User talk:Kjet

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Helsinki_tram_map_2007-05-14.png[edit]

Moi; thank you for your work on the en:Helsinki tram page. If you still have it, please could you please upload the vector used to create this .png, so that it's easier to upload the map in the future. (Equivalent to uploading the source code instead of a compiled binary). Many Thanks, —11:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Um-hum. I probably can, if you can explain to me what file I need to upload in which format. Unfortunately my understanding of different picture formats is extremely limited, particularly when it comes to vector graphics... Kjet (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Vector is where you're drawing lines (Postscript, EPS, PDF, SVG; made by Illustrator, Corel Draw, or Inkscape) and can be zoomed into without loss of quality. Bitmap is where you're flipping pixels in a fixed size grid on and off (BMP, PNG, JPEG; made by programs like Photoshop, or GIMP). Vectors have text-squares and are re-editable and points on lines that can be reopened after saving and adjusted. What program did you use for creating the images; from there I might be able to provide some guidance. —Sladen (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that pretty much makes the image a bitmap. My graphics program does have to option of drawing vectors, but I've never bothered to learn how to work with them (old school, so to say). So presumably it wouldn't do any good to have a vector format version of the file? Also, looking at the save options of the program in question, done of the formats you mentioned appear as options to save files in. Kjet (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the actual program your using? I was originally intending to trace over and redraw the previous diagram (so that in the future it would always remain editable rather than us having this situation of having to redraw from scratch each time a change is made. I probably waited too long trying to get the vector out of the previous artist though. --12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO numbers[edit]

You removed an IMO number. Correctly, seen the normal practice. But I give you the reason why I gave at least 1 IMO number extra, out of a category. Doing that, you'll have a picture of a ship when you look for the category. It works faster. I admit that it is "against" the rules, but "rules" are not legaly binding "rules" in Wikipedia. IMO numbers are the basic elements in the history of ships, as you probably know yourself. I should prefer giving even an IMO number on each picture. Hope you will add IMO numbers yourself, if you upload new pictures. It is a hell of a job to bring the complete fleet of Commons under IMO. I started with country A and succeeded up to the F (Finnish) ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you added Category:Ships built in Finland to an IMO category. Very good in theory, but it creates a problem where people is using the Commons. Not everyone is ably to see directly the system and my suggestion is to transfer this category remark to the Category:Regina Baltica. I assume it makes the "built in" categories better understandable and it does not harm. I will give more attention to the "built in" categories, working on the IMO numbers. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That is probably a good idea. However, it does create a problem when a ship has sub-categories to the IMO cat under more than one name (which is likely to happen following Regina Baltica's pending exit from Tallink fleet later this year). If - as is probaly a good idea - a new category is created for the new name, that one should also be in Category:Ships built in Finland, which would mean the same ship would appear there twice. Kjet (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. That is exactly what was intended. In the IMO category are the ships gathered in categories by name. In that case in category "Built in" will appear only ships by name. That they are of the same ships is easy to see on the IMO number and de shape of the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Registration in Liberia[edit]

You removed the registration:

Current and former name(s):

  • Name of ship Date of record Source
    • EXPEDITION 2008-09-01 LRF
    • ALANDSFARJAN 2000-05-12 LRF

Current and former flag(s)

  • Flag Date of record Source
    • Liberia 2008-09-01 LRF
    • Sweden 2000-05-12 LRF

LRF = Lloyd's Register

Have a look at Equasis: [1]

Best regards, --Stunteltje (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I concede to a mild mistake on my part. However, she was never in commercial service as Ålandsfärjan under the Liberian flag, as she had been withdrawn by Viking Line already on 29 May 2008. As such I feel that Passenger ships of Sweden is a better justified category than Passenger ships of Liberia. Especially as she was Swedish-registered at the time when that image was taken (I should know—I was there ;P). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I already thought that you are more involved in the ship than Equasis, Miramar or Vesseltracker are, they only get their information from Lloyds and have no direct view on the matter.
I think You misinterreted this sentence. It is to say that somebody who is directly involved, knows better what is happening than people who take their information from publications. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As you saw I didn't revert your changes. Please be so kind to synchronise the right data between the categories by name and by IMO, as I don't have the correct information. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to think you are the ulimate authority over categoring ship images in the commons, I guess it might be best for me to simply stop contributing such images entirely and leave everything to you as you seem to know better. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not al all, I think my English isn't sufficient to give you the right impression. I appreciate your contributions and don't want to interfere if I made a mistake. I thought it is easier for you to make your own texts than to correct my mistakes. More than that wasn't my intention. I have trouble with adding the extra information in IMO categories, because another contributor asked for a deletion of all IMO files. For that reason I tried to concise all information in the category itself. If that isn't done correctly, please revert immediately ant tell me not to interfere. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the harshness of my comment, I was out of line lashing out like that. I did probably misunderstand what you originally said. And for the record, I use neither Equasis, Miramar nor Vesseltracker. Thank you for your good attitude, it was better than I probably deserved. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No apologies needed, I am glad that the problem is out of the way. Hope we can work together on the Commons fleet. If you think that I make mistakes of destroy your good work, please tell me on my user page and I will revert my action(s) immediately. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps for the Finnish War[edit]

I have been working on the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål article about the Finnish war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War

-but I lack maps, any possibility that you can help me out? Best regards - Ulflarsen (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am looking for a photograph of the Julia (formerly Color Line) in a format that can be used for print. I am a Director of the Company Fastnet Line who are purchasing her. We need a print quality image to put in some documentation that we will send out to the public. If you can help that would be great. 86.45.145.158 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


File:Pictures_of_Finland.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pictures_of_Finland.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

A333 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:MS Blue Moon Helsinki.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | suomi | svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:MS Blue Moon Helsinki.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

–⁠moogsi (blah) 04:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kjet
commons.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-10
51303
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XKU2FGD22N7BW6JYZRL7QEWDGBR4NHGQ
<urn:uuid:a2614436-1841-42fb-8b0c-4900177d1884>
2014-03-09T09:55:26Z
198.35.26.96
sha1:TGJT25MMVXYUDXKDSKQ4Y5U7GE4IMBU4
<urn:uuid:7034abb7-30d1-491a-b6cd-292a61d7e119>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kjet
response
<urn:uuid:eeca1181-eeee-4405-ad69-9fe230280e44>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-142-35.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-10
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for March 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf