User talk:ZLEA
|
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. 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. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Aircraft 3-views
I notice that you have been adding many categories to aircraft images, without apparently considering the category hierarchy principles in our policy article COM:CAT. That article goes into considerable detail about the hierarchical category tree, and why we should avoid adding categories that are direct parents or children of categories already containing the same image. For example, an image can be in Category:Aircraft 3-views or Category:SVG aircraft 3-views, but not both. Similarly, Category:Aircraft 3-views is a sub-category (ie child) of Category:Line drawings of aircraft, so an image should not be a member of both. Also, Category:CAC-15 is a sub-cat of Category:CAC aircraft, so Category:CAC aircraft is redundant for the same image. I hope you will attempt to understand better the hierarchy principle, and that you will correct the many errors you have already created, thank you in anticipation, PeterWD (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!

Dear ZLEA,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked.
In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.
Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
2D objects Vs. 3D objects
Hello 👋🏻, I saw that you uploaded a number of images of coins from the United States of America to Wikimedia Commons from an external website, are those images listed as free there? Because when someone makes a scan of a 3D object (like coins) new copyright © is created and we would need OTRS permission to use them here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
For example File:1951 Booker T. Washington half dollar obverse.jpg was made by the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation, so while the government of the United States of America created it (making it a public domain design) the fact that the coin is 3D means that the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation has separate copyrights over the scanned image. You can also e-mail the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation and ask them to verify a free license for usage on Wikimedia Commons if you haven't already. Or maybe this has already happened and you forgot to use the template. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung From my understanding, the US Mint holds the copyrights for all coins it produces. While outside individuals and organizations design the coins, the copyrights are handed over to the mint if the design is accepted.
- Coin designs, while stamped into a 3D object, are in fact considered 2D. Therefore as long as the coin is pictured head on, it should be okay. - ZLEA T\C 15:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: , well, yes the designs are "{{PD-USGov}}" and simple sketches of them are considered to be 2D derivative works that can't be copyrighted, but scans are a different story, please see "Commons:Currency#Important points". While I would like simple scans of coins to be acceptable a new copyright © is created.
Please see this user talk page (Mobile 📱) for a case where a user (recently) assumed the same. You could upload these images locally to the English Wikipedia under fair use but here there exist 2 (two) separate sets of copyrights for coins and while one is in the public domain the photographer (read: Scanner) owns the copyrights of the scans (banknotes are considered to be purely 2D works, but coins aren't). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung Thanks for letting me know. For technical reasons I cannot contact PCGS or NGC for copyright permission. If you or someone else is able to do that, that would be great. If not, go ahead and delete them. - ZLEA T\C 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will try to contact both of these parties sometime in the future, you could also nominate those pages yourself if you want, but if an OTRS ticket is fetched then they will be undeleted. Also you could upload them to the English language Wikipedia before nominating them as Wikipedia does allow them. Basically anything not accepted here can be locally uploaded to some Wikipedia's, but it's best to upload them here if they have a free license because then they could be used at any Wikimedia website and re-users are certain that they're free. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung Will the each file's corresponding Wikipedia pages (such as en:File:1925 Medal Norse Silver commemorative (obverse).jpg) be deleted if the images are deleted on Commons? - ZLEA T\C 15:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes, which is why they would need new names first. You could first copy the file and names manually and then delete the files here for deletion, though I would advise you to keep a list (such as "User:ZLEA/PCGS" or something) of them for when I will request permission. I really don't like breaking bad news to people.
--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung I've created the lists of images from the PCGS and NGC at User:ZLEA/PCGS and User:ZLEA/NGC respectively. - ZLEA T\C 23:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will try to contact both companies soon. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung According to the following template, Template:PD-USGov-money, all of the images are in fact on the public domain despite being taken from PCGS and NGC. - ZLEA T\C 13:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will try to contact both companies soon. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung I've created the lists of images from the PCGS and NGC at User:ZLEA/PCGS and User:ZLEA/NGC respectively. - ZLEA T\C 23:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes, which is why they would need new names first. You could first copy the file and names manually and then delete the files here for deletion, though I would advise you to keep a list (such as "User:ZLEA/PCGS" or something) of them for when I will request permission. I really don't like breaking bad news to people.
- Donald Trung Will the each file's corresponding Wikipedia pages (such as en:File:1925 Medal Norse Silver commemorative (obverse).jpg) be deleted if the images are deleted on Commons? - ZLEA T\C 15:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will try to contact both of these parties sometime in the future, you could also nominate those pages yourself if you want, but if an OTRS ticket is fetched then they will be undeleted. Also you could upload them to the English language Wikipedia before nominating them as Wikipedia does allow them. Basically anything not accepted here can be locally uploaded to some Wikipedia's, but it's best to upload them here if they have a free license because then they could be used at any Wikimedia website and re-users are certain that they're free. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung Thanks for letting me know. For technical reasons I cannot contact PCGS or NGC for copyright permission. If you or someone else is able to do that, that would be great. If not, go ahead and delete them. - ZLEA T\C 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: , well, yes the designs are "{{PD-USGov}}" and simple sketches of them are considered to be 2D derivative works that can't be copyrighted, but scans are a different story, please see "Commons:Currency#Important points". While I would like simple scans of coins to be acceptable a new copyright © is created.
NGC permission
I received permission from the NGC, however the letter I received by Janell Armstrong also included the note "you should check before using images from our World Coin Price Guide, Ancients articles or NGC Registry as these are not our images." So I would like to ask you if the images you uploaded fall within these before I will direct them to the OTRS team. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Donald Trung The images came from . - ZLEA T\C 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Reminder
Reminding myself to check back on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File falsely identified as a US coin. - ZLEA T\C 13:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23
After he blocked me on Wikipedia, Bbb23 reverted many of my constructive edits. Could you in particular restore my edits to American Veterans Disabled for Life silver dollar? I had already turned it from a simple stub into an article with references and an infobox. Thanks. --Anastasia D.Rossi (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Anastasia D.Rossi No problem. I hope to see you in a few years after you take the standard offer. - ZLEA T\C 22:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Washington nickel update
Just uploaded some new pictures of the Washington nickel. There were actually several varieties of the 1909 Washington nickel, with different placings of "Liberty" as well as two patterns that year with Washington facing left. I already have an update for the gallery, but because I am blocked on Wikipedia, can you do me a favor and copy and paste the source below?
- Anastasia D.Rossi I will take that into consideration, but you are a banned user. But please keep in mind that I could get in trouble for making edits at your request. See en:WP:PROXYING. - ZLEA T\C 16:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: Yes, I understand the sentiment, which is why I would like to stop there with that final edit. However, there is still much work to be done, especially on Cancelled denominations and some commemoratives. --Anastasia D.Rossi (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Anastasia D.Rossi Like I said, you still have a chance to come back legitimately. Stop your sockpuppetry and make all your accounts known, and in a few years request to have your ban appealed. Until then, you might want to contribute to a non-Wikimedia numismatics wiki such as like CoinFacts Wiki or Currency Wikia. - ZLEA T\C 16:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: Yes, I understand the sentiment, which is why I would like to stop there with that final edit. However, there is still much work to be done, especially on Cancelled denominations and some commemoratives. --Anastasia D.Rossi (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Obverse designs
- 1866 obverse, Washington surrounded by "United States of America"
- 1866 obverse, Washington with motto "In God We Trust"
- 1866 obverse, Washington with motto "God and Our Country"
- 1909 obverse, large date with Washington facing right and "Liberty" surrounded by 7 stars to the left and 6 stars to the right
- 1909 obverse, small date with Washington facing right and "Liberty" surrounded by 7 stars to the left and 6 stars to the right
- 1909 obverse, with Washington facing right and "Liberty" following 13 stars
- 1909 obverse, with Washington facing right and two stars between each word in "Liberty"
- 1909 obverse, with Washington facing left and small "9"s in the date
- 1909 obverse, with a slightly enlarged portrait Washington facing left and large "9"s in the date
- 1910 obverse, Washington facing left
Thanks, --Anastasia D.Rossi (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014-P 50th anniversary Kennedy half dollar high relief obverse.jpg, which was produced 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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 1884 ring nickel (obverse).jpg, which was produced 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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014-P 50th anniversary Kennedy half dollar high relief reverse.jpg, which was produced 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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Reminder
Reminding myself to check on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klt808755010 obv.gif at a later time. - ZLEA T\C 13:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Future historians will be grateful
| Numismatics Barnstar | ||
| Thank you so much for both creating and organising the 2019 US Banknote Contest on Wikimedia Commons. Future historians will thank you for bringing so much of US monetary history in one place. |
- Donald Trung Thank you. - ZLEA T\C 12:33, 21 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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:100_peso_American_Period_Philippine_banknotes
|
100 peso American Period Philippine banknotes 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! |
Category:2_peso_American_Period_Philippine_banknotes
|
2 peso American Period Philippine banknotes 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! |
File:Echinospartum horridum 2015-06-04 01 (cropped).jpg ?
Hi, thanks for changing the file name upon my request File:Echinospartum horridum 2015-06-04 01 (cropped).jpg - but I don't understand why you've added "(cropped)". There is another similar photo File:Echinospartum horridum 2015-06-04 01.jpg, but these are two different photos taken in a series, the time of the first is 12:05:44, and the second is 12:05:48. You can also check the original sizes of both of them. I kindly request changing the file name to "Echinospartum horridum 2015-06-04 02.jpg", as I originally requested. Cheers, Nova (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nova Sorry about that. I didn't see that you requested both files to be renamed. - ZLEA T\C 17:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Done - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 14:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 03:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 19:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 21:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:2019 Delaware American Innovation dollar proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Georgia American Innovation dollar proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Delaware American Innovation dollar reverse design.jpg
- File:2019 New Jersey American Innovation dollar reverse proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Delaware American Innovation dollar reverse proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 New Jersey American Innovation dollar reverse design.jpg
- File:2019 Georgia American Innovation dollar reverse proof reverse.jpg
- File:2018 American Innovation Dollar reverse.jpg
- File:2019 American Innovation dollar proof obverse.jpg
- File:2019 American Innovation dollar uncirculated obverse.jpg
- File:American Innovation Dollar obverse.jpg
- File:2019 Georgia American Innovation dollar uncirculated reverse.jpg
- File:2019 American Innovation dollar reverse proof obverse.jpg
- File:2019 Delaware American Innovation dollar uncirculated reverse.jpg
- File:2018 American Innovation dollar reverse proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 New Jersey American Innovation dollar uncirculated reverse.jpg
- File:American Innovation dollar reverse proof obverse.jpg
- File:2019 Pennsylvania American Innovation dollar uncirculated reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Pennsylvania American Innovation dollar proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Pennsylvania American Innovation dollar reverse design.jpg
- File:2019 New Jersey American Innovation dollar proof reverse.jpg
- File:2019 Georgia American Innovation dollar reverse design.jpg Mysterymanblue 23:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:2005 Ocean nickel (reverse).jpg Mysterymanblue 00:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mysterymanblue 03:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:2020 Vermont America the Beautiful quarter reverse design.jpg
- File:2020 American Samoa America the Beautiful quarter reverse design.jpg
- File:2020 Connecticut America the Beautiful quarter reverse design.jpg
- File:2020 Virgin Islands America the Beautiful quarter reverse design.jpg
- File:2019 San Antonio Missions - ATB silver bullion quarter reverse.jpg
- File:2020 Kansas America the Beautiful quarter reverse design.jpg
Yours sincerely, Mysterymanblue 05:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
File:2019 Apollo 11 50th Anniversary 5oz Dollar Reverse.jpg
File:2019 Apollo 11 50th Anniversary 5oz Dollar Reverse.jpg has been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 20:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:2015 American Liberty High Relief Union Reverse.jpg
- File:2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Union Obverse.jpg
- File:2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Union Reverse.jpg
- File:2019 American Liberty 24k gold union obverse.jpg
- File:2019 American Liberty 24k gold union reverse.jpg
Yours sincerely, Mysterymanblue 00:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:2012 Alice Paul bronze medal.jpg
- File:2012 Frances Cleveland 1st term bronze medal obverse.jpg
- File:2012 Frances Cleveland 1st term bronze medal reverse.jpg
- File:2012 Frances Cleveland 1st term bronze medal.jpg
- File:2016 Betty Ford eagle obverse.jpg
- File:2016 Betty Ford eagle reverse.jpg
- File:2016 Nancy Reagan First Spouse Gold Coin Obverse.jpg
- File:2016 Nancy Reagan First Spouse Gold Coin Reverse.jpg
- File:Nixon Pat unc 1.jpg
- File:Nixon Pat unc.jpg
Yours sincerely, Mysterymanblue 01:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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. |
Mysterymanblue 03:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
File:America the Beautiful quarter obverse (West Point).jpg
File:America the Beautiful quarter obverse (West Point).jpg 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.)
|
Mysterymanblue 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
File:2014 Kennedy Half Dollar 50th Anniversary Gold Obverse.jpg
File:2014 Kennedy Half Dollar 50th Anniversary Gold Obverse.jpg 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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. |
And also:
April 2023
I originally wanted to take the standard offer in mid-2022 but with the fake Devo in my timeline releasing two separate albums that year, I decided to put it off until late 2023/early 2024. If I return as a constructive editor, I was wondering if A) I could have one of my locked accounts (of my personal preference) unblocked and unlocked, and B) some of the pages that were deleted could (namely United States two thousand-dollar bill and Learn to Be Still) could be restored. --190.10.8.6 04:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the one you should be asking. You must contact an admin via one of these methods. - ZLEA T\C 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:P03 modified P-51 Mustang Miss Ashley II with contra-props.jpg

Category:Bigger,_Brighter,_Bluer_(aircraft)
|
Bigger, Brighter, Bluer (aircraft) 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! |
Category:American Innovation dollar (Georgia)
Prototyperspective (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Beechcraft 200C Super King Air by civil registration
Prototyperspective (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Category:DJI Phantom 4 Pro+
To be honest, I don't see the meaning for this separate category. "Phantom 4 Pro+" is same as "Phantom 4 Pro", just with the display on the RC included in the package. The body and the batteries are all the same, can be used both as 4 Pro and as 4 Pro+. That said, if ever, only pictures of the RC with screen fit into this category. --A.Savin 11:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- A.Savin I strongly disagree. The drone itself is designated Pro+, so although there are no external and minimal internal differences between the Pro and Pro+, they can be easily categorized if it can be determined that the drone came with the upgraded remote. - ZLEA T\C 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- How will you then know for other pictures in the Category:DJI Phantom 4 Pro, nevermind Category:Taken with DJI FC6310, whether it's a Pro or Pro+? or taken with a Pro or Pro+? --A.Savin 18:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- A.Savin Unfortunately there would be no way to tell unless there is a clear view of the serial number, but that doesn't mean the category is useless as there are already confirmed images of a Pro+ on Commons. - ZLEA T\C 19:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll say the same for the Pro V2.0. Although it is externally identical to the Pro, we can and should create a subcategory for it as soon as an image of one is identified on Commons, even though such confirmation would likely have to come from the uploader or a serial number search. - ZLEA T\C 19:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- How will you then know for other pictures in the Category:DJI Phantom 4 Pro, nevermind Category:Taken with DJI FC6310, whether it's a Pro or Pro+? or taken with a Pro or Pro+? --A.Savin 18:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
DJI camera model names
Hi, I've complete a list of most DJI camera models on DJI camera model names, could you review that page? Regards, Tim (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Dash cam footage
Perhaps we really just ought to have a Request for comments about dash cam footage to settle the issue whether or not PD-automated applies once and for all instead of constantly having deletion requests about it Trade (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Trade I think that's a good idea, but I'm hoping that this request will set a precedent for dash cam footage going forward, allowing us to use COM:CSD or COM:COPYVIO for any future cases. If you want to start an RfC, don't let me stop you. I personally will wait to see how the current deletion requests turn out. - ZLEA T\C 03:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Category:53-816 (aircraft)
Rose Abrams (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Categorizing aircraft under name rather than registration
Hey! I noticed you did this with some JetBlue aircraft (e.g. moving files under Category:Thelma And Blue-ise (aircraft) rather than Category:N3162J (aircraft)). Is there a place where this practice was established? I object to it as:
1.) I don't really see any benefit to breaking from standardizing on the registration itself (e.g. N12345 (aircraft) as the category), except for particular notable aircraft like Category:Enola Gay or when there's a particular special livery unique to the aircraft's name (e.g. Category:Freedom One (aircraft)) that requires distinguishing it from the registration.
2.) It makes categorization while uploading more difficult, as I have to see which aircraft have categories under their christened names rather than just entering their registrations.
3.) We don't do this for most aircraft, and it just seems inconsistent (e.g. we have Category:F-HUVJ (aircraft) and not, say, Category:Paris (Air France aircraft)). I don't really see why JetBlue should get special treatment here when we don't consistently apply this to other airlines' regular-painted aircraft. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- From a quick look we sometimes do the same for Icelandair aircraft (which are often named), but I would also like to point out that people rarely if ever search for aircraft by their christened name rather than by their registration, unless that name is particularly notable (which I would argue is not met by most JetBlue or Icelandair aircraft). 4300streetcar (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- 4300streetcar The practice of categorizing aircraft under their given name has been around far longer than I've been here, though I believe I was the one who brought the practice to JetBlue.
- 1. Given name categories serve as yet another identifier for an aircraft that can be used to further break down larger categories. This may not be the case for all aircraft (especially newer aircraft that have not yet changed hands), but for the sake of consistency, I believe it is best practice to categorize under an aircraft's given name if it has one. After all, there is no notability policy for categories and it gives Commons users yet another metric for sifting through photos. Likewise, it can also help external search engines such as Google more easily find images if someone searches for an aircraft by name.
- 2. Are you using the Upload Wizard? You should just be able to enter the aircraft's registration into the categorization bar and it will show you any subcategories it has. Regardless, I'm not sure ease of categorization during upload is a reason to not have a category, and there are certainly cases in which these categories would be beneficial from an uploader's perspective. For example, this can be especially useful if someone uploads a photo of an aircraft in which the registration is obscured or out of frame and has only the given name to identify it.
- 3. I agree, JetBlue shouldn't get any special treatment, and it was not my intention to give it such when I created the categories. If I had time to create given name categories for every applicable airline, I would have done so long ago. The reason I created them for JetBlue specifically is because I upload a lot of photos of its aircraft, so it was an obvious place to start. I have also created similar categories for other airlines as I spotted them (Virgin Atlantic and Frontier, for example). Despite being born far too late to spot the airline, I did the same for Pan Am as their longstanding tradition for naming their aircraft carried such a legacy that arguably most of their aircraft were known better by their names than registrations. - ZLEA TǀC 05:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Appreciate the response.
- In terms of uploading - yes Upload Wizard will show subcats thankfully, but HotCat doesn't for categorizing after the fact, and it adds another variable I have to watch out for when uploading or categorizing. I have a colossal upload backlog; categorization is easily the most time-consuming aspect of uploading that prevents me from uploading anywhere near as many photos as I take, as it ends up being a massive time suck to see what inconsistently-named categories exist that I have to file my uploads under. I suppose my annoyance with this mostly stems from this; categorization is frankly just a terrible workflow and this makes it just a little bit worse to properly categorize photos since it adds another thing to watch out for.
- Among other issues as well:
- Aircraft can change names (e.g. TF-FIV was initially Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir but later renamed Katla). Though I suppose registrations can change for the same aircraft as well (e.g. N879RW was previously N749CZ despite being at the same airline)
- The same name can be held by multiple aircraft (which then results in having to disambiguate in the category name, occasionally resulting in very long category names like Category:The Spirit of Kitty Hawk (Boeing 737-3H4 N300SW) versus Category:The Spirit of Kitty Hawk (Boeing 737-3H4 N302SW), where registration ends up being the distinguishing feature rather than the christened name
- There's inconsistency between whether the name lives as a subcat of the registration (e.g. Category:Miss Moneypenny (aircraft)) or whether the registration is a subcat of the name (e.g. Category:Beauty Queen (aircraft))
- Most aircraft don't get named and we use the registration to refer to it, and this just seems to be the general expectation for me. This breaks consistency when some airlines decides to name some or all of their aircraft. I'm just not sure what the value is of making the aircraft name its own category rather than just noting the name as text in the registration category page (which seems to be common practice with JetBlue, Air France, and other airlines, and which is what I've been used to).
- 4300streetcar (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- After several years of working with aircraft identity categories, I've found the following hierarchy to work the best (top is an aircraft's individual base category, the rest are incrementing levels of subcategories):
- 1. Construction number; this is the absolute identifier for a vast majority of aircraft as it typically is unique (at least within an aircraft type) and never changes from the moment an aircraft is built until it is scrapped or otherwise destroyed (exceptions do exist, but they are extremely rare and are usually due to remanufacturing). Therefore, all of an individual aircraft's registrations, names, and whatever other identifiers should ultimately be direct or indirect subcategories of a single construction number.
- 2. Registration (civil registration or military serial); these usually change as an aircraft changes hands throughout its service life, but almost all aircraft carry a registration while they are airworthy (ultralight/microlight aircraft and drones are notable exceptions, but even these are required to be registered in some countries).
- 3. Given name; as you said, most aircraft are never named. For aircraft that are named, it is debatable whether the name changes more often than the registration. For airliners, names change arguably more often than registrations (if I recall correctly, some JetBlue aircraft have has as many as three different names before retirement). However, for warbirds the opposite is usually true as an aircraft might change hands multiple times while keeping its original name for historical purposes. Then again, some warbirds have been repainted numerous times to represent different examples of its type, so their names can also change more often than their registration. Therefore, except for some warbirds, I think it's best to make an aircraft's given name a subcategory of its registration.
- If more than one aircraft have used a specific name, then it becomes necessary to disambiguate. As you pointed out, this can sometimes lead to long category names, but that's by no means a unique problem to aircraft names. Registrations have also been reassigned as older aircraft are deregistered. I don't remember which registration it was, but I recall dealing with a registration in the past that was assigned to two different aircraft of the same type and variant, leaving me no choice but to disambiguate with the construction number.
- The reason for the current inconsistency with the aircraft identity hierarchy is probably my fault. When I first created the JetBlue name categories, I created them as parent categories for the registrations. It wasn't until later that I realized that this wasn't the best idea, and although I started going back and converting them into subcategories, I was always sidetracked and never finished the task. - ZLEA TǀC 08:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what the value is of making the aircraft name its own category rather than just noting the name as text in the registration category page (which seems to be common practice with JetBlue, Air France, and other airlines, and which is what I've been used to).
The value is mostly searchability, both within and outside Commons. If someone wants to search for aircraft images by given name rather than registration, having categories for such greatly improves their ability to do so. Likewise, many external search engines prioritize webpages in which the keywords appear in the title, which means they are more likely to overlook categories which only mention the name in text. - ZLEA TǀC 08:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you know how long it takes for a CheckUser to reply?
I think it has been more than a week now and no response. I was wondering if you know. Zaptain United (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes it can be a while. There are only 48 users with the CU permission on English Wikipedia, and they're all usually busy. That said, I don't know that a CU is necessarily needed in this case, as the involvement of temporary accounts makes it necessary to go off of behavioral evidence. This is because many users can view the IP addresses of TAs, which would make it possible to determine a sockpuppeteer's location and potentially their identity if a CU confirms a connection through IP evidence. - ZLEA TǀC 13:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Do you know which country the IPs came from? Should I reveal the name of the country I live because I like privacy and being anonymous. Zaptain United (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I cannot reveal such information per en:WP:TAIVDISCLOSE. Admins and CUs can see such information, but as I said before, there almost certainly will not use the CU feature in this case given that the suspected SPAs are TAs, so the location of their IP will not be taken into account. Likewise, revealing your own country will probably have no effect on the outcome for the same reasons. - ZLEA TǀC 20:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Okay you know what I will just let the process play out on it’s own. I am busy in my personal life anyway so I will stop replying. I have no grudge against you and hope we can meet again in the future. Zaptain United (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I cannot reveal such information per en:WP:TAIVDISCLOSE. Admins and CUs can see such information, but as I said before, there almost certainly will not use the CU feature in this case given that the suspected SPAs are TAs, so the location of their IP will not be taken into account. Likewise, revealing your own country will probably have no effect on the outcome for the same reasons. - ZLEA TǀC 20:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Do you know which country the IPs came from? Should I reveal the name of the country I live because I like privacy and being anonymous. Zaptain United (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Could you give your thoughts on this?
I saw that you were involved in this ANI thread back in July and I was asking what your thoughts on this situation on this IP's talk page? I thought they were being unfairly targeted because they were an IP that didn't go along with the consensus. I know you voted the opposite of this IP, but could you give your thoughts on this. I have been reading up and doing more research on that situation involving those users since I find it unique and interesting. I personally don't think it is a good idea for an IP to be in ANI threads since it can lead to sockpuppet allegations, but I believe this IP wasn't disruptive. I am just asking because I was frustrated and a little exhausted reading all this drama from last July. I think this might be a bit awkward considering my sockpuppet investigation just ended, but I got a little distracted with searching up Wikipedia drama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.198.139.17 Zaptain United (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe I had ever directly interacted with the IP, but it's clear to me that they weren't being treated unfairly. They were making blatantly false claims of a consensus to indef an editor who was the victim of harassment; a proposal by the editor who was doing the harassment. When called out about it, they doubled down with more false claims. These were also the first edits of the IP range. In many circumstances, this could indicate logged-out sockpuppetry. However, there have also been many cases of logged-out trolls pretending to be someone else to get the latter blocked, so admins usually take it with a grain of salt.
- That said, there are many cases where IP (and now TA) editors have contributed constructively to ANI discussions, so I think disallowing them from ANI would cause more harm than good. - ZLEA TǀC 16:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, I will respect your opinion. I will delete my comment I made there. I should just stop commenting and actually become inactive. Zaptain United (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- You don't have to do that if you don't want, but let's at least not dwell on the past. No one is perfect, but the best editors are the ones who learn from their mistakes and strive to be better. - ZLEA TǀC 21:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, I will occasionally comment on Wikimedia than to keep me still passionate about Wikipedia. Uh, could you give you thoughts on this conversation and whether it shows any kind of redemption? At the time I message them, I was more sympathetic for them and would have supported them to be unblocked, but now I am not so sure about it considering they were a little aggressive towards me even I was nicer to them than others. As for me, I do want to improve my behavior as I have calm down and done some more reflection. I was a little too aggressive at times.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplebackpack89#I_kind_of_feel_bad_for_you Zaptain United (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- From that conversation, it's clear that they still don't understand that their actions were problematic, or at least are unable to acknowledge it without resorting to whataboutism. As I said, a good editor is one that strives to learn from their mistakes, and the first step to doing that is to acknowledge your mistakes. Purplebackpack89 does not appear to have even gotten past that first step.
- With that said, I recommend not engaging in such conversations in the future. Users who are blocked on English Wikipedia (or any other project, for that matter) for problematic behavior often find ways to contribute constructively on other projects, and demonstrating the ability to do so goes a long way if they choose to pursue the standard offer. Reigniting old drama that you were not involved with doesn't do anyone any favors. If they want to sort it out, they it's best if they make that decision on their own. Otherwise, they have every right to just avoid it and find other ways to contribute. - ZLEA TǀC 03:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the advice. I will avoid getting involve in unrelated drama in the future. I want to improve overtime. I think interacting with that user made me realize that I should change my behavior. Zaptain United (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, could you give your thoughts on this situation? I still think they should seek consensus for these changes.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#February_2026 Zaptain United (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's a tough one. On one hand, you did challenge Jay D. Easy's edit, so technically they should have sought consensus before reverting back to their version. On the other hand, I fail to see the logic behind your revert, while Jay's explanation that the edit improved accessibility for smaller screens was logical and, in this case, perfectly reasonable. I think it's safe to say that any discussion seeking consensus would WP:SNOWBALL in favor of Jay's edit, so I wouldn't waste time pushing for such a discussion unless there is a good reason to oppose the change. - ZLEA TǀC 03:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I just think there need to be some consensus how long a title needs to be for it to be simplify. I disagree that titles like Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Flight 9064 need to be shorten on templates. It is very inconsistent because some titles like 2008 Los Roques Archipelago Transaven Let L-410 crash are not simplify on templates, while means that Jay D. Easy is deciding which title is too long and which one isn't. I don't think one user should decide, which one is too long, and they had made changes to a lot of templates shortening names. They even reverted my message asking for consensus on their talk page. I am just frustrated because I am always asked to seek consensus like for image changes even when the image is clearly better like on JetBlue 292, but when I ask for consensus for a change on a lot of templates, I get reverted and ignored. I just want some consensus on how long a title has to be for it to be simplify because it feels arbitrary when it is only one user doing this and no one else seems to be having a problem with this. I would just want consensus or an RFC on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_navigational_boxes_by_year talk page. But I don't want to be the one doing that. I would prefer Jay D. Easy to do it. Zaptain United (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also, some titles are longer than the ones that are simplify on templates but are not simplify and no one else was simplifying the titles. Zaptain United (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I just think there need to be some consensus how long a title needs to be for it to be simplify. I disagree that titles like Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Flight 9064 need to be shorten on templates. It is very inconsistent because some titles like 2008 Los Roques Archipelago Transaven Let L-410 crash are not simplify on templates, while means that Jay D. Easy is deciding which title is too long and which one isn't. I don't think one user should decide, which one is too long, and they had made changes to a lot of templates shortening names. They even reverted my message asking for consensus on their talk page. I am just frustrated because I am always asked to seek consensus like for image changes even when the image is clearly better like on JetBlue 292, but when I ask for consensus for a change on a lot of templates, I get reverted and ignored. I just want some consensus on how long a title has to be for it to be simplify because it feels arbitrary when it is only one user doing this and no one else seems to be having a problem with this. I would just want consensus or an RFC on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_navigational_boxes_by_year talk page. But I don't want to be the one doing that. I would prefer Jay D. Easy to do it. Zaptain United (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's a tough one. On one hand, you did challenge Jay D. Easy's edit, so technically they should have sought consensus before reverting back to their version. On the other hand, I fail to see the logic behind your revert, while Jay's explanation that the edit improved accessibility for smaller screens was logical and, in this case, perfectly reasonable. I think it's safe to say that any discussion seeking consensus would WP:SNOWBALL in favor of Jay's edit, so I wouldn't waste time pushing for such a discussion unless there is a good reason to oppose the change. - ZLEA TǀC 03:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the advice. I will avoid getting involve in unrelated drama in the future. I want to improve overtime. I think interacting with that user made me realize that I should change my behavior. Zaptain United (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You don't have to do that if you don't want, but let's at least not dwell on the past. No one is perfect, but the best editors are the ones who learn from their mistakes and strive to be better. - ZLEA TǀC 21:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, I will respect your opinion. I will delete my comment I made there. I should just stop commenting and actually become inactive. Zaptain United (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
DJI camera model names
Hello ZLEA,
I saw that you redirected DJI M3E to DJI Mavic 3E Enterprise and DJI M3M to DJI Mavic 3M Multispectral. I reverted these change as the layout for the categories for DJI drones is
- Drone -> Camera -> taken with category
Example:
The drone camera is called "M3E" and "M3M", the manufacturer is DJI. The default category name scheme for camera is "<MANUFACTURER> <CAMERANAME>" (eg. "Canon EOS R5" or "Sony ILCE-1" (= Sony α1)). The naming scheme for images taken with a certain camera is "Taken with <MANUFACTURER> <CAMERANAME>" (eg. "Taken with Canon EOS R5" or "Taken with Sony ILCE-1"). I know that the category names for the drones were Taken with DJI Mavic 3E Enterprise and Taken with DJI Mavic 3M Multispectral so far. This has been changed.
I just wanted to leave a note and why I reverted your changes. See also DJI camera model names for the growing list of DJI drone cameras and their categories.
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)


