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 51741317 3a4d1fd45d.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 51741317 3a4d1fd45d.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 Ships specs 51735469 1f8482cdb0.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 Ships specs 51735469 1f8482cdb0.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 coming down from aloft 51741316 b09e54181a.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 coming down from aloft 51741316 b09e54181a.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 coming into Baltimore 51741315 265eec262c.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 coming into Baltimore 51741315 265eec262c.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 figurehead 51735470 c552e1fe59.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 figurehead 51735470 c552e1fe59.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 full sails 51735473 18b592a9c5.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 full sails 51735473 18b592a9c5.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 furling the sails 51741314 a7a0a14306.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 furling the sails 51741314 a7a0a14306.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 staysail 51737782 81300ac15d.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 staysail 51737782 81300ac15d.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 stern 51735471 6ed0c47787.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 stern 51735471 6ed0c47787.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 straight down 51737781 f482fb1036.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 straight down 51737781 f482fb1036.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 sunset 51741313 1ce7fb7cd6.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 sunset 51741313 1ce7fb7cd6.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 sweating a line 51737783 f7d82d2e4b.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 sweating a line 51737783 f7d82d2e4b.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Rose - 2000 wet decks 51741312 761149596c.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Rose - 2000 wet decks 51741312 761149596c.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Personal attacks edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have maintained politeness throughout our discussion despite your personal attacks. I have asked you repeatedly to stop your personal attacks. If you persist, I have no choice but to seek appropriate action. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I strongly suggest you re-read all that's been said on the matter, in an ambivalent way and reconsider. I for my part have been perfectly polite, if I've been blunt it's because you forced the issue. Your the one making it personal. Nobody has backed you on this change to the category. -Broichmore (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:HMS Surprise (replica ship) poop deck in 2006 121031243 cff4a121aa.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Surprise (replica ship) poop deck in 2006 121031243 cff4a121aa.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:HMS Surprise (replica ship) poop deck in 2006 121031243 cff4a121aa.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 03:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737778 b6724f1e5d.jpg edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:HMS Rose - 2000 51737778 b6724f1e5d.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:HMS Impregnable (establishment) edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:HMS Impregnable (establishment) is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G7 (author blanked, no other edits); COM:CSD#C3 (empty)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Dost Mohammad Khan, Nawab of Bhopal.jpg edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Dost Mohammad Khan, Nawab of Bhopal.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Waiting for PD to arrive edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You propose: upload an image which is not yet publick domain; let it be deleted; come back when the PD deadline has passed and request undeletion. I feel this approach is fragile and might even be deemed a mis-use of Commons. I have just done a check on the English Wikipedia: for all images deleted before a certain date, the file itself has been fully deleted, ie. beyond the scope of any admin. restoration. The image description and any edits to it are still there - they take up a lot less space than files. The cut-off point when I looked just now is about 2006-06-16 03:40. I don't have admin rights on Commons so I cannot say if similar is happening here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Johan Erik Christian Petersen edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Broichmore. Thanks for your fine uploads of works by this rather elusive marine painter. As you can see, I have done a slight rearrangement of the category you made for him, because he was already there (under his real name). We can not always trust galleries to get it right, and for a Dane it is easier to get to the proper Danish sources. Hope this does not upset you, and again thanks for your fine work on all things naval. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I did look for variations in spelling, but missed this one, thanks for sorting it out. I have uploaded some more images. As your aware the Gallery stateside names him John, I think the majority of the pictures I've uploaded (if not all) were probably painted in the USA. Regards Broichmore (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now the American way of spelling his name has been added to Wikidata. Hopefully that means he will now be found in searches like yours. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Broichmore/sandbox edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here, now you have your own personal sandbox. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great Tea Race edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Briochmore I've added the ILN image of Taeping at File:'Taeping' and 'Ariel' in the Great Tea Race of 1866.jpg. It's the first upload that I have made to Commons and I know that I will not have got into the right way of titling and describing the image (though I think that the licensing is right). Please feel free to amend anything and/or let me know on my EN:WP talk page. Thanks. Davidships (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, don't see anything wrong with it. Looks perfect, I think the artist was en:Harrison Weir See en:File:The_Wren's_Nest_-_Harrison_William_Weir_-_1881.jpg. Broichmore (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Davidships (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Davidships and Davidships: Just ascertained the author is here at Category:Edwin Weedon, you can see the exact signature in several engravings. No doubt about it this time. Broichmore (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Template Artwork edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Broichmore. I could really use your support in this discussion. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Artwork#Use_of_parameter_%22other_versions%22 Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Broichmore,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's Wiki Loves Monuments time again! edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Broichmore!

You are receiving this message because you have previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in India. We would be very delighted if you would do so again this year, help record our monuments for future generations and win exciting prizes.

You can find more details in this page. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
(on behalf of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in India team)--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:Portsmouth, Virginia Path of History edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If you continue to violate the COM:CAT policy by placing this category in a parent and child category, you will be blocked. Compliance with policy is not subject to discussion at an individual talk page. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you wish it to be only in Category:Portsmouth, Virginia, that's fine. I have no opinion on the question, so I won't offer any comments on why it's wise or why it's not wise. The only problem is having it in both categories simultaneously. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

George Weedon Grave Marker Image edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You added the category "George Weedon" to the image File:George Weedon Centennial Grave Marker.jpg, however, the grave marker says George Weedon died in 1842. The category about George Weedon references 1793 deaths. This is not the same person. Regards Nv8200p (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Broichmore (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2019! edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

Thank you so much for contributing to the UK section of this year's Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which finished yesterday. We really do appreciate the time and effort you've put in to record the UK's built cultural heritage for future generations.

Your contribution has been been added to our collections here on Wikimedia Commons, and is already available for editors to make use of on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It has also been entered into this year's contest. If you'd like to see your own images, just click on the uploads link at the top right of this page (if you don't see it, click on the Log in option first).

We've received over 10,000 UK entries this year, and it will take a few weeks for our volunteers and professional judges to decide on the final top 10. The winners will be announced by the end of this month, both here on Wikimedia Commons and also on the competition website.

The top 10 UK images will go forward to the international section where they will compete against winners from some 50 other countries. The international winners should be announced here in December.

Don't forget, by the way, that if you're hoping to win a prize in the contest it's essential that you have enabled email in your Wikimedia preferences. If you haven't, you're not eligible to win. If you're unsure, please check here.

Once again, many thanks for your help! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ships named Melampus edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Ships named Melampus is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD GA2 (gallery created by mistake): They intended to create a category (per page creation summary). And also GA3 applies here.

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Masum Reza^📞 06:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also please archive your talk page. I am using mobile now and the length of this talk page isn't making my life easier. Masum Reza^📞 06:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dead categories edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are frequently adding categories to files they does not exist. I do not know if they are added wrong or if you just forgot to create them. You should just be aware of this and take care. Thanks. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019! Please help with this survey. edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Broichmore,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Participant Survey (Reminder) edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Broichmore,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrol given edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- ~riley (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

A very broad category is to be avoided (examine its subcategories using specialist tools available if possible please) edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Sailing barges and a steamer, with a power station in the distance RMG PV1680.jpg" should have been put into River Thames in art, even if not drilling down beneath that into any applicable sub-category. I am not particularly fussy myself about this sort of thing. But other editors rightly make categorisation a fine art, it is better to look first then jump in, i.e. try using the + - tools before you just click on a big category; otherwise you are creating work for fellow people just like me you and everyone else, when we would rather be delving into subcategories and other stuff. Thanks.Adam37 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Adam37: It was left in the broad category because categorisation is incomplete, the power station has not been identified. Also I'm not a fan of over diffusion of a subject by creating too many sub categories, though the Thames (I do agree) is a good candidate. Broichmore (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

reverted edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Evening, just to let you know this: is back as it was. Apologies for the inconvenience. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss before you delete active categories edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Broichmore. So sad to see our latest edits concerning Category:Oil marine paintings by Carl Locher, Category:Marine paintings by Carl Locher, Category:Paintings of ships by Jens Thielsen Locher and others. You may have your ideas about "diffusion of categories", but it would be more polite and following the spirit of Wikipedia to discuss such sweeping changes with other members of the community. What you have done now is casting aside your colleagues' work through months and years, making your edits seem more like vandalism. Please revert them and let us have the discussion. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Broichmore. Can see that you are continuing on this disputed road of action concerning categories. Look, there is a reason why we have a system of "Categories for discussion". It is meant exactly for a situation like this, where somebody wants to remove or radically change categories. You should use it - and please revert your edits in this field, and please do not make any more of this kind - you are bordering on vandalism. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rsteen and Rsteen: It take time to respond to this!!!

Forgive my rudeness. However here you have a painter who paints marine subjects in oil. I don't think there are more than 60 paintings represented here. With one exception they are all marine pictures. There's debatably another sub category covering ships, actually I'm being generous to him in even ascribing that to him, he has no interest in identifying, or detailing the ships he paints; they are purely incidental. Only one was painstakingly accurate (painted against a debt), and he even refused to sign it. Only six ships in pictures are possible to identify by name, the rest are effectively seascapes.

I realize he's Danish and therefore one of your pets. I realize it's a big ask to implore you to be objective here as you have invested heavily in his work. He's linked into a wider variety of main cat headings than any other marine painter here, possibly even more than Turner.

In all he had 9 categories
Carl Locher
Portraits of Carl Locher
Paintings by Carl Locher
Paintings of seascapes by Carl Locher
Marine paintings by Carl Locher
Oil marine paintings by Carl Locher
Paintings of ships by Carl Locher
Oil paintings of ships by Carl Locher
Google Art Project works by Carl Locher

How can this many be justified? Sketches: none. Etchings : none. Watercolours: none. Same ship / same picture: only one and its unidentifiable. Landscapes: one. Night scene: maybe two or three.

They are all oil paintings

I left it as 4 sub cats.
1. Portraits of Carl Locher, this shouldn't even exist, the paintings should be in Carl Locher.
2. Paintings by Carl Locher, there are only 44 images here. They are all marine except three; one a landscape (so it should be in Carl Locher), a fire, and another a night scene but it does have water in it. As for the rest they are all debatably seascapes, almost all in the daytime (apart from three nightscapes, and a further three in the evening).
3. Only six ship's pictures are possible to identify by name, the rest are effectively seascapes. He's really an impressionistic marine painter, and an extraordinary one at that.
4. "Google Art Project works by Carl Locher" hold three files. This should really be a hidden category, it's useless really, except to a curator, for attribution? They don't even own the pictures. Flickr is a hidden cat and so should be Google.

Go back to Turner we have 1200 or so images. Locher has 66 images and a ratio of three times more cats devoted to him than Turner. Broichmore (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Broichmore. You do not seem to understand that we should have this discussion before you decided to make all your far reaching changes. No, I do not agree with your points - otherwise I would not have participated in setting up the categories as they were - but that is not the issue here. We have rules for behaviour on Wikipedia and Commons and we should respect the work of our colleagues. You show lack of respect for the rest of the community and therefore I ask you again to revert your edits. --Rsteen (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rsteen and Rsteen: Forgive me I had not noticed you (or anyone else) were the architect of a scheme here, and had I noticed I would have done (touched base with you). You do know that I hold you in great esteem, I've proven that in the past. Please advise what you think the scheme should be rather than the above, a marine painting is a seascape. A seascape is a marine painting. A ship on water from a distance is a seascape. I don't think there are more than six pictures here that have any historical date or special significance to assign to them; irregardless of how fine a painter he is that's not in dispute. This is just sea, sea, and sea apart from one or two pictures and a handful of portraits of the man. These pictures are a simple story to the eye. Broichmore (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes Broichmore, we have collaborated fine in the past, but this is not about who set up the present structure, it is about respect for your colleagues - no matter who they are. We usually have a point in making our edits, and most editors are willing to discuss that. So the correct starting point would be for you to revert your edits and put down your proposals in Categories for discussion - and we will take it from there. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rsteen and Rsteen: Respect, yes, I have apologized twice already, and I have given you a very detailed rationale for the scheme I have used here. To be honest I didn't need to say sorry; it was unrecognisablethat there was a scheme in the first place. There were duplicated cats IMO, some nested from sight, as well as cats leading into each other and back again. None of them were deleted, merely redirected. The scheme is now better than it was, and to change it would be vandalism as opposed to bordering on it. What value is there in moving paintings (all of which are in oil) from Paintings of ships by Carl Locher to Oil paintings of ships by Carl Locher. Please, I implore you, tell me that. Do you seriously want to debate this in an open forum, where every nutcase and troll can have their two cents. You do brilliant work, but in this instance you've not served Locher well. Best regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

So, no reverting. For my part. This discussion ends here. --Rsteen (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good day! I have noticed that you are working with uncategorized files but as a result of corrections you are relocating these files to the main category. Please consider the new destination in more specific categories (like books, drawings, prints, etc.) of Rijksmuseum collections. I think it would be much more better keep the main category clean. --Vasyatka1 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's Wiki Loves Monuments time again! edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome to

Wiki Loves Monuments 2020
India

Hello Broichmore!

From September 1 to September 30, 2020, Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest photography competition of the world, will take place for the tenth time. And guess what! India is going to participate in the event again this year. You might remember this event as you had participated in one of the previous editions. We will be very delighted to see you take part in the competition again, help record our monuments for future generations and win exciting prizes! You can find more details in this page.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
(on behalf of Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in India team)
Sent through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Email edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did you attempt to send me an email. I got a notification but nothing arrived. Can you repeat it or put it on my talkpage here or on en:wikipedia. My best email address is clemrutter at bcs.org.uk. Cheers --ClemRutter (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Sea Witch" clipper ship sailing card you posted in 2019 edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

SEA WITCH Clipper ship sailing card

Neglected to mention...My best email address is: windships@earthlink.net Because I don't visit WikiMedia Commons often, perhaps you would be so kind as to reply to me via email, unless you prefer not to. Thanks once again.

Hello,

I am a "vessel historian" and builder of scale ship models. 'Assisting a friend and colleague with research about the clipper ship of this name, built at East Boston, Mass in 1872. She is a different "Sea Witch" than the vessel of the same name, built earlier (1853).

We thank you for posting this image of a clipper ship sailing card for the "Sea Witch" of our interest.

We are wondering if you can tell us the provenance or source of the image. For example, do you own an original card? Did you pick up the image from somewhere else on the Web? Or, perhaps a friend or institution provided the opportunity to scan the image?

You note on your post that no higher resolution is available, which suggest you found it as a secondary source. It would be ideal to get a higher resolution image somehow, because it is almost impossible to read the smaller text on the card, even upon further magnification, as with, say Picasa.

[Although I contribute to support Wikipedia, this is my very first posting to Wikimedia, so thank you for bearing with me.]

Thank you for whatever information or guidance you might provide. And, thank you again for your exceptional generosity is making your collection of images available.WINDSHIPS (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

WINDSHIPS

@WINDSHIPS: Sorry I can't help much. The file was from a secondary source, to the best of my knowledge a throwaway auction site, namely picclick. I have further deciphered the card, but can't confirm a year for it; see File:SEA WITCH Clipper ship sailing card.jpg. I think the card is probably from the 1880's and the Captain John Henry Drew. Seems almost certain that it is the ‘SEA WITCH’ Built 1872. Wood ship of 1288 Tons. Length; 197 ft. Breadth; 37 ft. Depth; 24 ft. Built at East Boston for E. Lawrence. Think the printer is Rogers & Sherwood, New York. Hopefully your research will confirm, if interested. Meanwhile I have uploaded a photo of the ship in question. Let me know what comes up, please. Broichmore (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Broichmore: Not sure I'm doing this correctly. Thank you VERY MUCH for this useful reply. Knowing the printer may get us to an example of the card. I did go to picclick earlier, and will try there again. This is the SEA WITCH we are researching. I'll look for the photo you posted. So far, we have only found one verifiable photo, so hopefully "yours" will be new to us. User:WINDSHIPS

@WINDSHIPS: piclick does not archive image files and google etc do not scrape and archive their images. Currently [this photo is doing the rounds], its apparently dated 1967, which if true means its subject to copywrite, and its provenance is unclear, you would certainly need to know that for permission to use it. That's on the basis, of course, it's the ship you want; you would need a confirm on that too. PS: You sign your posts with four ~'s. I suggest you try the Maine maritime museums. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why Karaman edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding the Karaman category, to which I myself will contribute several pictures taken in that town, I was utterly nonplussed finding your curious picture.

The tragedy of the seas; or, Sorrow on the ocean, lake, and river, from shipwreck, plague, fire and famine (1848) (14763280232)

It's a nice picture with a good story, butː Karaman is landlocked, I found no reference to the plaque, yet you added it to this category. What made you do so? If it is a mistake, I suggest you correct it. If it makes sense, what sense? If the latter, I'd suggest you add the story somewhere, so people can understand. Maybe you'll rewrite Karaman history, but I doubt that. Kindest regards, Dosseman (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dosseman: I confused it, with Karamania. Thanks. Broichmore (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Category:HMS_San_Josef_(ship,_1797) edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HMS San Josef (ship, 1797) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Blue Elf (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrol given edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Midilli edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Yavuz and Midilli in İstinye, 1916

Hi. What about "Midilli"? Do we have a policy on ship names? Breslau (2x) - Midilli none? --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@E4024: I'm not sure of what your concern is? What do you want to achieve?

We have 4? images of the Midilli. If it's the same ship as SMS Breslau (ship, 1911) I would file them there... I don't see any justification for making two categories for under 20 or 30 files. I'm not a fan of over diffusion of images. It's easy to see what's what with the eye in one category; more than one starts to obfuscate (hide) şaşırtmak (gizle) images and understanding... en:SMS Breslau has a link to commons.

There are several options available. You could put in a redirect to Breslau from Midilli (ship, 1914), or since you have more than one file for it you could make a cat for it, and link the two together. I would keep it all in the one. --Broichmore (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

What is the consensus? Former name or latter name? What about Yavuz and Goeben? --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@E4024: Most famous, best known. I always defer to the English Wikipedia article. Broichmore (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh! The place that threw me out but follows my articles in other WPs to import them, using my images. The very reliable temple of objectivity. Thanks for your time. Bye. --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

My way edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What I want to achieve is consensus; if I wanted to achieve my preferences on cats, or anything else, I would simply try to impose them. Go look at "Categories for discussion"; although I stayed away one year, I am sure I opened the most discussions there in the last few years. That is because I want to do things with consensus. Please let's close this here. Some places you mention irritate me. Bye. --E4024 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

November 5th.jpg edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I am courious: What was the rationale to overwrite the lossless crop of File:November 5th.jpg by user:Fæ and user:Pigsonthewing with a lossy crop that has 6times the file size? --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at the history of the file? Broichmore (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is why I am asking. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree the improvement on definition is minimal though cropping of the frame is better. I reinstalled Gimp but still come back with similar results. So the file is bigger as it should be, in theory. What swayed it for me was the minimal gains, and project views on file sizing justified the change. Popularity of the image seemed to demand perfection. Pigsonthewing was consulted. Would you prefer that the frame was left intact which would be my preferred option? Have you cropped it yourself, what was the result? --Broichmore (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The file size does not matter with respect to memory usage. It is however a strong indication, that you added a large number of artefacts. Pigonthewing's assessment was made before you uploaded the crop. Fae's crop was nearly lossless, Pigeonthewing's crop was lossless, your crop has the dimensions of Fae's (reverted) crop, but more artefacts than Fae's crop. If artefacts were no problem, than why was Fae's crop reverted at all? Of course artefacts do smooth an image, giving it a nicer look, but artefacts create information, that was not in the orignal. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@C.Suthorn: Interesting. I defer to your experience; do what you must, please. fae used the built in crop tool. The original concern, seems to be that cropping should increase file size, an opinion I have seen before on these pages. I have to say, that agrees with my past experiences with cropping, using the crop tool, photoshop and earlier versions of GIMP. My spot inspection seemed to indicate an improved definition (though marginal). My only real concern is if GIMP is malfunctioning/bugged? Is it? Should I be using it, and if so, not use the crop tool? Grateful for your opinion? --14:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

19th-century paintings in National Trust places edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No, you cannot do it because it belongs to the Category:Paintings by museum by century which is a type of structure that is used to categorize paintings in the same way as Category:Paintings by museum by country of origin.

Ecummenic (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate is exactness for speedy deletion edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. This request I have rejected as the colouration is clearly different. Speedy deletions need to be exact. If you wish to progress these sort of the same images, then please file a normal DR for community discussion. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

River Sawat vs. River Swat edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Broichmore,

I've been told that River Sawat is actually a misspelling of River Swat in Pakistan. (For a while I thought they were two different rivers, until I was advised otherwise!) Krok6kola (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Krok6kola: Okay. Yes it seems that way. Also there is the en:Khwae Yai River aka also known as the Si Sawat to think about.Broichmore (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Though I have worked on categories of Pakistan for five years, I am becoming more confused. For example:

All three are{{Cultural Heritage Pakistan|KPK-64}} Years ago "Odigram Castle" was Odegram castle. Now I found it subsumed under "Mahmud Ghaznavi Mosque", which didn't make sense to me as the images don't look like those of a mosque even a ruined one. But am I right?

Pakistan doesn't seem to have an organized way of dealing with cultural monuments that I know of, the way some countries do, e.g. United Kingdom, Iran. And of course, there are various translations, and those that upload images of Pakistan are not always use the same spelling but perhaps use the same "description" for a variety of images.

Plus these two

are confused, one being the gateway to the other. Other countries are easier! Krok6kola (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Krok6kola: Yes, that's why best to keep it simple, Example: Category:Chitral Fort or as it is sometimes called Shahi Fort, Chitral. Shahi being a tribe who has owned it at some period in its history. You could also check out Old maps for archaic names. Have you considered entering alternative names into the Wikidata pages?. Either that using Wikipedia for something like en:Renaming of cities in India. As your aware the locals, often use the old names or even made up ones to describe places they know well. Again Chitral Fort is called locally the White Palace. Broichmore (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good advice. You are obviously more sophisticated and knowledgeable than I am. I was one that believed the "White Palace" name and wondered what happened to it. I have a book (published in 2016 by Oxford University Press) that recommends staying in the White Palace, saying it used to be the "old summer palace of the Wali of Swat". Pakistan being a multi-language country doesn't help. Krok6kola (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. The fort has been the home of the local King for centuries, mostly closed to to tourists and visitors are by invitation only. Many locals will have never been inside its walls. Broichmore (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at almost all of the files, and they are mostly described as "Udegram Castle" whether they are in "Mahmud Ghaznavi Mosque" or "Raja Gira Castle"; a few are "Odigram Castle: Odigram/Udigram". There is an article Mahmud Ghaznavi Mosque (Odigram) (to which I added Castle of last Hindu king Raja Gira in Swat crumbling from Dawn). I had put the Odigram Castle files back into ":Odigram Castle" but I reverted myself, since what little support there is seems to be for "Raja Gira Castle". Krok6kola (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Krok6kola: First Odigram. I see Google's satellite map gives a very good overview of what's going on outside Odigram. Their map labels the castle as Fort of Raja-Gera and the mosque as Mehmood Ghaznavi Masjid. There's a significant distance between the two.

What's in cat Odigram castle is a mix between the two, and need to be separated. I would use the Google names. A fort is a place of protection for the people inside, which is the case here, a castle is the opposite.

Second: Category "Gulabi Bagh Gateway, Lahore" is in pretty good shape, only 3 images should be transferred to the tomb. Well done! Broichmore (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for looking through those categories. My computer is incapable of getting Google's maps. I'll see what I can do. Krok6kola (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sending the Google maps but from my computer I can't make anything out. Right now I am enormously frustrated re forts, palaces, mosques in Pakistan. You are right; I should be able to tell a fort from a mosque, but when they are ruins it is not so clear. Lots of ruins of forts are more clearly forts e.g. ruins of defensive walls etc. I appreciate your suggestions and interest. Krok6kola (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

And thank you so much for sorting through the "mosque" and "fort" categories yourself. You have a finer eye than I do. I looked through them in their new categories and would not have the correct choices if I had done it. It is most kind of you! Krok6kola (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Cronstadt in Russia by Francis Gibson (1807).png edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi!
Please tell me why did you do that? --Kaidor (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kaidor: Hi, I'm currently working on a project to upload historical news images from a particular source, not dissimilar to that image. It's easy to upload the same image as a duplicate. I have to view all the existing images uploaded to see if it's already there, as different version. Sometimes there are different versions of the same image in different catalogs, making comparison difficult. Prior to photography these are primarily woodcut engravings, factual images as opposed to art. The image in question is a factual representation as opposed to fantasy. I view art as fantasy. There was an inconsistency in how these were filed under Kronstadt. Most similar were in historical images and a few were in art. I put them in the first so I could compare one against the other. The originator of the image produced it for a news magazine, it was not regarded as an art object when created. In any event, I took the decision to make the filing consistent. Hope this helps. I'm interested in your thoughts. Broichmore (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, for some reason you think that a historical image cannot be a work of art. That these are two mutually exclusive concepts. I cannot agree with this. A lot of photographs created by photo reporters have become art objects. For instance: 1, 2, 3. --Kaidor (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Of course. They can be both. Broichmore (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's Wiki Loves Food time! edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wiki Loves Food 2021
India

Hello Broichmore!

Do you roam around in search of delicious mouth-watering foods and take photographs of them before you put them into your mouth? Wiki Loves Food 2021 in India photo-competition is then waiting for you! Participate in the competition from March 15 to April 14 this year, photograph and upload all kinds of foods and beverages originated from or found in Indian sub-continent and get a chance to win exciting prizes!

-- Wiki Loves Food 2021 in India team
Sent through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Charlotte Empress of Mexico - Order of Saint Charles.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Go to the Hearst Castle Facebook fanpage and you will find the portrait photo. It is the only source because the museum does not have an online collection. --PancoPinco (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PancoPinco: Look closer, it is a different picture to the one at Hearst Castle. Broichmore (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Broichmore: Bacause the two images have different quality.

--PancoPinco (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PancoPinco: That may be an inferior camera. There are detail differences; In one she has a jewel set on her shoulder, in the other she has an honoury decoration. One is an original? the other is a copy of the original.

As it happens the error is from Carolus. You have uploaded the correct image with the correct origin. File:Empress Charlotte of Mexico (Hearst Castle).jpg Broichmore (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I haven't notice the honoury decoration. Are you agreed to change the voice "Collection" in the template in "Unknown" until it turns out? I think the portrait can be exhibited in the Miramare Castle or is in the possession of the King of Belgium, but I'm not sure. The first image of File:Empress Charlotte of Mexico (Hearst Castle).jpg is better then mine

--PancoPinco (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PancoPinco: Your correct. Re Empress Charlotte of Mexico (Hearst Castle) the original copy is the best. Please overwrite your version with the original. It needs a note attached to it, along these lines: Original and best version re-uploaded. Noteː there are two versions of this picture. Most notable difference between the two is the decoration on the subject's left shoulder.

The other picture, Charlotte Empress of Mexico - Order of Saint Charles. Yes, as you say, it could be from Miramar or Belgium. We know nothing about it. My suspicion is Miramar, it has never had any provenance or ID attached to it on the internet. It's still to be identified. Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Broichmore: Maybe the version with the sash was not realized by Wintherhalter, bacause in "The Winterhalter Catalogue" doesn't appear.

--PancoPinco (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PancoPinco: Thanks for looking, I've made a note on the file, and changed it from attributed to after. Broichmore (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Monitor HMS Terror - IWM Q 75504.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thank you for adding File:Monitor HMS Terror - IWM Q 75504.jpg. However, I think you may have identified the wrong E Hopkins. Terror was launched in 1916 but the creator you linked to died in 1911. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've identified that he had a son named Ernest Dudley Hopkins but there is no evidence that the "E" in E Hopkins stands for "Ernest." Nor have I found evidence that the son followed in his father's footsteps as a photographer. If we assume the photo was taken by the son, then it is still in copyright until January 2031 and will have to be deleted. If we treat the E Hopkins as unknown, then the current claim that the author died in 1920 is unsubstantiated. Also, I can't see any evidence that the image was published prior to 1926, so the US copyright claim is also unsupported. Unfortunately, it looks like we will need to delete this one based on the current evidence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Dost Mohammad Khan Bhopal.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Dost Mohammad Khan Bhopal.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derived from a deleted file

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

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@A1Cafel: I've never seen the original deletion request that deleted the source file. The original being uploaded by the amateur photographer. It was piece of tat, not taken by a professional. Broichmore (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Dost Mohammad Khan Bhopal (cropped).jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Dost Mohammad Khan Bhopal (cropped).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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derived from a deleted file

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

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wood Street edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Broichmore, Thankyou for your correction to the artist in the blurb for the Wood Street Plane Tree picture ("Wood Street Plane Tree before 1875"). I have deleted the wrong info and put your correct attribution in its place. I hope this is correct procedure - if not please revert to your last state. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Metropolitan Railway at Clerkenwell Tunnel, 1884.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, regarding File:Metropolitan Railway at Clerkenwell Tunnel, 1884.jpg - I think that this image is laterally reversed. The obvious giveaway is that the lower train is on the right-hand track, not the left; and for those familiar with the location, Clerkenwell Tunnel (seen in the distance) is approached by the upper route on the left, the lower one on the right - see for example File:Old and new London - a narrative of its history, its people, and its places (1873) (14592017707).jpg or Geograph 6090018: Heading North. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Redrose64 Thanks. I've corrected it with a new reversed upload. Easily done at a remote engraving office. I had similar before with File:The 'Lusitania' Raft on Broadstairs Pier Sho37 - flipped to correct view.jpg.

Is the cat name correct, should it be "Clerkenwell Tunnels"? or is there a better name? Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's more than one Clerkenwell tunnel, I think that there are five - two on the Circle line and three on the Widened Lines. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's Wiki Loves Monuments time again! edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome to

Wiki Loves Monuments 2021
India

Hello Broichmore!

We are excited again to let you know that, Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest photography competition of the world, will take place for the 12th time this year. And guess what! India is going to participate in the event again this year from September 1 to September 30, 2021. You might remember this competition as you had participated in one of its previous editions. We would be very delighted to see you take part in the competition again, help record and digitally document our monuments for future generations and get a chance to win exciting prizes! You can find more details about the Indian part of the competition in this page. See you in action in few hours!!

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
(on behalf of Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in India team)
Sent through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mackenzie ships from bonhams.com edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

This ship is one of the Category:Admiral class battleships. Not the Benbow, not the Collingwood, but have not narrowed down any further.
This one is a Category:Majestic class battleship. Again, have not narrowed much there -- might have been a general painting representative of the class, and not a particular ship, of course.
This image is a Category:Edgar class cruiser. Again, have not determined which one, though the bow decoration and anchor placement might be distinctive enough to narrow those down a fair bit.
This image is a Category:Amethyst class corvette, one of the last two built, either the Diamond or Sapphire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, BTW, I have "width=960" as part of the bonhams image URLs above for faster download when previewing, but if you remove that part of the URL and go direct to the jpg, you get significantly larger images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. I sort of noticed something going on, but couldn't fully work it out. I'm using fatkun, rather than inspect looking for src for expediency, but even then I think I would have missed it. Will look out for that from now on... Have you got a recommended method? Broichmore (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Just happened to notice it -- sometimes pays to look at the arguments on image URLs to see if they accept other values. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW, as for life dates on Thomson... a birth date of 1870 is almost certainly wrong. Every other site I've seen simply says "fl. 1870 1892" which means that was his work period, not birth date. I think the source you found for that was simply mistaken -- if he was painting ships in the 1870s, which is presumably what those "flourished" dates are based on, he was not born then. I would change that value to "work period start". As for his life details, I have found very little, but did come across this geni.com page. I have no idea how reliable that is, but it is regarding the naval painter and they do give some relations, and do name two of his daughter which they say were born in 1886 and 1887. That would again put his birth much earlier. Interestingly, there are some corroborating details from www.freebmd.org.uk . If you search on Thomson, Edith Annie, one of the hits is indeed someone born in December 1885, in Medway. Searching on the name Eleanor Mackenzie Thomson, the only hit is a birth in December 1887, also in Medway. Searching on "Mackenzie Thomson" as the name, there is one hit, which is a death in September 1905 at age 66, also in Medway. That would put his life dates born ~~1848~~ 1838 or ~~1849~~ 1839, and died 1905. Which would somewhat fit. I have not found any other obvious hits on the other people named on the geni.com page, though, so can't be sure it's the same person. But it's quite plausible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg: One auctioneer (Charles Miller) says "fl. 1870 1892", and has a painting giving a location for him (along with a signature circa 1885) as New Brompton, which is in the Gillingham, Medway area. The fact there are photos of the married couple is compelling (given its from a family originated tree), his was taken by George Piner Cartland of Windsor, Slough (a prestigious photographer in his time); which is unhelpful. I don't think he changed his name by deed poll, so John Thomson is a difficult nut to crack. It's Mutualart that says born 1870; I basically agree with you, and the suggested changes. Incidentally his wife is the sister of Category:Harry John Symonds, she is in his house for the 1881 census. She is also a painter/artist according to that census.

Oh very interesting, thanks. The matches of that genealogy page with one area in birth/death records is pretty compelling to me, especially if we can tie the painter back to the Medway area, which you found above. And perhaps met his wife through similar interests, after 1881, and began having children shortly after marriage, where the dates would also fit. She had children via a previous marriage, one of which was born in 1874, which would also fit with her moving in with her brother after being widowed, and before marrying again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you agree that, this is the Edgar class? .... Broichmore (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not Edgar. Several differences. Much closer to the Pelorus class cruiser again, but... still seem to be a couple of differences. I think it's an Apollo-class cruiser; that seems to match a bunch of the small details. It's not the Pearl, Medea, or Astraea class ships, which have identifiable differences from this, and I think those are the most closely related ones to Apollo, aside from Pelorus, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, looks very close with the bow decoration stripped away. Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg: Back to the man. I had to find first that he was born in 1840 as John William Thomson in Newcastle, then got to this. Notice the census of 1901. Mackenzie Thomson. Marine Artist (painter), Widower. Age 60, own account. Boarder in the house of William Richards (38), shipwright H.M. Dockyard. Address 24 Greenfield Rd, Gillingham. That leads to Age: 66, Sex: M, Died 29 Jul 1905 at: 27 Saxton St, Removed From: New Brompton, C/U: C, Death date listed may be the interment date. Grange Road Cemetery, Gillingham.

Oh, cool. My math was wrong, heh, being 66 years old in 1905 would mean being born in 1838 or 1839, of course. I don't have an ancestry account but what you found seems conclusive. I do see the findagrave reference, perfect. Died in late July, but not recorded with the county until September, I guess. Sounds like his wife had died by 1901. The same cemetery does have an Elizabeth Thomson who died in 1897, but at age 87, so presumably that was his mother. FreeBMD does have several John William Thomsons... one born in Newcastle that you mention in December 1840, another born in Marylebone in September 1840, and another born in September 1838 in Walsingham, which is the only one which would would fit with being 66 years old in July 1905. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't have an ancestry account, its possible to do limited viewing of certs via a library account (the library account doesn't let you create a tree or append records). You can create a tree in your own ancestry a/c but if your membership has lapsed (or no subscription) you cant view records and or append them to the tree. Elizabeth Thomson, maybe his daughter she died within hours of birth. Mum would have been 47. Kate died before 1901, I think. Connected event? The address of the child's death looks like it might have been destroyed during the blitz, the houses opposite look too affluent for this family. He died days after release from the poorhouse. The family contended he was the twin of Junius, that's the key to Newcastle as well as the census reports after his marriage which all give Newcastle as his birthplace. Broichmore (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are about a further six or so pictures on the net of unidentified naval pictures on the net, so you want to have ago at them? I'm fairly certain he painted from photographs, probably from Harry?Broichmore (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could take a crack at them, maybe later tonight. Does seem likely he painted from photographs; the paintings are very detailed and feel specific to particular ships. Entirely possible he learned enough from his wife or brother-in-law to take his own photos, as well. Would be interesting to find a source photo for one of his paintings, but have not run across one yet (not that I've looked, but have not run across one in the several I've looked up for you). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The 6fca2f5e-0024-4f98-ae3b-ac980137d290.jpg file is a Category:Nelson class cruiser. I'm pretty sure it's the Northampton and not the Nelson, as there are a couple details in that painting (bow decoration, crow's nest or fighting top on the rearmost mast) which appear in photos of the Northampton but have not found photos of the Nelson with them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg: Hi Carl, I've moved the conversation over to Category talk:William Mackenzie Thomson, so it stays with the pics.

On another note; I'm more than happy to upload the pictures, but if you prefer to, you can, and I'll supply sources, if required. After all identifying ships is a time consuming process, I don't want to step on your toes or appear ungrateful... Broichmore (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:William Elliot - The battle of Cape St Vincent, 1797, the British attack on the enemy's windward division img 16-1.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for uploading this. I am wondering though about the painter. William Elliott allegedly died in 1792, so how could he have painted this battle five years later? The information in his biography at the English Wikipedia may be wrong though. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some sources say he he lived till at least 1810. Broichmore (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see. This is why I added the "Attributed to" line at the file description. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

That was my error, bespoke uploading of art is difficlt enough at times. A reputable auction house has given it to him so you'll have to change that edit. Broichmore (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should change it. There is a likewise reputable source claiming that Elliott died in 1792. So as long as his lifetime is contested, it should be reflected by our descriptions. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RKD say he's a captain and worked till 1810. This is currently under investigation by Art UK and NMM RMG museums.The discussion also follows confusuons with Thomas Elliott. Hold fire till thats resolved.Otherwixse even more confusuon will follow. We are not a recognised body for changing what museums are telling us. Broichmore (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Neither are we a recognised body to change what the Dictionary of National Biography writes. Please feel free to change me edit, but as it stands, I am not going revert it. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for updating the Wikipedia article and Wikidata. I think this is the better approach. De728631 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Steamboat edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd have to guess File:Elevation of a steam-boat, from Rees’ Cyclopædia of 1820 - 389.jpg and friends are just an illustration -- some of them re-use the side view but have a completely different top-down illustration. It's certainly possible it was based on the plans for a real ship, or maybe just a proposed ship that wasn't built, or something like that -- but unless it's named on some versions of it, or some other illustration is found which is a close match, I'd have to assume it wass primarily just an illustration to show how paddle steamers work. If the drawing did start from the plans of a real ship, I'm sure they eliminated details that weren't useful for the diagram, and things like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Yes; and diagrams of two different ships, as you say not built, one at least based on Fulton's ideas I think. Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welcome, Dear Filemover! edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Broichmore, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

เรียน สมาชิกวิกิมีเดีย

เนื่องจากเราเห็นว่าท่านเคยเข้าร่วมการประกวดรูปถ่ายที่จัดขึ้นโดยวิกิมีเดียประเทศไทย เราจึงอยากเชิญชวนท่านเข้าร่วมการประกวดรูปถ่าย Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand ซึ่งจะจัดขึ้นระหว่างวันที่ 15 พฤศจิกายน – 15 ธันวาคม 2564 นี้

มีรูปแบบในการประกวด 7 หัวข้อ คือ บุคคลในวิทยาศาสตร์ รูปจากกล้องจุลทรรศน์ สื่อที่ไม่ใช่รูปถ่าย รูปชุด สัตว์ป่ากับธรรมชาติ ดาราศาสตร์ และหมวดหมู่ทั่วไป

หากท่านมีความสนใจในการเข้าร่วมการประกวด ท่านสามารถไปยังหน้าเว็บเพจ Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand เพื่ออ่านข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและอัปโหลดไฟล์ของท่านภายในช่วงของการประกวดที่ได้กล่าวไว้

ขอแสดงความนับถือ
ทีมผู้จัด Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand
วิกิมีเดียประเทศไทย

Dear Fellow Wikimedians,

Seeing that you have participated in one or more photo contests organized by Wikimedia Thailand, we would like to invite you to participate in Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand which will be held between 15 November – 15 December 2021.

There are 7 categories in which you can submit: People in Science, Microscopy images, Non-photographic media, Image sets, Wildlife & nature, Astronomy, and General category.

If you are interested in participating, you can visit the web page Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand/en for more information and to upload your files within the period of the contest.

Kind Regards,
The organizing team of Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand
Wikimedia Thailand

--Karto1 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:City of Ragusa (ship) edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Brichmore. Compliments of the season. I'm a little puzzled as to why you categorised the above as extreme sports? The Victorians had never heard of it. Storye book (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Storye book and Storye book: You too. The City of Ragusa! I'm thinking about it. I put it there as stop gap parking. Category:Nonpareil (raft, 1866) and the John T. Ford are similar. They need a new category? But what? What about Small boat Atlantic crossings?. Where to put it? Category:Ra rafts are down as research ships? It's a raft.

That leads to another possible cat; Blue ribbon Atlantic crossings? Broichmore (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the info - all so fascinating, and pictures too. I have adjusted the categories on some of the abovementioned categories as far as I can. That included creating some new categories, so I would be most grateful if you could please check the parent categories of those new ones, to see whether any more parent categories can be found? Out of interest, I shall see if I can find the 1858 John T. Ford article in Harper's Weekly (p.341 or 311). If it's the one I'm thinking of, the crew drowned.

I don't know anything about blue ribbon Atlantic crossings, so I couldn't help with that. There is a WP article w:Blue Riband, but that is for ocean liners and speed. Storye book (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Click on the references inside the John T. Ford image file. Broichmore (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. There was an edit conflict, so I'll add my reply here, and then look for the Harper's story.

Update: I don't have access to the Harper's Weekly, but I have found the account of the wreck of September 1867 in the British Newspaper Archive. It was a heartbreaking story of three brave men who drowned, and one who survived, injured. I have put the link here. The link has a paywall, but if you are interested in the story, I think I may know an editor who knows how to get a free view of the article for WP. Storye book (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are three newspaper.com links in the image text. Can you not open them. See The little yacht John T. Ford reference and Reference, yacht lost at seaand more Broichmore (talk)

Thank you. I have added a free-view link to the Harper's Weekly news article into the w:City of Ragusa article here. All done, now, I think, unless you would like access to the story of the disaster. Please let me know if you would like me to add anything else to the categories. Storye book (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Wea01316 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi:

I had to remove Category:Meteorological equipment as it has sub-categories of it already (Category:Cup anemometers and Category:Weather vanes in the United States) which describe the different equipments in this image. Your addition was redundant.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pierre cb: No. There are many types of instruments there, please put it back or label them all. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can see a certains number of cap anemometers, weather vanes and raingauges, as mentionned in the description of NOAA. I have annoted examples of them in the image and added to sub-categories. If you find instruments that I missed, do the same and put the related categories but not Category:Meteorological equipment which is a mother category which should have as little items not sub-categorized. 18:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Pierre cb (talk)

Category removal, The Splendid Naval Triumph on the Mississippi, April 24th, 1862 - Currier & Ives lithograph edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good day. In this edit you removed the category for the battle depicted. I presume this was a simple error, and restored the category. If I'm incorrect, let me know, thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Disappeared file: File:NH 68448 Pittsburg Landing. From a photograph taken a few days after the battle.tif edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

The file File:NH 68448 Pittsburg Landing. From a photograph taken a few days after the battle.tif in Category:Tennessee River in the American Civil War does not seem to exist and you appear from the file history to be its last editor. Can you fix whatever went wrong? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Krok6kola: The file does exist. When I click the link where the thumbnail should be, the TIF file opens in the Windows image viewer. This might just be another outage of the Commons thumbnail server. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@De728631: Do you get the .tif version or do you get File:Steamers at Pittsburg Landing a few days after the battle.jpg. I confess I do not understand about the thumbnail server. And the whole thing is not important in the scheme of things. Just wondering. Krok6kola (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Krok6kola: I get the TIF version which includes a caption below the image. The thumbnail server generates the little preview images you get to see on the file page of an image, in categories, or when you embed a file at Wikipedia. It is known to be a bit unstable, so it is not uncommon that some preview images appear to be missing every now and then. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

William Henry Smyth edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know, I have removed the Category:William Henry Smyth from several files of illustrations from the book Narrative of a journey from Lima to Para (1836), as this book is by a different William Smyth. The Narrative is by William Smyth (1800-1877), while William Henry Smyth (1788-1865), also a Royal Navy officer, was a hydrographic surveyor known as "Mediterranean Smyth". Kognos (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Renaming a file edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User talk:GO69#Renaming_a_file. Don't spread discussions around. Multichill (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:HMS_Swallow_(ship,_1744) edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HMS Swallow (ship, 1744) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Barque Samson (1885) edit

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Briochmore File:Samson in drydock at Georgernes Verft.jpg I'm hoping to find a larger version of this photo, but have not been able to access the source for this one via https://www.uib.no/ub . Do you have a more precise URL or details of original publication?

cheers Davidships (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No I dont David, but there may be a chance of something here at proquest Do you have access? Failing that a request to the museum? Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weird sort key edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This looks almost certainly like an error. What were you trying to do here? - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:San Salvador, 1812 RCIN 735179.c.jpg edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Broichmore, wondering if this really is a work by Creator:Robert Pocock, the description also reads George Andrews (active 1794-1813) (publisher). Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Very well spotted. I've changed it. Unable to say how this error came about. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

notification from Wiki love monument edit

งานประกวดภาพถ่ายที่ใหญ่ที่สุดในโลก Wiki Loves Monuments Thailand 2023 ได้เริ่มขึ้นแล้ว! ทุกท่านที่สนใจสามารถเข้าร่วมงานประกวดภาพถ่าย WLM 2023 ได้โดยไม่จำเป็นต้องเป็นช่างภาพมืออาชีพ เพียงอัปโหลดภาพถ่ายโบราณสถานหรือแหล่งมรดกทางวัฒนธรรมในไทยที่ท่านถ่ายด้วยตนเองเข้าไปในฟอร์มที่กำหนดให้ภายในวันที่ 30 กันยายน 2566 ท่านจะได้สิทธิ์พิจารณารางวัล และได้รับการคัดเลือกเพื่อเข้าร่วมการแข่งขันระดับนานาชาติต่อไป

ท่านสามารถอัปโหลดภาพ และศึกษารายละเอียดการแข่งขันได้ที่

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2023_in_Thailand

ดูภาพถ่ายจากผู้เข้าประกวดชาวไทยที่ชนะอันดับ 1 การประกวด WLM 2022 ระดับนานาชาติได้ที่

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2022_winners

Wiki Loves Monuments Thailand 2023, the largest photography competition in the world, is starting now!

Everyone interested, no need to be a professional photographer, can participate in WLM 2023 by submitting your self-taken photo of any monument in Thailand by September 30, 2023. Then, You will have the right to be considered for the award, and selected to participate in international competitions !

Here, you can submit your photos, and explore more about WLM 2023.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2023_in_Thailand

Take a look at the photo from the Thai participiant who won first place in the international WLM 2022 competition !

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2022_winners

Copyright status: File:Last night but two! (Pablo Fanque).jpg edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:Last night but two! (Pablo Fanque).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Last night but two! (Pablo Fanque).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Terminology edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed your post to the Village Pump about "cropping vandalism".

Please be very careful with how you use the word "vandalism", as it means that the other person's actions were with bad intent. The other person's modifications were clearly sub-optimal, but it's very easy to understand how they could have done that with good intentions. DS (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

HMS Goliath edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure it's anything real. US warships still had some bow decorations in that era, but not sure the Royal Navy did. Have not seen any photo with decorative stuff on a steel warship anywhere else other than the stern. There is actually a forward-facing gun embedded in the hull right behind that area in the photo, so can't imagine there being anything to impede that. The photo seems to be poor quality, and the scan isn't good as well, so I'm guessing it was just damage to the original photograph print or negative whatever it was being scanned. There would be other photos of it, somewhere, if not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg: An example of such a bow decoration here for 1896. If I make a category for this type of decoration under figureheads, any ideas on what to name it? --13:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I've seen a term, other than they are still considered figureheads I think -- see the bottom of this page. Supposedly the Cadmus-class sloops were the last Royal Navy ships to have figureheads. The USS Olympia had one, though that is a more traditional sculpture. The early USS Massachusetts had a "figure" (not figurehead) on a gun turret -- never knew that; see here. Per this article, the US Navy ordered all figureheads (save the Olympia) removed in 1909. The Figurehead (object) article mentions that Early steamships sometimes had gilt scroll-work and coats-of-arms at their bows, which is what these seem to be. "Figureheads on steamships" may be the only subcat I can think of, if you want to differentiate. Or maybe on iron- or steel-hulled ships. This article (on the USS Constitution) does distinguish between figureheads and billetheads as different types of bow decor. You could argue that some decorations more fit the billethead description. Ship sterns also often had decorations too; not sure there is a specific term for those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Clindberg: I'm thinking same anout the Goliath.

Thanks for your valuable input, meantime I've gone with Bow decor (iron-hulled ships), if it's wrong, no problem to change later. There was already a cat hidden away for Billet heads. Next time I'm at Greenwich, I'll ask about this, and the stern decor too, but I don't think there is a name for the latter as such, its pretty much a constant, so styles are certainly covered by ship build dates to an extent. Broichmore (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your question edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo Broichmore, mail me your mailadress: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:E-Mail_senden/Kürschner -- Kürschner (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Barque "Vere" edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I have no objection to the substitution with your image if you think that it is better; nor to the proposed deletion of mine if there is a good cause. But for some reason you have usurped my File:Barque "Vere" by Samuel Walters.jpg with your own image, and with no explanation whatsoever - not in the page history, the now-orphaned image talk page, or my own talk page. Explanation please. Davidships (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Davidships: AC asked me to delete the watermark from his found files on Tuesday, I gave him the link for the original source (found using a mobile phone) at christie's that evening. Had I known about the artnet copy I might have given him that link, however If I have the original I would stick with it. I gave him the courtesy of uploading it himself, however he asked me to do it on Wednesday.

I did not know of the artnet copy, having found the original no point looking further.

Meanwhile, you uploaded a slightly smaller copy from an aggregator, the commons checksum failed to recognise an existing copy, and proceeded with my effort. I was unaware AC had contacted you on the matter. Broichmore (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is not making much sense to me - I assume that AC is Acad Ronin - but he has not contacted me about this either on- or off-site (apart from a kind system-thanks when he saw my addition). It must have been obvious when you attached the image to the article six hours later that there was already one there - but no mention in the edit of a replacement or reason (as I wrote above, I am not fussed if the replacement is a better image). And by the way, my file is 639x400px/53kb. But the greatest mystery to me is why the image I uploaded File:Barque "Vere" by Samuel Walters.jpg has completely disappeared and been replaced by yours, orphaning File talk:Barque "Vere" by Samuel Walters.jpg - I've never come across such a thing before, so do you how or why this happened? Is it some bit of auto-software gone amok? Davidships (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, AC is Acad Ronin, but then you knew that.

Commons works on the basis that There should be only one exact copy of a file. Your file was unfortunately and marginally an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of mine.

No doubt when you had the talk page open for an extended period, your file was in the meantime being deleted.

As I said before the original and reference file for this image is the one from the Christie's website. All the others on the internet derive from it. Incidentally the Christies web page carries the full biog of the file, the others are parasite sites, often with glib profiles.

It's academic, in this particular case, but the original reference file is a trump card. In any event (this case included) the Artwork template, as opposed to an Information one, for this type of file would also have justified an overwrite of content. As it happens text content of Christie's files is very important, they (Christie's) have a historical track record of substituting large files with small ones to save on server space, and it can confuse search engines, who require exact titles, and seeded terms of reference, as well as checksums. Possibly why I and AC missed the Artnet copy. Our scrapers get confused as well, thats why they duplicate files that are on ArtUK or some museums; our scrapers require accession numbers (found on the Artwork template) to ignore possible uploading targets.

What's happened here is extremely unusual, I was not aware that Wikipedia's "top end" search engine displayed the contents of user's sand pits, or even talk pages. As I said before I was unaware of your involvement. I might have noticed you, but it can take considerable time to break into protected sites for downloads, and fill out artwork templates. So I was overlong in screens, as you might have been on the talk page.

Aside from the overlapping of effort, forgive me if you knew all this stuff already. Broichmore (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Now I can begin to appreciate that there is indeed the "good cause" that I mentioned right at the beginning. Is there a Help Page on this, that will hopefully prevent me making a mess of things again? Lastly, can you get File talk:Barque "Vere" by Samuel Walters.jpg deleted please as it pontlessly still sits there. Davidships (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay I'll have that tided up. I'm sorry if I gave you an impression that you've somehow done something wrong, quite the contrary. People who upload art with factual referenced content are few and far between. There are enough people here, who will curate beyond that. Just keep on doing what you can. --Broichmore (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Much appreciated Davidships (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:Fort_Walker_(Hilton_Head) edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Fort_Walker_(Hilton_Head) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Miss click edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to apologize because this revert, Just to clarify that it was probably a miss click, I dont remember doing this revert. Sorry Wilfredor (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image Conquista-de-Tenochtitlan-Mexico (orig).jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Broichmore, sorry I didn't notice that you uploaded this image two days earlier. I uploaded the highest resolution here. Should we keep both or use only 1? I think the file name of the highest res version is better or you could overwrite your version and then I'll delete the newer one. -Artanisen (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a slight colour, brighness difference between mine and yours, so we should keep all 3. I wasn't aware of your 4mb copy, well done on finding it. The three, each have merit for different reasons. Personally I prefer mine for size and colour. Yours is clearly more detailed and the name is clearly the best. The name is not too important, I chose mine to place it next to the first upload, without having to qualify by sort. I only uploaded this because I thought that the owner's site protection might have been foxing you, which obviously it wasn't. With your indulgence I'll augment your file. All the best. Broichmore (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, we can keep all three in that case. Thanks for updating the Summary information. - Artanisen (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Antarctic_research edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Antarctic research 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

200.111.227.105 20:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic