User talk:MKFI

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MKFI!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. 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 (direct access). You can also contact an administrator (find an active one) on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you're a Wikipedian, you might find Commons:For Wikipedians useful.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply mark it like this: {{rename|the_new_name|numeric_reason_for_renaming}} and wait for an administrator or filemover to rename it. Do you want to have your picture removed, for other reasons? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

File:57 45 Bridgeport.JPG

Hi, this looks to me like a standard 6-pounder Hotchkiss gun, not a Nordenfelt. The breech and barrel of the two guns are distinctive. Where did the Nodenfelt info come from ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Most likely my mistake. My source is a book of coastal artillery guns used in Finland by Enqvist, Ove: Itsenäisen Suomen rannikkotykit 1918-1998, Sotamuseo (1999), ISBN 951-25-1033-2, and the information plaque in the Kuivasaari coastal artillery museum. Both sources mention only that "Hotchkiss and Nordenfelt guns or copies of them were manufactured in many countries. Finland had three 57 mm "Bridgeport" guns and two 57 mm "Derby" guns. These guns were converted to fire the same ammunition used in 57 mm Nordenfelt guns." The sources I have do not describe whether the Bridgeport or Derby guns were based on Nordenfelt or Hotchkiss design, and I may have jumped to Nordenfelt conclusion from the ammunition used. MKFI (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I think there was a gun factory in Bridgeport which had the licence to build Hotchkiss guns. Keep taking the great photos ! regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:100 56 TK on Kuivasaari island, Finland

I appreciate your suggestion but I stand by my decision. And let me tell you why: For one if the category refers to this specific 100 56 TK than it can also be linked to the Kuivasaari category, I don't see why this picture should be in the main category of pictures taken on or of Kuivasaari island. Also if someone decides to upload another picture of this specific artillery piece than he/she will only have to worry about this single category. The only reason that I can see for creating a Category:100 56 TK is if there were pictures of other artillery pieces of the same type located at different locations.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

While creating a specific category for the 100 56 TK guns on Kuivasaari island does reduce over-categorization, I am concerned that the subject of 100 56 TK has no base category. Category:100 56 TK on Kuivasaari island, Finland is a somewhat clumsy search term, and for articles in wikis on 100 56 TK it would seem more obvious for the image category to have the same name. MKFI (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We can always create a general Category:100 56 TK and put the Category:100 56 TK on Kuivasaari island, Finland in it. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice

Hi MKFI ! Nice to find some help here. Are you shure about the sorting system ? Best regards from Germany see:

 Wiki-Diskussionseiten Militärgeschichte / Waffen International 
  Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
      Обсуждения:   Военная история

Perhaps there is a place for Finland ? --Gruß Tom (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about the "by calibre" sub-category sorting system; that is why I have not made changes to other sub categories outside subs in Category:Artillery by calibre 100↔200 mm. Do you have other ideas? I think it would be best to either separate sub "by calibre" categories from weapon categories or make the base calibre x↔y categories contain only sub by calibre categories (ie. metacategory). MKFI (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK we developed this system in german cats see [1] as part of systmatics for artillery. Of course there remains the need of a systematic for the different types of weapons. The primary level cat system we uses the technical view. Secondary view are themes as countrys, or areas of interest. In you like to you can have a look to the rules we made in order to have a logical treatment within the hole system see: de: or fi:(googletrans) . The advantage of the system by caliber is that allmost every artillery weapon can be asorted. Even those you never heard before. Because the normal caliber range for artillery is from 20 mm to 300 and above it is good to have this separeted from handguns for this area there are some calibers which can apear on both sides but such is live. see handgun ammo tables: [2] [3] [4]. OK your turn to speak ;-) --Gruß Tom (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems sensible enough system. For the commons by calibre categories what (I think) might cause confusion is that there is the base Category:Artillery by calibre, which only contains "by calibre" categories (currently at least). The sub "Artillery by calibre x↔y mm" categories contain both sub "x mm artillery" categories (which the german wikipedia does not have, though the english wikipedia uses them), weapon categories and files. Should we maintain this current system or should the "Artillery by calibre x↔y mm" categories contain only "x mm artillery" categories?

If we maintain the current system, should the "x mm artillery" categories be separated from the other contents by sorting them so they show in the beginning of the category listing, using some other method, or not separated at all?

Finally there are now both the new "x mm artillery" categories, but also the few older "x inch artillery" categories. Should the "by inch" categories be converted into category redirects? It seems pointless to maintain both, and several countries have converted from standard to metric system but maintained the old measurements (ie. 6 inch gun -> 152 mm gun).MKFI (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my (and others) opion a conversion of the inch system should not be done. It is historic, that we have differnt systems with firearms, beginning with stonebullets to "bore x system", "inch", "gauge", "pounder", "millimeter". It is unique to have all them togehter (asorted by our service with millimeters in the background). I'afraid i did not really understand the problem concerning "Category:Artillery by calibre" itself. If i look from the view of Category:Artillery everthing seems to be fine to me. Please explain once more and try easy ;-) (Sorry) --Gruß Tom (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

From your first note "Are you shure about the sorting system", I got the impression that you disapproved when I sorted the Category:120 mm artillery and others with |*120 so that they appear first on the parent category list. Did I misunderstand?

And I see that the Category:Artillery does indeed contain a variety of content. In that case there is no problem with the contents of "Artillery by calibre x↔y mm" categories. I was a bit too eager to over-categorize things. MKFI (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not disapproved - no problem - your idea with the asterix differs a little as i am used to do - but in the end it shows up the same systematic. BTW .. Just while looking around in the "high end" caliber range we both can see that the en:system is weak. above 300 there is only the "305" which makes sense for a subcat. Also good to see the modern and historic calibers in comparasation. I am shure this system has a good chance to be accepted by our users. Please explain once more if any problems a still to be seen. --Gruß Tom (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. FYI: I left a note on Category talk:Artillery by calibre. Feel free to add something if you like to. Best regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a misunderstanding on my part then. And enwiki system definately does have its disadvantages. In that case I think we can conclude that the current system used in commons is OK and there are no problems. MKFI (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx (if you like to go on with "cosorting" your help is welcome) --Gruß Tom (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

once more i've seen you working for hours. It seems to to be ~90% complete. Some "Nut cracking" will remain for time of slow growing. It was a pleasure to meet you. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Pori ja Jenny Wihuri.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Whites a tad blown on the rescue ship, but nothing redhibitory. Rama 10:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Request help identifying artillery fuzes

Rod,

I have uploaded some pictures of sectioned artillery fuzes that I took in Finnish artillery museum in Hämeenlinna. Unfortunately the fuzes were not labeled and the museum weekend staff could not help me. I have created the Category:Unidentified fuzes for them. I pestered the museum staff by email later and found that the fuzes are mostly from light caliber (75-105 mm) shells. I got some details of one (File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 13.jpg), but did not press the issue on others. Given the mix-and-match of equipment used by Finnish army these fuzes could be Russian/Soviet, British, French, German, Swedish, Finnish, American, even Austro-Hungarian or Japanese (and that's just presuming they were actually used by Finland and not acquired by the museum later).

You seem to know quite a lot of artillery fuzes based on your edits. If you can find anything of these, it would be most appriciated. MKFI (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, great photos, it's really sad the museum doesn't have info about them... I only know about British WWI stuff - my grandfather was an 18-pounder gunner, my father was on merchant ships in WWII which were armed with old WWI guns, and my research has been geared to that... the only photo I have any idea about is File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 12.jpg - looks like a Krupp design circa. 1905 for a long-range shrapnel or airburst HE shell (3 timer rings, both time and percussion action). Similar to British No. 80 (File:No80FuzeMkVL.jpg), with extra ring, but the threads are bigger (i.e. fewer per inch) than the British fuze. File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 14.jpg. File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 15.jpg and File:Artillery fuze Hämeenlinna 4.jpg look like French mortar bomb fuzes. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I added Category:Fuzes of Germany or Category:Fuzes of France to files you listed, but left them still in the unidentified category in case someone else has further information of them. MKFI (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:17 cm Minenwerfer Hämeenlinna 2.JPG

Hello, are you sure this is indeed the later n/A model ? The barrel looks very short, in fact it looks like the a/A model. Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The museum information plaque does list it as 4.5 caliber barrel, but does not otherwise specify whether it is a/A or n/a. It is quite possible that the museum information tablet is in error. MKFI (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Great tip!

[5] - news came out like thunder. Now I have the Magic Green Harmless Button - never leave home without it! Great. If only I knew what it's good for ;) Thanks again, NVO (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Commons:Deletion requests/File:080720teachersinBPMS.jpg

Hi, MKFI. I guess the ip user just simply copy and paste the tag from File:080720teachersinBPMS.jpg. I am not intending to delete those files tagged by the anno-IP since they are not massive group pictures used in one article. : ) -Mys 721tx (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kristina Regina Eteläsatama 1.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

finally used Catscan

works great. Looking for a particular picture of a fluoride, but NOT a structural formuala. And there are like 50 subcats of fluoride. Could scan images very fast after using catscan! thanks.TCO (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Econic airport tanker Malmi 2.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Econic airport tanker Malmi 1.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sami Kontio Challenge pylon race round 2 D-EZOZ 06.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Concidering the circumstances it's good enough to me. Nice colors! --Ximonic 10:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sami Kontio Challenge pylon race round 2 OH-SKA 13.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Maybe a little too invasive contrast between the darkish plane and bright cloud. However I believe it's quite well taken. These moments must be over fast, I guess. --Ximonic 11:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Sami Kontio Challenge pylon race round 3 D-EZOZ 16.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎. Comments Instant nicely captured. --D4m1en 10:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bailengzhun from below.jpg.jpg

Can you please make sure that I am correct?Please fill out the correct File Name,File:Bailengzhun from below.jpg.—Yiken (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Done moved to File:Bailengzhun from below.jpg. MKFI (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you.—Yiken (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Louhi ja Halli

Katselin nuo Louhen ja Hallin kuvat läpi ja täydensin tietoja sen verran mitä osasin. Lamorin vehkeitähän nuo enimmäkseen ovat. Tarkempia speksejä löytyy mm. Lamorin uutislehtisestä, joka on osittain copypastettu sanasta sanaan meikäläisen kirjoittamasta Wikipedia-artikkelista. Tupsumato (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Denmark.svg

Apparently SouthSudan has reverted your revert and the flag is now back to his version with the wrong proportions. Is there any way to convince this user that the flag shouldn't look like that? ElMa-sa (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on User talk:SouthSudan. Another user has already reverted the flag. If this happens again you can revert the image yourself (the "revert" link left of the old file version thumbnail), and ask for help at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. MKFI (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)