User talk:Mztourist

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mztourist!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

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.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Mztourist!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Kamov KA-25Bsh.jpg was uncategorized on 26 December 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:MiG 21.jpg was uncategorized on 26 December 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Segeomjeong-Jahamun checkpoint July 2011.jpg was uncategorized on 25 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:VNAF_Huey_full_with_evacuees.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!

High Contrast (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must specify the source you have stated. "US Navy" as source is not sufficient. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztourist

It was one of a number of images that I downloaded from a US Navy website (and have uploaded into Commons for use on various Vietnam War wikis that I have updated), but when I tried to locate source details on the US Navy website they only show images dating back to the mid-1990s. Any suggestions?

Where did you download these images? The URLs of these "US Navy website"s are of prime importance. --High Contrast (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztourist

The photos were taken from www.history.navy.mil. I have spent about 6 hours trying to locate the urls but the Navy like other branches of the US military has revamped its websites over the last few years and removed the images and apparently consolidated them in the National Archives (see http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/numeric/numbers.htm under heading II), where they are no longer searchable online and you have to pay to get the results (eg. http://gallery.pictopia.com/natf/photo/?photo_name=532443%20%28127-N-A187266%29). This means that these images which were in the public domain have in effect been made private.

So for example File:Vietnamese refugees disembarking helicopter, Operation Frequent Wind.jpg (not a photo I loaded) if you click on the source link it no longer works - so should it be deleted now?

As a lawyer I appreciate the need to protect copyright, but I would think that the youtube approach is the most sensible approach to adopt, if someone comes and claims copyright has been breached then the images can be deleted (but that won't be the case as they are US Government images), but if we just go and delete these historic images now we help in removing them from the public domain

High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hurlburt Field UH-1P Tail No 64-15493.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you. High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the URL: http://www.hurlburt.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/011806-F-0000S-042.jpg you will see that it comes from www.hurlbert.af.mil i.e. a USAF base photo MZTourist

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

Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:H160 cockpit mockup.JPG
• File:H160 mockup at Dubai Airshow 2015.JPG
• File:H160 rotor hub and exhaust.JPG
• File:H160 Tail.JPG

Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, general commons guidelines recommend not to add a file to several levels of a categorization tree. Any particular reason that files in the Category:Vietnam War in XXXX should be exempt from this rule? TommyG (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because categorizing by month isn't as useful as categorizing by year. I'm not overcategorizing anything, in fact I'm often removing overcategorization, see for example File:AirForceSecurityPoliceTanSoNnhut.jpg. There also seems to be far too much granularization of categories eg: File:64th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron Bien Hoa RVN 1966.jpg and File:C-123B landing at Bien Hoa.jpg regards Mztourist (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mztourist,

When you create new categories please don't leave them orphans. All categories should be sub-categories of one or more other categories. You can include them in Category:Vietnam War or a more specific subcategory if you can find one. You can see how this is done by checking the changes I did to your categories. MKFI (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	While looking through photographs of the Vietnam War I noticed that you had contributed a large amount of them, thanks for all your contributions in documenting the history of that period of world history. I'm glad to sss your uploads. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Donald Trung! While the Vietnam War was one of the most most photographed in history, the number of free use images is relatively small, so I'm always looking to add more here. Best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're interested in this or not, but as I don't have much time I am often forced to leave a lot of valuable educational content unimported to Wikimedia Commons. I am not sure if you know about these or not, but there is a forum known as "Enemymilitaria" where scans of documents related to North Vietnam and North Korea are often shared, furthermore there is the Naval History and Heritage Command which also houses a large amount of public domain files related to the conflicts between the United States and Socialist States in the Far East (Korean War and Vietnam War). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check out Enemymilitaria. I'm working my way through NHHC. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your edits to photos I uploaded. Have a nice week. — 사도바울 (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:사도바울!

@Mztourist: wondering if a rename of the file would be appropriate (#2) Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fine, it comes from the USMC archives. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:South Vietnamese civilians flee down Highway 1 from Quang Tri.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:South Vietnamese civilians flee down Highway 1 from Quang Tri.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.

And also:

• File:Phoenix Program identity card of dead Vietcong.jpg
• File:Remnants of victims of the Massacre at Hue.jpg

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann I have provided all relevant available information. The photos came from the Australian War memorial website who state that their copyright status is unclear. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You need to add a license which matches their copyright to each file, or they will be deleted. If you need help, please ask on COM:VPC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen you making some DRs because of meaningless name. However, this is not a proper reason for deletion. If you find some files with inappropriate filenames, you may request rename by snapping {{Rename}} on the files. Happy editing. A1Cafel (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel the meaningless names is not the only basis, they also have no or minimal descriptions and no categories meaning that the photos are not educational and so are Out of scope. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain more on the DRs, and put the rationale of out of project scope at the beginning. Otherwise, they may be considered as invalid. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions {{SD|F10}} directly onto the file page

{{subst:speedynote|1=|2=F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions}} ~~~~

Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful

COM:ADVERT {{SD|G10}}

COM:PACKAGING

Commons:Watermarks

COM:TOYS

Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use

Following on from your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMG20190315181526hg.jpg about only deleting a single image from a set, I can recommend using Help:VisualFileChange.js as a tool to nominate batches of files for deletion all at once (eg. all uploads from a user, all uploads in a category), or to prepend speedy deletion templates. I use it a lot myself when flagging spam and selfies. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your approach to deletion requests; you have recently made a number that have no support, are badly thought out, and do not reflect Commons policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion requests have made it very clear that there are a number of Users who have forgotten the Commons:Project scope and think that this some kind of "good photography" site. My deletion requests are generally of portraits/self-portraits or terrain and they lack meaningful names, useful descriptions and/or location or valid non-generic categories and so are not searchable and so not educationally useful as required by the Project scope. Some Users seem to think that merely providing a generic description of an image and a few general categories justifies their retention, while others claim that an image that is "nice" is sufficient reason to keep it; it seems that they are reluctant to accept deleting images at all despite the lack of any educational usefulness. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In situations where unlabelled uploads are from long-term users who are still active here on Commons, it would save time and be more collegiate if you simply reminded them to describe and categorise their images, rather than opening multiple deletion requests.

You say in Commons:Deletion requests/File:500px photo (30081581).jpeg (which was quickly described and categorised in response to the nomination) that my point with these nominations is to make mass uploaders like you stop and think about whether each image is really worth uploading in the first place. This is not an appropriate use of the deletion request system. If you want a user to stop and think about something, post to their talk page. If the two of you disagree about scope or educational use, you can take it to a more general discussion at Commons talk:Project scope or COM:ANU or somewhere. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they're a long-term user they should know better. Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account age doesn't make any difference. If you encounter a long-term user who appears to have misunderstood something fundamental about Commons, that's a big deal: talk to them about it, and escalate it elsewhere if necessary. Making a few deletion requests to make them "stop and think" is much less likely to resolve the problem, and it takes up unnecessary time and space in the deletion process. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That particular User has been active since 2009 and appears to have just got lazy focussing on mass rather than usability and purpose, however I appreciate your point and will keep it in mind for next time. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the thirty "F10: low-to-medium quality selfies" entries you've added to Commons:Deletion_requests/2022/09/28 today, I think you've misunderstood speedy deletion.

Speedy deletion is for cases where the problem is so obvious that it doesn't even need a discussion. You just put a {{SD}} template (eg. {{SD|F10}} directly onto the file page and wait (sometimes only a few minutes) for a Commons admin to either agree with you and delete the image, or question it and remove the template. In the latter case they'll often start a deletion request themselves to discuss the issue. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that's the deletion criteria that I believe they belong under, but I expect that you or Ikan may contest them or perhaps suggest that I'm trying to push through deletions. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is genuinely F10, flagging it for immediate speedy deletion is the right thing to do. I'm not going to monitor or contest your speedy deletion tags, they'll all be checked by an admin before deletion happens. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you genuinely believe an image to meet the F10 speedy deletion criteria, you should put an {{SD|F10}} template on it instead of opening a deletion request discussion, so that an admin can immediately delete it (or decline and open a discussion on your behalf). People reading the deletions board don't need to give any input on multiple nominations like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Profil MuhammadSulhajir.jpg. --Belbury (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belbury Given this comment [1] from the Admin who blocked me and the fact that speedy deletion doesn't automatically notify the uploader, its easier to do regular deletion nominations. Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it was my understanding that User:Deletion Notification Bot automatically warned users about speedy deletion templates, but it looks like it hasn't been running for a few months.

Knowingly misapplying the deletion process to save yourself some time isn't a great look, though, I'd advise using speedy deletion process when you think an image should be speedily deleted. Nobody else is posting these to the deletion request board. Belbury (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "knowingly disapplying" anything. You advised me to use speedy deletion which I did and then it turns out that your advice put me in breach of policy which apparently requires separate notification to uploaders, making it a more time-consuming process than the regular deletion process and so I choose to use the regular deletion process. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests says that This is for requests that require legal input or community discussion prior to eventual deletion. Obvious copyright violations, duplicate images, and incorrectly-named images should be handled through the speedy deletion process rather than listed here.

If you are deliberately choosing to file obvious F10 selfies on the deletion request board to save yourself a little time, at the expense of others who are reading and navigating that page, then you are not using the deletion process correctly. The "click here to show further instructions" on deletion templates includes code that you can paste directly onto the user's talk page, so notifying a user should only take a few seconds. Belbury (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That quote doesn't refer to selfies. Given that you have contested several of my selfie nominations in the last 2 days, which would otherwise escape your input if I followed speedy deletion I can't help but feel that you are trying to get me blocked again. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to get you blocked, I am asking you to use Commons deletion processes correctly.

But yes, the fact that other users have contested several of your F10 nominations (where they are of a borderline-notable person, or an amateur photo which may still have educational utility) may be a sign that these were not actually F10s at all. An admin would have picked up on the same issues if you'd used the {{SD}} template. Belbury (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I am asking you to use Commons deletion processes correctly". The Deletion Policy states that you use speedy "If you are absolutely certain that the deletion of a page or file falls in the speedy deletion criteria" otherwise "In any case involving doubt, use deletion request instead of asking for speedy deletion." So what are you advising? Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are absolutely certain that an image is F10, use a {{SD}} template. If you think an image might be F10 and have other concerns about it being blurry, out of scope, etc, open a deletion request and say what your concerns are. Do not open deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:PRINCIPAL.jpg which just contain a copy of the F10 definition. --Belbury (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the improper block and hounding I have received over my deletion requests, I have opted for a conservative approach of making deletion requests rather than speedy deletion nominations. I don't see anything wrong with a deletion request containing the F10 definition as I used on Commons:Deletion requests/File:PRINCIPAL.jpg, obviously I believe it meets those criteria. You believe that it should be kept which just shows that I was right to make it a deletion request rather than a speedy nomination. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Do not create speedy deletions when there is a regular DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:500px photo (48131844).jpeg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were already asked several times, so this is the last warning. Next will be a block. Yann (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann What do you mean by I "was already asked several times"? Asked what? The regular deletion request I made on that image had already closed, however it should be deleted based on an SD category. Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you must inform the uploader when you tag a file. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann firstly answer my question above, which you have ignored. Secondly show me the policy where it states that I must inform an uploader of a tag. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling around, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann stop threatening me with blocks. You didn't explain yourself properly with your 10:05, 29 September 2022 comment. You didn't have the courtesy to respond to me when I asked what you were referring to. Then without answering me you come here again telling me to inform uploaders of tags, but refuse to show me the policy that requires this. If anyone here is trolling its you. Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann, time to block, or should I start an ANU thread? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pierre De Vos01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Picture of Ravi Naidoo, 2018.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilgrimage-to-my-Childhood.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pieter De Leenheer in 2018.png. Mass deletion requests of photos that you don't do the most perfunctory web search to see if they might be notable are abusive and should stop, even if they're not speedy deletion tags. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know there is no basis for a block, you are welcome to open an ANU thread as you've had it in for me ever since I began suggesting that photos should be deleted. Just because you disagree with me on what is and isn't educationally useful you seem to have taken very personally. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[not speaking for Ikan], but it's not just about a disagreement about what's educationally useful; it's also that you're nominating things too fast without any apparent research or thought into whether they're useful based on your initial impression of the image, making many statements (about the files, about policy) that are just wrong, and doubling down when someone presents a counter-argument. We do need more people to filter out the selfies and low quality snapshots, but I think your approach is rapidly depleting trust. At minimum, I think you should take a break and recalibrate. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  11:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I check the file title title and description, see if the uploader has added few or many images, if the image is in use and whether or not it is in scope (my view of which is obviously somewhat narrower than Ikan's view). Sure I'll make a few mistakes and if people point me to a valid policy I will adjust accordingly, if they disagree with my assessment of the educational value I will debate politely (unlike some others here). Ikan has thrown every imaginable argument at me and now comes threatening blocks. Mztourist (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would never have requested a block if it weren't so obvious that you don't do simple web searches to see if there are even Wikipedia articles about the people you assume are not notable and out of scope. Disagreements about photos of individuals who, say, have 250K followers on YouTube but no Wikipedia article about them are legitimate. Bulk deletion requests that you don't do the absolutely simplest kind of due diligence on are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that I conduct such web searches. The two cases that you identified were both copyvios anyway. If someone doesn't believe the image should be deleted they simply point out the reason on the deletion discussion and the Admin will make their decision. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Clearly you were looking for it. You need to understand Commons objectives, and work in collaboration with others.--Yann (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo you say "I would not block you for your deletion requests" yet Yann accused me of "Vandalism: Creating invalid deletion requests after warning". So which is it? Am I a vandal or not? If you look at each of the comments on my Talk Page you will see that I responded politely to all of them and where I was advised of policy that contradicted my understanding I complied. There is no lack of collaboration on my part, rather an involved Admin Yann who refused to explain themself and a user who has taken every one of my deletion requests as some kind of personal affront. Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It is important for you to have correct reasons in block log, and I reblocked you with better reason. Actually, when blocking somebody, administrator must choose one reason from pre-defined list, and this was not in the list, "vandalism" was the closest in the list. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo Changing the block reason just shows how ill-considered Yann's original block was and how involved they were. Obviously I don't agree with the new block reasons either. Please read the comments above and how I responded to them. As a result of the various comments I have progressively limited my deletion requests to obvious Selfies/HOST, original artworks and completely nondescript images, but even then one user has continued to follow all my nominations criticising me for not taking ever more elaborate steps before I dare to make a deletion request. Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request a review by an uninterested Admin as User:Yann has shown above a fast and loose approach to exercising Admin powers: [2], I immediately asked Yann to explain what they meant: [3], but Yann ignored me for 5 days, presumably because they realised they had made a mistake. Yann then gave me a warning on 4 October: [4], when I pointed out that they had failed to answer my question and asked about the relevant policy: [5], Yann accused me of trolling, threatened again to block me and didn't bother answering either of my questions: [6], I pointed this out and was once again ignored: [7]. Then today egged on by another User whom I have been having disagreements with over scope and deletion: [8], Yann blocked me: [9] saying "Clearly you were looking for it". If Yann wants to exercise Admin powers they need to exercise those properly and explain themselves when questioned, not just act without any accountability as they have done here. Mztourist (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the reason given for the block "Vandalism: Creating invalid deletion requests after warning" is invalid, there was no vandalism by me, rather I tried to follow policy. As detailed above, no proper warning was given and Yann repeatedly failed to explain themselves when questioned. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that a good many of your edits revolve around going to files and removing categories from them. By itself, there's nothing wrong with this (I myself remove categories where they have no relevance to the file in question or where better categories exist), but you do seem to be going about things in a way that often sees relevant categories get the chop. Even if a good many categories can and do seem superfluous, can you explain why you regularly remove such categories as "Males with M16 rifle"?

Regards,

- Dvaderv2 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dvaderv2 Category:Males with M16 rifle already has 4,755 files. I would estimate that 30-50% of all Vietnam War files include a male with an M16 rifle. How is it in any way useful to tag all those Vietnam War files? Does it help clarify anything? There seem to be a few Users who just go around adding ridiculously generic categories to images that are already adequately categorised, when there are over 1m uncategorised images here on Commons. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove proper categories like Category:Males with M16 rifle from dozens of files. Tm (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the removal of the ridiculously generic category. Why are you stalking my Talk Page? Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have several files of military tech in my watch page as i edit several of them. Tm (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're stalking my Talk Page, presumably since I proposed the UNICEF photo for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i do not upload thousand of files of military conflicts or equipment, like File:Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018 (42721869272).jpg and do not know what i am looking at be it an Challenger 2 like i did not know in 2018, or what is a training apfsds or that the caliber of an chalenger 2 (and 1) is 120mm rifled (and not smoothbore) or what is an top attack atgm or improvised spaced armour\slat armor. I merely stalking you, i do not know anything of military equipment and similars. Tm (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what point you think you're making here.Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that we should be making decisions based on quantity if a given category is relevant to the subject matter at hand. The point you made can easily be made about any military engagement involving the M16 series, yet you only seem to be going after Vietnam-era imagery. Why?

(Note to self, and by extension to you - is there a Commons-compatible image of a female Viet Cong fighter with an M16? That would shake things up a bit, wouldn't it?)

Secondly, there are many categories that can be described as generic. "Males with M16 rifle" is not one of them. The overarching "People with M16 rifle" category, however, is generic... which is why people use "Males/Females with M16 rifle" where gender can be ascertained.

I share your issue with files being uncategorised or under-categorised (and often feel that Commons is a prime example of 20% of the people doing 80+% of the work), but I fail to see how this bears any relevance to the matter at hand.

Now, I've noticed that you've randomly asked me to prove that the M16 rifles in a few images I've recently added categories to are XM16E1-specification. Owing to vagaries in image quality and/or resolution, I can only do so conclusively in a few cases, but here are some things to keep in mind:

• The XM16E1 was first issued in March 1965, while the M16A1 was first issued in February 1967. Any M16 rifle photographed before February 1967 is therefore extremely unlikely to be an M16A1. Even after February 1967, it would take time for the new rifle to filter down to units (or, depending on circumstance, for the old rifle to be modified to the newer specification).
• Both the XM16E1 and the M16A1 have forward assists. I have never knowingly used either term to refer to rifles without forward assists.
• Depending on the date, the XM16E1 has either partial or no fencing around the magazine release. The M16A1 has full fencing.
• The XM16E1 uses a three-pronged flash hider, while the M16A1 uses an enclosed "birdcage" flash hider.

- Dvaderv2 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is supposed to narrow down images within a category tree, Males with M16 rifle is already a ridiculously large category without adding 30-50% of all Vietnam War images to it. How does further bloating that category help other Users in any way? Most of the Vietnam War images state the unit and/or M16 rifle in United States Army service (or similar - already a bloated category), so what does Males with M16 rifle add when the M16 was the standard service rifle for much of the Vietnam War? I am only "going after Vietnam-era imagery" because that is my main area of interest. I raised the point about uncategorised files because if you are so keen on categorisation there are 1m other files with no categories that you can work on rather than arguing with me over whether a few generic categories should be added or not.

I am fully familiar with the differences between the XM16E1 and the M16A1. My point is that unless you can see in the photo that it is definitely one or the other you should not use an assumption based on the date of the photo (which may well be wrong) to categorize it as an XM16E1, which you and Tm appear to have done on a number of photos. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories "Why over-categorization is a problem It's often assumed that the more categories an image is in, the easier it will be to find it. Another example: By that logic, every image showing a man should be in Category:Men, because even if you know nothing more about the person you're looking for than that he is a man, you'll be able to find it. The result is that the top category fills up, making it necessary to go through hundreds, or in this case more likely thousands of images to find the one you want. You probably won't find what you're looking for, and what's more, those who are looking for a generic picture of a man to illustrate an article like en:Man will find that they've drowned out among the movie stars, scientists and politicians."

When choosing the license, click "Another reason not mentioned above" and type the target license into the box. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Hello, Thank you for sharing your photos from Dubai Air Show 2023. I greatly appreciate these, as I was shooting the SkyView and was not able to attend the grounds. I shall place some of your uploaded images into my videos for YouTube channel: @TurkishTalesAndTails, to illustrate the airplanes in the footage from close-up. If you would like some of my footage, I would gladly share them with you - just let me know. Kind regards TurkishTalesAndTails (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't be bothered carrying round my big camera these days so don't take many decent flying display photos, just static line. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

---

Thank you for your contributions in uploading U.S. military media files. Please take a look at the following instructions:

• Please provide the link to the corresponding DVIDS page. Failure to provide relevant links may result in wrongful deletion by others.
• Make sure to upload the original file at full resolution, rather than a scaled-down version. You can download the full-resolution version by using a DVIDS account; these accounts are free.
• Please mark the source properly by using {{ID-USMil}}. Its format is {{ID-USMil|<VIRIN code>|<branch>|url=<link to DVIDS image page>}}. Regarding the VIRIN code, you may refer to COM:VIRIN. It typically looks like 123456-A-AB123-1234, and can be found in the DVIDS image page or in the EXIF of the full-resolution file. The documentation at Template:ID-USMil also specifies how to fill in the branch. VIRIN is important for Commons as it help us to categorize files.
• If somebody has uploaded another file with full resolution, please do not tag them with {{Duplicate}}, as the template is only applicable for scaled down images. Instead, perhaps you may want to add with further information (such as VIRIN codes) and assist with categorization.
• Last but not least, please use an appropriate license template. COM:VIRIN provides a comprehensive list of applicable licenses for different branches of the military.
• Also, please give an appropriate file name when uploading to Commons. The VIRIN code is not a good file name (though you might want to provide it in parentheses as part of the filename); please refer to Commons:FN for how to give good file name.

Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thank you.

廣九直通車 (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

廣九直通車 what are you actually saying here? As far as I am aware all my uploads from DVIDS follow the required steps for use on Wikimedia. Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Firebase Betty. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Best, Clay (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& similarly more recently for Category:Vietnamese Republic Army Aviation - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:T-7A Red Hawk over Edwards Air Force Base.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:T-7A Red Hawk over Edwards Air Force Base.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]