User talk:Gabagool

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gabagool!
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 | +/−

The map might be better if it were cropped a little tighter (no real need to show Scandinavia or the coast of India, etc.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the U.S. listed on the side of France in 1800, when the U.S. and France had just gotten through fighting the en:Quasi-War? The U.S. didn't want to side with either party, but to trade with both... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png[edit]

Can you make some correction on the map. Anatolia was under the Ilkhans. Decentralization in the are did not prevent the khanate's rule there (both nominal and effective). See my contribution to article "Anatolia" in en.wikipedia.org. Thank you. --Enerelt (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbasids850.png[edit]

I was wondering whether Cyprus was supposed to be on the map. The Byzantines only took it back in 958. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mara salvatrucha map[edit]

amazing work Decora (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just look the map which is about situation of possessions of States in the World at the time of the beginning of the Third Coalition. I see some mistakes and I give you these remarks in the case of a new version of the map:

  • In the picture, Portugal and its colonies are in blue, which indicates the participation of this country in the Third Coalition against the Napoleonic French Empire. It's false: Portugal was neutral until its invasion by French Troops in November 1807.
  • Louisiana (not only the futur state of the USA, but all the west part of Mississippi watershed) was not spanish or french since 1803, before the war between France and UK. France has sold it to the USA in 1803. So this territory is a part of USA, in grey.
  • In the article en:Company rule in India (british India), the territory under british control in 1805 seems to be quite different of the one showned in the map (the Nizam state is not british).
  • The Cape colony was dutch at the beginning of the war, in 1803: UK has gained it in january 1806 (occupation) before the legal annexion in 1814.
  • In january 1804, Haïti has claimed its independance from France. So this country is not in green as France, but in grey (not in the coalition).
  • Adding to this remarks, there are different blues in the map: The New South Wales colony, in east of Australia, is in a light blue while other british colonies are in a darker blue, as all other countries of the coalition. If this difference is to differenciate a "theorical" control of a territory (there is a little point at the location of Sydney Harbour in dark blue) of an effective control, the question is hard: Is Portugal is controling all parts of Amazonia? Russia in Siberia? Perhaps it is better to indicate only legal control, not the real one: then, only one blue.
  • By tradition, French possessions in historical maps are in blue color and British ones are in red. Perhaps it will be better to use this color code for this map?

Best regards,--Jipécé34 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png 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!

LlywelynII (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above mentioned points concerning the map for the third coalition also apply for the map for the Hundred Days campaign. It seems to show the borders as of around 1800. The territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains should be shown as part of he US, not Spain. Finland was by then part of Russia, not Sweden. In the map, France reaches up to the Netherlands; while the borders in that region where still under discussion at the Congress of Vienna, the Peace of Paris of 1814 reduced France to the borders of 1792, so what would later become Belgium should not be shown in green (even if parts of it where occupied by Napoleon's forces in the campaign).--Proofreader (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaraSalvatruchaLocation.png 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!

108.185.22.229 17:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trebizond1300.png was recently deleted[edit]

File:Trebizond1300.png was recently deleted by Sealle for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1)

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]