User talk:Dvaderv2

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Dvaderv2!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Foliage_as_camouflage

Foliage as camouflage 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Sanandros (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dvaderv2,

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) 01:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dvaderv2,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

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) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dvaderv2,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

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) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:HK_M110A1

HK M110A1 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!

Sanandros (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

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. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 05:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid watermarked pictures

---

Some images you uploaded contain(s) watermarks. The usage of watermarks is discouraged according to policy. If a non-watermarked version of the image is available, please upload it under the same file name. After removing the watermark, ensure that the removed information is present in the EXIF tags, the image description page, or both. Thank you for understanding.

Relating to watermarks on File:Hand Grenades (29902653981).jpg and File:L119A1 Assault Rifle (29358385934).jpg. LostCause231 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:McKee aftermath PSNI.jpeg

File:McKee aftermath PSNI.jpeg 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: Published in media ten days before original upload at en, see https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lyra-mckee-northern-ireland-death-riots-derry-troubles-journalism-obituary-a8879331.html. Image appears as 2/21 in popup gallery, and is labelled as a Press Association image Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : FDW777.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Waiting on water (4520898451).jpg

File:Waiting on water (4520898451).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!

--Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:People of the Royal Marines

Regarding photographs in that category such as this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beach_assault_landing_craft_(15091715771).jpg should they be categorised as they are? The RM Commandos are not very big in that image and it is a much better view of the landing craft and scenery. Perhaps it would better to keep it in the Category:Royal Marines? It could then be replaced with a close shot of Royal Marines. --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I remain of the opinion that the RM personnel are sufficiently noticeable and discernible to warrant inclusion in the category. Dvaderv2 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a surprise but, thanks for replying. --Dreddmoto (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

How about keeping the photograph in both categories, Royal Marines and People of the Royal Marines? That's possible. --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

[MFW I take a whole week to reply to you. Again, my apologies.]

That seems redundant and would also clash with Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. In any case, my opinion from 18 June (and earlier) remains unchanged. Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late. Thanks for letting me know, I learnt something from you. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Category tagging on photos

Thanks, that was a good catch. I think I misjudged how long the first guy's rifle's barrel was.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

M110A1 SDMR category

Hey. I'd like to change the M110A1 SDMR back to under HK G28. I think it's more accurate to say that the SDMR is a modified version of the HK G28 rather than a child of the M110A1 CSASS. The government really screwed with the naming so that they could keep using the CSASS' funding but I think I think the CSASS is pretty much dead. It seems kinda counter intuitive to place the main category (sdmr) inside a dead category (csass). What do you think? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd have thought that both rifles came from the same programme or were so identical as not to warrant a separate M number or indeed a separate M110AX number (c.f. the LMT 308MWS as adopted by my country - the same L129A1 designation is used for both a section-level DMR and a sniper team spotter's rifle).

Also, the M110A1 is primarily a US Army programme and I feel like that branch is a bit cagey with publishing images of its sniper teams/equipment compared to other branches of the US military and other countries' militaries (and there's also the small fact of US ground forces not being actively and/or heavily involved in a major Middle Eastern war for once). Would love to see proof indicating that the CSASS is not being actively pursued (outside of procurement records for the KAC M110A2 which, prima facie, only really indicate that a decision was taken to procure the KAC M110A2). Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dvaderv2 Nah, unfortunately, the reason they kept the M110A1 designation from CSASS to SDMR was so they wouldn't have to do the whole selection process again. Same reason they kept the 110 designation from the M110 to M110A1: so they wouldn't have to start a whole new Program of Record (which is the process of request for proposal, evaluating proposals from different companies, finally making a decision, etc. etc.). Weirdly enough, I'm not sure even the KAC contract allowing purchase of M110 or M110A2 rifles or conversion kits would even be able to cover the number of M110 rifles in inventory. The original order for M110A1 CSASS was to buy ~3,600 rifles for $45m. The $12m contract w/ KAC wouldn't be enough to make up for that. So I'm not sure what they're going to do for semi-auto snipers to replace the existing M110s when they finally break down.

It's a weird mess but Soldier Systems Daily is usually wired in pretty well to the ins and outs of the contracts. This article here reported that even though the CSASS program was still alive, there was no funding for it (https://soldiersystems.net/2017/09/22/csass-update). A handful of CSASS rifles went out for testing with units but that was it. Around 2018, they suddenly pivoted and kept the M110A1 CSASS name on the Program of Record (ie. contract) but directed all the funding into getting SDMRs (probably because of the collapse of the ICSR (Interim Combat Service Rifle)). The original $45m contract was extended to $78m and so far they've spent $57m on SDMRs. But from budgets (you can see them here on this site, under the tab "Base Budget"-->"Army Procurement - Procurement Justification Book"-->"Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles"), you can see the allotment for the CSASS Program. It's kind of annoying that they don't always refer to it as "M110A1" or "CSASS" or even "SASS", so the best way to find it is to search for "semi-automatic". Anyway, for the FY2019 budget, they suddenly mention the need for an SDMR. At the beginning of each subsequent budget they sometimes trot out the "The Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System supports the Army Modernization priority blah blah blah" line to pay it lip service before they launch into talking about the funding for the SDMR. By FY2022 and FY2023, no more funding is predicted. And if they had any wishes to use the funding for something, say, getting some of those CSASS rifles, I think they would have budgeted for it (you know over-budget so you'll be ok if you under-utilize). So the program seems finished with the grand total at ~US$57m. The Marines were interested in the CSASS for a time but they ended up going a different direction with kac m110 conversions. The Air Force ended up distributing 1,400 some SDMRs.

Hmm, that's interesting, I didn't know the British armed forces did things that way. But the L129A1 DMR and L129A1 spotter's rifle would have different NSNs, right? US military is weird. The CSASS and SDMR are different enough (barrel twist rate, optic, stock) to warrant a modification number if not a whole new type designation number. Hell, the marines did it with the M27 IAR and M38 DMR (which was just a change in the optic). That was a fiasco as well but besides the point. The Army's formal naming system is made up of type designation + item name, like "M2A1" + "Fighting Vehicle, Infantry". They often break their own naming convention rules but they do generally avoid using the same "type designation" number for two different items. You can kinda get away with the same number if two items are decently unrelated to each other, like M2 Bradley and M2 SLAM mine, since no one would ever try to drive an explosive mine lol. But if they're similar kinds of equipment but different designs, they definitely should get different numbers which is why them reusing 110 was already so unusual. But they wanted to keep the 110 and SASS to avoid starting a new program so *shrug*. Like you said, when you modify a piece of equipment, you add an A1/A2/A3 etc. after it (or E1/E2/E3 for experimental mods). But since they named the CSASS M110A1, it messes things up further. SOCOM chose 6.5 Creedmoor in March 2018 and already had their eye on converting SASS or CSASS rifles to use it. So if you later make a modification of the M110A1 CSASS, would it be designated the M110A2 SDMR? But then if SOCOM does their M110 conversion, would you call that one the M110A3? It'd be hopping back and forth and become a mess. Hmm....but since NSW handles most of SOCOM's procurement, SOCOM could've just called it....the MK 28 or something; heck, SOCOM already named the SR-25 the MK 11 before big army purchased the M110 SASS in 2005. But long story short, having an M110 SASS, M110A1 CSASS, M110A1 SDMR, and M110A2 and A3 rifles would've given someone an aneurysm (likely me).

My guess is they'll probably just let the CSASS name quietly die and call the next sniper's spotter's semi-auto sniper rifle something other than SASS, like maybe ....VSR for Versatile Sniper Rifle, I dunno. They also had to juggle between giving soldiers the tools they need but not over-investing in something that might be made outdated by the NGSW program. 7.62mm is definitely on its way out for mid to long range sniper work and might be replaced by 6.5mm, 6.8mm, .300 norma mag, .338 norma mag, who knows. So the fact that the CSASS was to be in 7.62mm was already a misstep. But you can't leave soldiers in the field without the tools they need while waiting for a program like NGSW which could've gone as badly as the ACR and half a dozen other m16 replacement programs went so....compromises were made.

Ehhh, I don't think the Army is that cagey with publishing photos, even on sniper teams. They're a bit more circumspect with SOF but not even that much; some photographers will blur faces, some won't identify the exact unit being pictured, and none will give names (like they give for non-SOF people) but they still take pics of them. The International Sniper Competition earlier this year (the US Army Sniper School's International Sniper Competition that was at Ft Benning, not the USASOC Sniper Competition that was held only 2 weeks earlier at Ft Bragg (but all the reporters and photographers called it the USASOC International Sniper Competition for some harebrained reason) had plenty of regular Army and Guard snipers. Course, like you said, pictures of some not using the CSASS isn't proof that no one is using it. But I haven't seen it thus far.

(also, sorry for the mini-novel lol) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Royal Marine majors

I recently found that category and it made me think. It does not have many files and those that it does have are already in the Category:Military rank insignia of the Royal Marines. One way to increase the number would be to rename it Category:Royal Marines officers. You could then go even further by including Category:Royal Marines generals as a subcategory there. What do you think of that? Dreddmoto (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Disruptive Pattern Material

Your view would be appreciated here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/03/Category:DPM_camouflage_pattern_of_the_Ghanian_military Dreddmoto (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Dvader2 regarding that discussion, there is one more proposal there. It's in the section titled Possible renaming. --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

File:94-103- I believe in the loss of my innocence (6075013217).jpg

File:94-103- I believe in the loss of my innocence (6075013217).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!

Solomon203 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)