User talk:NiD.29

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, NiD.29!

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.

-- 19:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft identification

Hello NiD.29!

Thanks for your efforts in identifying aircraft! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or post your question here, on our village pump. Happy editing! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename request undone for now

Hi. I have not undertaken your rename request at this point. The source specifically states it as an SNJ-6, and file renaming is specific about the terms for renaming. You should look to use a template like {{Fact disputed}} and to make a comment on the image's talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Like many archive sources, this one is incorrect as to the version of the aircraft (many archive sources are not even that close - at least they identified it as a SNJ rather than as a BT-13 or something else). Not sure what your point is - I am pretty sure I sent the request as "3. Correct misleading names into accurate ones" - which it is - or should I have used "5. Correct obvious errors in file names"? Anyone with a sufficient knowledge of AT-6 variants will back me up on it, and there isn't any reason for this to be controversial in any way. As per your request, I have tagged the page, and added a reference to support the renaming. Is this sufficient or do I need to resubmit the renaming request? NiD.29 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Resubmitted with 2 references to the error in the name. Old image name was "SNJ-6 landing on USS Monterey (CVL-26) 1953.jpeg"NiD.29 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: TBD Devastator

Hi. There are 19 languages that link title (Čeština, Deutsch, English, Español, Suomi, Français, Hrvatski, Magyar, Bahasa Indonesia, Ido, Italiano, 日本語, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Русский, Slovenčina, Српски / srpski, Tiếng Việt) Speedy template is inappropriate. Allforrous (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok then these these to be changed to link to the correct page, that is all. I will update these shortly.NiD.29 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove Gloster Meteor warbirds categories ?

e.g. G-BWMF - the Classic Air Force website says its two Meteors are still flyable. Obviously these aircraft don't fly very often, and are normally museum aircraft, but the very fact they are maintained in flyable condition, which is expensive, to me makes them warbirds. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a while ago when I did anything with the Meteors, though my primary goal there was to clean up the mess and break the listing up into individual versions. There should be subdirectories under each type for museum aircraft if there were sufficient photos to justify such a directory. I see no real need to split museum and warbird aircraft unless there are a lot of them, and often the distinction is fuzzy as aircraft often switch from flying status to static display and it makes more sense to put all of the photos in one place. I have just created a consolidated warbirds/museum directory that should clear up any arguments, Cheers.NiD.29 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Zeppelin

Which category on File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1954S00142(1).jpg do you think is a "a sub category of military aircraft"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Zeppelin was a cat of military aircraft of world war one (since replaced by the individual Zeppelins), however this Zeppelin is a post-war machine - it is definitely not a wartime Zeppelin as it is too fat. I can't help with narrowing it down further though.NiD.29 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, no such category, then. And I don't believe that Germany dropped any bombs on England from Zeppelins after WWI. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It is still a postwar Zeppelin, regardless of the caption - and yes, there were Zeppelins flying over the UK after world war one - they carried passengers. Captions have been known to be incorrect before, as this one quite obviously is - especially for post cards, where any image is often considered sufficient, or for images from archives, which quite often were labelled by someone with minimal knowledge of the subject. My experience is that the majority of archive images are misidentified, as this one is. NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

File:RFC Nieuport 23 in 1917.jpg

You did not provide a url for this image from Flickr. Fortunately I was able to find the source page https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8572146777 but in future please provide the actual url of the image page as well as the correct copyright information, otherwise they may be deleted. Please check you other uploads and fix them if they too are missing the necessary information. Have a look at what i did and you will see what is necessary. It just causes unnecessary work for us volunteers and you were already on the page so could easily have copied it into the upload page. Thanks for uploading some great images. Ww2censor (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't sure what the protocol was.NiD.29 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you are now doing that thanks. You could also write the full name "San Diego Air & Space Museum Archives" in the author field if you have the time. Again thanks for the great aviation images. Ww2censor (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:B-17G (237994) at Fantasy of Flight

Your movement was not consistent with the upper Category:B-17 museum aircraft.
If you would like to move the category, you should put a {{move}} template inside and wait at least 14 days for discussion. Only if there will be no opposition, you can move it. For examples look at the Category:Requested moves (all). Wieralee (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is however consistent with the general wikipedia aviation project naming convention which includes the manufacturers name, and is consistent with other names in Category:Aircraft at Fantasy of Flight. The other B-17 museum aircraft names also need to be changed, not least those with just the name or a name and a serial.NiD.29 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Four seat biplane in Venice Aero Police markings.jpg

Hi, I'd like to ask you to consider re-categorising this image as a Standard J-1. I suggest that it is a Standard J-1 (or SJ-1) that has been hacked about, as with Lincoln Standard LS.5, Ryan Standard and others. You can find a number of refs and other shots of this one by Googling Otto Meyerhoffer (no quotes), or Venice Aero Police, that mostly state that it is a Standard J-1. Extra u/c struts, amateurish cowling, re-located radiator and variations to exhaust manifold all point towards mods for joy-riding. Also, there's a photo now at eBay (search 221841766010), with a wider view of three aircraft showing kingposts and tailplane. PeterWD (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed Standard J-1 from the name and category as it is quite clearly NOT a standard J-1, regardless of the information SDASM archives has, and which has been duplicated erroneously by the press in a dozen locations - which shows how little the press knows on such matters. For starters, the wing cellule is completely different, lacking the stagger, the overhang, the kingposts. The rudder and horizontal tail are different, (I found an image on eBay that shows it) the fuselage is extra wide and is a four seater, with side by side controls in the rear cockpit and the undercarriage has 6 legs, aside from the amatuerish cowling and radiator installation. Any one of these could have been a mod from one of the aircraft you state, but not all of them, and yes, I already did extensive searching on the aircraft, including "Swede", Ince and the Venice Police.NiD.29 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Dayton-Wright Sedan.jpg

I have you ask you to reconsider your deletions of the categories relating to the book from which it is derived. I am fully aware that this image, and many others, not just of aviation subjects, have been copied from books whose categories give the false impression that the true source edition is dated as defined in the description by the University of Toronto. If you follow the links back there, you will see that these uploads are given the first date of creation of the yearbook, and in this case further editions go up to 1938 with various changes of name. I believe that we should retain the categorisation with 1890 in title until a definitive year can be found for individual images. Now, in our categories, this image has lost its connection to the other 740+ images. PeterWD (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe use the title of the series instead of a meaningless date for the categorization? That is not information that should be included in the title in any case.NiD.29 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Albatros Flugzeugwerke

Thanks for your note. Our convention in categorising at Commons and at en:wp is that we have a top category for the manufacturing company, and a sub-cat for the aircraft produced by that company - they are two entirely different entities. Recently I have been making corrections at Commons to align with Wikipedia categories - see Category:Albatros aircraft at en:wp.PeterWD (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Nungesser-inauguration école d'Orly.jpg

I am sorry but I must empasize that the aircraft most prominently displayed (left background) IS an MoS-30, which, by the way, was a single-seater. --Petebutt (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Check out [1]--Petebutt (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The MoS 27, 29 and 30 were the government's numerical designations for three nearly identical variants which all carried Morane-Saulnier's designation of AI - of which there was already a subdirectory. The difference? mostly the number of guns - 1, 2 or none, which are often impossible to discern in photographs, especially when removed - hence it making more sense to put them together in a single directory.NiD.29 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons

I have just come across a few images you have recently uploaded from Flickr. I would appreciate it if in the future, you used the Flickr2Commons tool. This tool allows images to be moved to Commons from Flickr without having to download the images to your own computer. It also brings in the largest resolution of the image, as well making sure to list the correct license and url, making it easy for the automated Flickr Review system. Also, it is fairly easy to categorize images with this tool. Elisfkc (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your wording needs work as that comes across as arrogant. As it is, I would already have been using it, but it doesn't work, and doesn't return any error messages so I can understand why it doesn't work. I am trying to upload the images (with No known copyright restrictions) I added to this gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/9379307@N04/galleries/72157704595729382/ - if you could do so I would be ecstatic. I have tried individually and as a group and no luck. NiD.29 (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Consolidated_B-24_Liberator

Consolidated B-24 Liberator 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!

Josh (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Granville Brothers Gee Bee Model A 3v from Aero Digest April 1931.jpg

Copyright status: File:Granville Brothers Gee Bee Model A 3v from Aero Digest April 1931.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Granville Brothers Gee Bee Model A 3v from Aero Digest April 1931.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.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RAF roundels

Hi. I want to apologise to you for my stubbornness in our previous disagreements regarding the colour tones of the various RAF roundels which led to unnecessary duplication and ambiguity. You were right. If you are willing to accept my apology, I would like to work with you to bring the images back in harmony and remove to duplication. I also would like to work with you to add several missing roundels used in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. Is that acceptable? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I have noticed you doing some good work beating the roundels into shape. I haven't been doing much with markings lately, although a few oddball ones have shown up in the FB group. I cleared out a few of the worst US ones a few months ago, but more needs to be done.NiD.29 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It is understandable that you are not as active ATM, but any assistance is still greatly appreciated. I was also wondering if you might think it prudent to expand the wikipedia article to mention other countries which followed the British experimentation with different proportions, most noticeably the South Africans, but also Australia, New Zealand, Belgium and Greece. In any case, I will start listing duplications, and await your opinion on how to resolve the issue.

• File:RAF type A1 roundel.svg and File:RAF Type A1 Roundel.svg
• File:RAF type A2 roundel.svg and File:RAF Type A1 Roundel Variant.svg
• File:RAF type B roundel.svg and File:RAF Type B Roundel.svg
• File:RAF Far East Command roundel.svg and File:RAF South East Asia Command roundel.svg
• File:RAF type B1 roundel.svg and File:RAF Type B1 Roundel.svg
• File:RAF type C roundel.svg and File:RAF Type C Roundel.svg
• File:RAF type C1 roundel.svg and File:RAF Type C1 Roundel.svg
• File:Fin flash of the United Kingdom 1945.svg and File:RAF Type C Fin Flash.svg
• File:RAF Type A Roundel WW1.svg and File:RAF type A roundel pre1929.svg (I presume the duplication here was unintentional)
• File:RAF roundel LV pale.svg and File:Low-visibility-RAF-Roundel.svg (possible duplicates, it is unclear to me if they are supposed to be the same roundel or if there is an actual distinction in saturation)
• File:UK Fin Flash low visiability.svg and File:Fin flash of the United Kingdom Low Visibility Pale.svg (ditto)

Fry1989 ^eh? 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked lately, but those that were explicitly based on the RAF roundels (the commonwealth countries) were mentioned, while Belgium and Greece are more correctly connected with France, upon which the British roundel was also based, and indeed the French and Italian roundels used red outer rings (at least initially) because they received so many aircraft from France. The Greek one is more problematic as they received a large number of both French and British aircraft, so I doubt there is enough to suggest a connection with the RAF ones specifically.NiD.29 (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the duplications, File:RAF type A1 roundel.svg, File:RAF type A2 roundel.svg, File:RAF type B roundel.svg, File:RAF Far East Command roundel.svg, File:RAF type B1 roundel.svg, File:RAF type C roundel.svg, File:RAF type C1 roundel.svg, File:Fin flash of the United Kingdom 1945.svg and File:RAF Type A Roundel WW1.svg should go, that last one probably unintentional. The colours are too bright or pale for the specified colours (the red was a brick red during wartime and the yellow was trainer yellow like on an RCAF Harvard or a school bus rather than a lemon yellow).

File:RAF type B roundel.svg seems to be a duplicate of File:RAF Type B Roundel (between the wars).svg

File:RAF Type A Roundel WW1.svg and File:RAF type A roundel pre1929.svg are duplicates as well, and represent the common weathered appearance for ww1 and between the wars - more recent research (and a number of artifacts with provenance) have shown the natural unbleached colour to be more like the later blue from at least late in the war. The blue-grey was based on research from Windsock datafiles/Albatros publications, and I am beginning to suspect their provenance, not least because they had in their collection a large number of forgeries that were only discovered relatively recently. The pale blue grey may still be correct for early aircraft.

File:RAF roundel LV pale.svg and File:Low-visibility-RAF-Roundel.svg may be different colours - the former was used with the anti-flash white scheme, and the latter with the concrete camouflage colour, and iirc dates from the first gulf war (or possibly earlier), and both refer to different colour specs, although I have yet to see what those were - but at the same time, I am not sure the B type roundel was used with the anti-flash colours as those may have all been D-type roundels (I haven't found any exceptions yet), while the concrete scheme would have rarely used the D type roundels, if ever. They do appear different in photos though. File:UK Fin Flash low visiability.svg and File:Fin flash of the United Kingdom Low Visibility Pale.svg should match the colours of the corresponding roundels, and I am not sure that they do. An additional roundel is needed for the all-grey F-35 roundels, so one of the later B roundels could be converted. I am assuming those would match the colours used on the airframe, which should have been reported on.

Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the non-Commonwealth countries, specifically Greece, my presumption was that it was due to imported/donated aircraft with the markings simply being painted over in Greek colours. For Belgium, the Type C proportions seems most likely derived from the RAF, but the Type A proportions are more likely derived from France, as a lot of former French colonies also seem to have used these proportions as well at various times. I understand leaving them out since it would be difficult to prove a direct link for these countries.

In regards to cleaning up the mess I created, I am uncertain how to proceed. It would be impolite of me to ask that your files be deleted and uploaded over the others. However, the other versions are the older pre-existing files, so it may not be accepted that they should be the ones deleted if we went that route. We could try the MERGE process, though I haven't had success there recently. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Greeks were definitely painting over roundels, but they came from France as much as the UK - I recently saw a bunch of photos of Greek Nieuports, but then they also (slightly later) got DH.9s. Belgium mostly got French aircraft in WW1, but also some British.

But it is much more complicated than that as the proportions of WW1 French roundels included 1:3:5 on Caudrons (with a mid blue) and SPADs (with a blue-grey), and 1:2:3 on Nieuports (with a royal blue) and Breguets (with a mid blue) - all based on original period colour photos. Every manufacturer chose their own blue, and chose to either follow or ignore the official orders on proportions seemingly without penalty, and many of those types were built under licence by other companies that chose either to follow the original company - or whatever they wanted to do.

The French eventually settled on the SPAD colour, but the Nieuport proportions, which were already supposed to have been official, long before they added the yellow outline. Since the Belgians were getting all of those AND British aircraft with 1:3:5 roundels, it seems to have been based on whatever was easiest to overpaint. Whether any actual orders were made, I do not know, but trying to source the statement that it was deliberately derived from the British roundels would be difficult to do, and easily challenged without it. I have seen both Belgian AND French aircraft, post-WW2 with recoloured RAF C type roundels though, with the colours reversed for the French aircraft, and all the colours repainted on the Belgian ones, but keeping the same proportions as for British aircraft and the yellow outline - and then the British just had to switch to the 1:2:3 proportions that the French had settled on (a trend started by naval and ground units). Those two proportions cover 90% of the three colour roundels out there though as they are the easiest to measure out, while a few others just use random proportions, or some off proportion between those. Probably just easier to leave it with the Commonwealth country roundels, which were localized variants of the British one, at least initially, and are documented as such in RCAF/RNZAF/SAAF/RAAF histories.

Copying over the last version should be fine so long as all copyright blocks are included (is that what the merge process is supposed to do automatically?), but after the copying has been done, the file tags would need to be updated. I am in favour of using the lowercase "roundel" over uppercase. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The merge process has some experts combine the histories, infoboxes, and copyright blocks of two (or more) images. I proposed the merge of File:Roundel of Uzbekistan.svg and File:Roundel Air Force of Uzbekistan.svg, and a few other examples of undisputed duplications, but nothing was done of it and my requests went to the archive page without a response. With what appears to be your permission, I will copy your versions over the lower case files, and redo the infoboxes and copyright myself to attribute you and add the related information, and then nominate your files for deletion linking this discussion. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made the necessary alterations, and the deletion page is here. You may give your final consent there if everything is acceptable. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good.NiD.29 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Trautman_Road_Air_(N6892C)_at_Fantasy_of_Flight

Trautman Road Air (N6892C) at Fantasy of Flight 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!

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Zeppelin-Lindau CL1 drawing.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Zeppelin-Lindau CL1 drawing.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:Zeppelin-Lindau CL1 drawing.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!

Rosenzweig τ 02:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Aigle Azur Extrême-Orient Boeing S-307 Strato-Clipper F-BHHR.jpg

Copyright status: File:Aigle Azur Extrême-Orient Boeing S-307 Strato-Clipper F-BHHR.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Aigle Azur Extrême-Orient Boeing S-307 Strato-Clipper F-BHHR.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:Aerovias Ecuatorianas C.A. (AREA) Boeing S-307 Strato-Clipper HC 004.jpg
• File:CIC Boeing SA-307B-1 Stratoliner F-BELX side.jpg
• File:Boeing SB-307B NC19904 owned by Howard Hughes.jpg
• File:CIC Boeing SA-307B-1 Stratoliner F-BELX.jpg
• File:Boeing 307 prototype from above.jpg
• File:Lineup of Pan Am Boeing Strato-Clippers.jpg
• File:Quaker City Airways Boeing S-307 Stratoliner N75385.jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Captured He 111 in Libya 1942.jpg

File:Captured He 111 in Libya 1942.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!

Moonfvblofg2678 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)