User talk:Ahunt

English: Welcome to the Commons, Ahunt!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file 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 on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics 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, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please link images

---

Hello Ahunt!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. EugeneZelenko 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! - Ahunt 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Ahunt!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Screenshot-Ubuntu-Software-Centre.png was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Stearman C3B.jpg was uncategorized on 16 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 election poll graphs

I think it is awesome that you are keeping these graphs so well updated, and that someone is taking the trouble to do this. Fantastic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note - it is great that people appreciate it! I figure that the graphs really aren't any value in the middle of a campaign unless they are up to date! - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Polling graphs

Hi, I was interested in getting some polling graphs created for a page. I don't know if this is something you are able to do or if you could tell me what you have used to create the graphs? Thanks. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Environment Canada

Hi, just been adding some categorization to Canadian government aircraft. I think I figured out the relationships and roles of Nav Canada and Transport Canada, that come under Government of Canada, but puzzled by Environment Canada and Department of National Defence coming under Federal Government of Canada. Perhaps a bit too subtle for non-Canucks, but perhaps you could have a quick check to see if the category trees are indeed correct, MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that can be pretty confusing. For one thing Nav Canada is a private company and not government at all. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Solid Air Logo 2014.png

File:Solid Air Logo 2014.png 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.

 

DLindsley (My talk page) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Frola images

Hi, just a few comments about images of Sadler Vampire and Stolp Starlet recently. They are just two of many hundreds of files prefixed "Frola" followed by groups of numerals. I didn't rename them at the time of assigning aircraft model/type to the images. That was partly because there are so many to deal with, and partly because the numbers might have significance for future categorising. For example, images are often uploaded in groups that have parameters in common, such as date and/or location. In the real world, as a full-time archivist, I place high importance on cataloguing negs and slides with locations and dates. Those can often be discovered via context such as background, nearby aircraft, buildings, weather conditions, etc, and I even sometimes remove slides from their mounts to help link them with others. At Commons, I have often used 'upload' numbers (those in brackets) similar to each other to assign the same location or event category to many images. Here, the name "Frola" can be safely removed, because it is embodied in the file information, but the numbers could prove useful. It takes a lot more effort to chase each redirect individually, or the Flickr link (often unproductive). So, I respectfully ask if you can bear all this in mind when renaming files. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I just proposed the file names, I didn't do the renaming as I don't have those privileges here. As anyone can propose renaming, so it may better sense if you propose your own renaming to preserve some sort of index system while complying with Common's requirement that file names be descriptive. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

File:NC37905 July 1991.png

File:NC37905 July 1991.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Audie Murphy crash map samf4u.png

This time samf4u is an author and he can use his name in his own works. Wieralee (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You rang?

Is there some problem for which you need an admin? If so, please leave me a message telling me what it's about and I can help. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ellin: Great to hear from you. I mostly work on en.wikipedia, but do a bit of stuff here on commons as well. I recently found a Google Chrome screenshot here on Commons that a user had uploaded under a CC licence. Google Chrome is proprietary software issued under Google's Terms of Service, so screenshots cannot be uploaded under free licences. I tagged it as a copyright vio and it was deleted. I checked Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome and found many more screenshots of Chrome that had been uploaded under the wrong licences. As a test I tagged three of them File:Bcxfu75k exa.JPG, File:Aw, Snap!.png and File:Bug de pagebanner en Google Chrome.PNG as copyright vios and another user removed the tags and indicated they were under BSD licenses. I have reinstated the tags and left the other user a note to please let an admin assess these for deletion. A lot of people confuse Google Chrome with Chromium. Chromium is the base project for Chrome and is under a series of free licences, including BSD. Google takes the Chromium code, adds proprietary components and copyrighted logos and produces Chrome under the Google Terms of Service, a proprietary licence. This means that all screenshots of Chrome are proprietary and none are eligible for any free licences. Basically all the screenshots at Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome, need to be removed from Commons as they are all copyright violations. You can confirm all this information on the en.wikipedia article on Chrome. If you have any questions about this please do ask! Let's get this solved! - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hiya! I'd like to suggest that a few of these be nominated for deletion as a "trial balloon" and see the discussion generated. Then based on that discussion (most likely "vd"), we can batch out the rest. Would you be interested in doing a Lengthy Deletion Nomination on one or two images saying what you have above? When they go to speedy, there is less discussion and less paper trail leaving it possible for that user to do what they did which was take the tags off without notice. If you need help with the DN, let me know, for example I could start it and you could comment right away with the details. Whatever works, just let me know. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! I do lots of AfD work on en.wikipedia, but have only done speedies here on Commons and I am not that familiar with the process here, so that would be great if you would like to get the ball rolling and I can provide the background as explained above. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please pick one of the most egregious images from the category and I'll be happy to DN it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not in English, but this one I already tagged shows the whole browser window and has a really ridiculous mess of licences added that looks like some attempt to shotgun it with every free license the uploader could think of File:Bcxfu75k exa.JPG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, nommmed... see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bcxfu75k exa.JPG. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:Google Chrome screenshots

Before continuing the discussion, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Google_Chrome_screenshots, this was already discussed, and Community consensus is clear. The Google Chrome binaries are covered by the Google EULA, but the UI interface is part of the Chromium source code (you will notice that the Google Chrome and Chromium interfaces are exactly the same), therefore, the screenshots are covered under the Chromium license, the BSD. Please don't retag the files again, or I'll repor you to the COM:ANU. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for bringing that up, but the conclusions that were arrived at there are not in accordance with the licensing for the software and so the conclusion is wrong. The Chromium binaries are free software, but Chrome is not Chromium, it has added proprietary components and is under a proprietary license. No need to threaten me, this has gone for discussion as noted above. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, and again, the EULA covers only the binaries and propietary elements included in Google Chrome binaries, but not the UI, that is part of Chromoum, that is covered under the BSD (Google Chrome is a version of Chromium with some propietary elements). This was already discussed several times and there is already Community concensus about the Google Chrome screenshots. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you are just wrong in that regard. I have provided new information in the discussion. Please take it there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons Meetup in Montréal in August

Hello,

I would like to invite you to the Commons Categorizer Meetup 2017 in Montréal in August (the exact date and time is not fixed yet and will be determined by the Wikimania programme committee). If you want, you can add your name to the list of interested users, propose discussion topics and spread the word.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Ubuntu 17.04 English.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ubuntu 17.04 English.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

 

Note: If your claim of GPLv2+ is correct, then you must also distribute the complete corresponding source code under terms of GPLv2 section 3 or or convey the CS under GPLv3 section 6. If the license you've stated in the file description is incorrect, please fix it. ISO file is not enough to satisfy the source for verifiability, and most likely the ISO file you refer to is a binary distribution and not the source code distribution. Please see Commons:Screenshots. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 09:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please also specify the name of screenshot photographer, if known. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Please read what I wrote about conveying the source code. This has not yet been done: The copyright and conditions of the underlying work must also be considered. More information is needed or the file may be deleted. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 12:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Sorry for the lengthy discussion, but thank you so far for helping with this issue. Are you sure that's the corresponding source code distribution?

          The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

          — GNU General Public License, version 2

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

— GNU General Public License, version 3

Instead of the binary ISO images, I found http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/17.04/release/source/ – is this the corresponding source? If you can also instruct where/how to retrieve the wallpaper and what license it's under, that'd be great! If the wallpaper is free and not already on Commons, consider uploading it. Thanks! 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 12:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If the wallpaper is in ubuntu-wallpapers package in Ubuntu 17.04 Zesty, the copyright of ubuntu-wallpapers package (the wallpaper) must also be respected. The majority are under CC BY-SA 3.0 in that package, with few under CC BY-SA 2.0 or CC0 licenses. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 12:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like you have located all the source code files for the software and the many user-supplied wallpapers as well there. As I understand the default wallpaper is not listed there, but is under the general licence for the source code. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• I found it in ubuntu-wallpapers, it's called warty-final-ubuntu.png and seems to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 according to the copyright info of the package. That leaves me with a question if there are any copyrightable GPLv2+ elements remaining to be depicted in the screenshot. The CC BY-SA 3.0 license is currently not indicated in the file description. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 13:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Good find, please do feel free to add that licence then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There's a problem: Unless you're the copyright holder of all works depicted, it's hard to "promise" to distribute under {{GPLv2+}} and {{CC BY-SA 3.0}} at the same time: Those two copyleft licenses are incompatible, and derivative works cannot be distributed in the same work without violating the license of one another. See {{Incompatible license}}. If you don't mind, this would be the best to nominate at Commons:Deletion requests, because neither of us seem to be certain what's actually in the screenshot. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 13:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We have identified all the licences involved, so there is no need to nominate this for deletion. Sorting out licences is not what deletion requests are for. The screenshot is distributed under its licence and the software under its licence. No element is under both, so there are no incompatible licenses. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, now I'm feeling real frustrated. Arguably I didn't really want to spend this much time on the issue because the burden of proof is not generally on me, but you fellow uploader. I'm upset, real upset how this concern was handled.

  I disagree. I have not identified all the elements yet. There's icons with at least {{PD-textlogo}}, {{MPL2}}, {{CC BY-SA 3.0}} and I'm still unsure what else there is – not considering de minimis. Can you help me with that?

  Know that the screenshot is an adapted work, and must be conveyed as a whole under CC BY-SA 3.0, GPLv2+ or whatever the underlying works require.

  Including CC BY-SA 3.0 section 4(a) restriction, must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform, which has not been done yet. I could do that, but then I also have to add {{Disputed}}, {{Wrong license}} or {{Incompatible license}} because there's no way I'm going to touch the GPLv2+ license tag without your consent, for my own legal good.

  I'm not sure if you're insisting on GPLv2+ only for redistribution here, because if so it'd violate the wallpaper license – unless you are the author/copyright holder of the wallpaper itself of course, and I highly doubt this. In that case, the licensee would be left with no legal way to redistribute the file because of incompatible licenses.

  I'm also feeling like your latest argument confuses the distribution of aggregated works and adapted (derived) works. The screenshot is a derivative work, the CD image/corresponding source distribution is an aggregated work. Incompatible licenses can be conveyed as aggregated works on the same storage medium, but not in the same derivative work. I'm having real difficulty understanding what you mean with The screenshot is distributed under its licence and the software under its licence. No element is under both, so there are no incompatible licenses.

  I need a break to calm down. I feel like you've asked me to violate someone's copyright, that's not nice. Please do the right thing, in a less obscure way. (I suggest dropping the GPLv2+ if there's no other GPL'd elements, and going with CC BY-SA.) And could you please elaborate? 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 14:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For a train of thought, this is how I became frustrated:

• I was believed the screenshot was under GPLv2+ only. No source was conveyed under GPLv2 section 3 or GPLv3 section 6, as expected from a GPL distribution.
• I asked for the corresponding source, repeatedly. I didn't get it. I tried to make it clear with corresponding source and complete corresponding source, but only received corresponding binaries in response.
• (I questioned silently with myself if you were aware about the GPLv2+ license conditions.)
• I had to start looking for a source myself, to confirm with you if I had found the corresponding source for reuse. At this point I suspected a GPL copyright violation, but persisted.
• You hinted(?) the wallpaper was under some GPL license. I had to prove you otherwise (reverse burden of proof).
• You acknowledged it was under CC BY-SA 3.0, but didn't act upon it and asked me to handle the situation (burden of proof?).
• Already feeling not well treated and nearly committed a CC BY-SA 3.0 copyright infringement myself...

Something something. Break time. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 14:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also know that I'm real afraid of adding {{CC BY-SA 3.0}} myself, as it would likely violate your {{GPLv2+}} tag. Hence the suggestion to nominate for deletion. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 14:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• And that's why we're talking here. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I really have no clue what you are on about here. Perhaps you can ask someone else to look at this? - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings... I requested the help of Ubuntu community... https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2369631&p=13679679#post13679679 Hellotheworld (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

OP here. I've asked User:Gazebo and User:Codename Lisa for advice. Looks like the thread on Ubuntu Forums also received some replies. 2001:2003:54FA:2232:0:0:0:1 19:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ubuntu 17.04 English.png

File:Ubuntu 17.04 English.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 09:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The two (four) policies related are Commons:Licensing, Commons:Project scope/Evidence, Commons:Screenshots and Commons:License laundering.

All information required by that license must be provided on the description page. The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status.

— Commons:Licensing

In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:

• the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
• that any required consent has been obtained.
  — Commons:Project scope/Evidence

Note that free programs generally are not in the public domain. You must still conform to the licence, which usually means at least that you have to publish your derivative work under the same licence and correctly attribute the original authors.

— Commons:Screenshots

All works on Wikimedia Commons are required to be released under a free license by their copyright holder. Unless the uploader is the copyright holder, we require proof that the copyright holder released the work under the license.

— Commons:License laundering

If license laundering is suspected, even if the source user is claiming to be the copyright owner, the file should be nominated for deletion.

— Commons:License laundering

2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also from the top notification template of this section: Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I left a proposal for a compromise in the deletion request, to take a new photograph of the subject. Would you like to help? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider adding iw links here on commons

Dear Ahunt,

Thanks for creating new categories here on Commons as you did recently for Category:Italian Rotors Industries. It would be great if you could as well add the interwiki-link to the corresponding page on en-wikipedia by clicking here on commons in the sidebar menu under 'In Wikipedia' on 'Add links' and then putting in the appearing pop-up box the link to the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. This will add a link to commons to all language versions of the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. MOreover this will avoid the corresponding article to be included in the maintenance category en:Category:Commons category template with no category set.

Many thanks if you could consider to do so, indeed this would reduce my efforts on adding these iw links later through patrolling the pages listed on the pre-mentioned category on en-wikipedia. I would like to thank you for all the great work you are realizing on en-wikipedia and here on commons.

If you have any further questions on this do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards and already now my very best wishes for you for the New Year. Robby (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, let me give that a try! - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are asking, but it looks like it is already done. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right it's already done for this article. It was mostly to take your attention to this. So you may try it for the next category you will create on Commons.Robby (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File renaming

Hello Ahunt,

thank you, for proposing file renaming for some of my images from AERO Friedrichshafen. While the renaming is generally really helpful and justified, I would like to ask you, to keep the file ID in the name. This is the only way, I can properly identify each file, after uploading to Commons.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you have restored the file numbers. No sweat, Commons and Wikipedia users don't really need the numbers, but if they help you I'll leave them in future move proposals. Just so you know, I have also proposed renaming one more file that has a ".jpg.jpg" double extension. I also noticed when you moved some of my proposed new names, that you put "XXX at AERO Friedrichshafen, Friedrichshafen". The duplicate location is probably not needed in the interests of keeping names as concise as possible. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You are totally right, that those numbers have probably no meaning to any other user, but then, they don't really hurt anyone either. The duplicated mentioning of "Friedrichshafen" comes from my standard naming scheme, which always includes the location in the file name for easier orientation. In this instance the name of the location was also included in the event name. Thanks for understanding. --MB-one (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Just a thought, but it might be easier to name the files as to the type of aircraft illustrated before uploading them to commons, then they won't require renaming at all. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ahunt,

Your thought is, in theory, a good idea. In practice however it would overcomplicate the upload process.

Another question: have you considered applying for moving rights yet? It's quite simple and has virtually no downside to it. If you would like to get granted those rights, you can request them here: Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, I'll do that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Ahunt, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

File:VSS Unity roll-out 20 February 2016.jpg

File:VSS Unity roll-out 20 February 2016.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bad flickr owner, EXIF "Copyright holder Nick Dimbleby/Jaguar Land Rover 2016Free for editorial and PR use." and all over the internet including http://www.landrover-dealers.nl/nl/landrover/land-rover-jager-auto-purmerend/nl/nieuws/?id=26864 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If you check the page noted it is under a CC-BY-2.0 licence, so is a free image. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:442SqnCrest.JPG

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:442SqnCrest.JPG, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

 

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a photograph of a three dimensional object, in this case a sewn badge. The name of the company that sewed the badge is unknown. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A-I-R Atos

Hi Ahunt! The en:A-I-R Atos article does not have any photos. Can you please add info about these variants to the article or use any of these photos?

• File:Z-AIR Atos Sling (46779465545).jpg
• File:Z-Air Atos Ego (46779466295).jpg
• File:Z-Air Atos Ego (46779465865).jpg

Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are completely different aircraft than the Atos hang glider, so new articles would need to be started to use those photos. I have no refs that would show the notability of those types, do you? - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah…! I didn’t check the article. Seems like they are going to stay in the Commons for a while. I’ll write you again if I find any good reference about them. Many thanks for your great articles in the Wikipedia anyways. -- Meisam (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let me know! Glad the articles have been of use! - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Solid Air Diamant

Hi again! Can you please check this photo? Is it the Solid Air Diamant LP? -- Meisam (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: this one seems to be the EP variant! -- Meisam (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Based on the markings and visual ID, I would say those are. Thanks for finding those images, I'll add them to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 20 May 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) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the message! - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Dereksloan2110.jpg

File:Dereksloan2110.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!

Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dereksloan2110.jpg

File:Dereksloan2110.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copied from https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/local-news/hastings-county-calls-for-mp-sloans-removal-after-racist-tweet-about-dr-tam Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

// sikander { talk } 🦖 19:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why tell me? I wasn't the original uploader! - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dereksloan2110 (cropped).jpg

File:Dereksloan2110 (cropped).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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Cropped from https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/local-news/hastings-county-calls-for-mp-sloans-removal-after-racist-tweet-about-dr-tam Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

// sikander { talk } 🦖 19:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Again ... why notify me. I wasn't the original uploader of this file. - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dereksloan2110.jpg

File:Dereksloan2110.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!

Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dereksloan2110 (cropped).jpg

File:Dereksloan2110 (cropped).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!

Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Mobjack sail badge.png

File:Mobjack sail badge.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-Zai- (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome on Windows 11.png

Please don't re-tag for speedy deletion files that were recently kept at Commons:Deletion requests. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that it had already been done. I guess it is fine now to put up screenshots of "all right reserved" proprietary software on Commons now, as long as it is tagged with incorrect and misleading licences then? - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Gedit 41.0 (Text Editor) English.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Gedit 41.0 (Text Editor) English.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

 

@Ahunt: We need to know the source + license of the HTML file you pasted in gedit. --Matr1x-101 {_{user page} - ^{talk with me :)} - _contribs!} 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it is "own work" licensed under a CC licence. I'll indicate that on the file. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't you license your text under GPL since your CC text will otherwise be incompatible with the GPL from gedit? --Matr1x-101 {_{user page} - ^{talk with me :)} - _contribs!} 19:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand website text cannot be licensed under GPL which is for software, the closest would be under the GNU Free Documentation License, although that is intended for instructional manuals, not software reviews. Regardless the text is actually CC licensed and has been for some years, as you can see at https://web.ncf.ca/fn352/ubuntu4.html which is the source page for the text. I wrote it and that is my website. I don't see any issue with CC text displayed on a GPL piece of software. One licence applies to the software shown and the other to the text. They are compatible with each other and also with Commons requirements. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: on a seperate note, I'm adding {{Cc-by-sa-2.5-ca}} to the text section of the file because on the footer of your website (archive for good measure), it says "this webpage is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada Licence" --Matr1x-101 {_{user page} - ^{talk with me :)} - _contribs!} 21:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, great, thanks. I wasn't sure how to get that national precision in the licence using the commons templates. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

File:International 14 sailboat 8337.jpg

File:International 14 sailboat 8337.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!

Kwhalenh (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

File:International 14 sailboat 8343.jpg

File:International 14 sailboat 8343.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!

Kwhalenh (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorting of categories

Dear colleague! The category English-language screenshots of Ubuntu looks now strangely: the all subcategories for different variations of Ubuntu are grooped under the letter E instead of being classified by the first letter of the distinguishing part of their names. It is because you removed sorting keys (example). Why did you do it? Gamliel Fishkin 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. That was done intentionally. Cat sorting parameters are normally only used when they would change the order of the sub-categories listed in the main category. In this case adding sorting parameters accomplished nothing, but make the list far less compact, as the order remains the same. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how is it said in English, I heard about an English proverb If a car is not broken, there is no need to repair it. Also, note that now the category English screenshots of Ubuntu Software Center goes before all other categories, and the second after it is English-language screenshots of Edubuntu: U before E. Removal of sorting key fixed a non-existed problem but created a new problem. Yes, this problem can be solved be renaming the category, but such new problems can grow up as a snowball. Gamliel Fishkin 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Either way Category:English screenshots of Ubuntu Software Center is misnamed. Before I removed the sort keys from some cat members, some had it and some did not making the category an inconsistent mess. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:AerOS

Try searching for it. There is just https://github.com/hewol/aerOS Not notable on Wikidata so don't give people false hopes and waste their times. Matt (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Not worth spending any time on. If you really don't like the template, then go ahead and remove it. Someone else will probably put it back later on anyway. All Linux distros eventually get added. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:KDE neon-based distributions

Hello Ahunt. When you create a category, please make sure that they are not empty like Category:KDE neon-based distributions. If it was filed before you might want to check why it is empty now. For more information about Wikimedia Commons policy on categories see Commons:Categories. kind regards, --D-Kuru (talk) D-Kuru (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it was not empty when it was created! Let me see if I can fix that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

File:UwUntu 22.10 alternate Windows wallpaper - English.png

File:UwUntu 22.10 alternate Windows wallpaper - English.png 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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work en:File:Bliss_(Windows_XP).png#License Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Nutshinou ^Talk! 22:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)