User talk:Huntster/Archive 5

OTRS

Hi Huntster,
Can you get the OTRS for File:Cygnus Wall.jpg and File:Barnard 33.jpg..? I got the cc of his mail sent to OTRS queue.. - T H (here I am) 13:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald: The Barnard image was handled by another agent, and I've taken care of the Cygnus Wall image. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again.. Is File:Eclipse 2010.jpg available? -- - T H (here I am) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, hey, I'm sorry to say that I'm no longer with OTRS. I simply didn't have the time to devote to it, and they require a minimum level of activity. My apologies, but give it a little while another someone else will handle it. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I have only info-en right in OTRS. Can you ping someone? -- - T H (here I am) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald: You can check Category:Commons OTRS volunteers for active members. However, if you'll be patient, a volunteer *will* get to the ticket. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Boeing X-48

(Posted on other talk page) Hi Chesi, would you please stop making this edit to the X-48 category? The X-48B was a three engine aircraft, but the X-48C has only two engines. This is already reflected in their individual categories. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you check in the specifications of the aircraft at powerplant is reported to have 3 × JetCat P200 turbojet 52 lbf (0.23 kN) thrust each, and that is reported in the Category:Trijets too. Chesipiero (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Chesipiero, those specifications are for the X-48B...the X-48C featured 2 × AMT Titan turbojets with 88.2 lbf (0.39 kN) thrust each. The en.wiki article covers all variants in a single article, while we have separate categories for both physical aircraft. That lets us do different things categorically. Additionally, the en.wiki article specifically says the -C model is "A modified, two-engine version of the X-48B intended to test a low-noise design", while our photographs clearly show it also having two engines. Thinking about it a little more, I'm beginning to think that all the physical characteristic categories should be moved to the individual X-48 variant categories. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. 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. 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!

Affected:

• File:Crab Nebula in Multiple Wavelengths.png

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Red-blue

Regarding File:'Matijevic Hill' Panorama for Rover's Ninth Anniversary (Stereo).jpg, are you sure it isn't red-cyan? I don't have glasses to try with, and haven't yet looked into how to discern these technically, but going just by the look of the colors, it looks more cyan than pure blue. The description says red-blue, but a lot of these I expect to find mistaken due to ambiguity between them. djr13 (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Djr13, I agree that it looks more red-cyan, but JPL specifically says red-blue on their 3D help site. Unfortunately, another NASA site does specifically say red-cyan. Then again, another page on the same site suggests red-blue. I've got some red-cyan glasses on order, so when they come in I'll test and see if it works properly with cyan. Regardless, it's a bit of a mess. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Djr13, so I got my anaglyph glasses in, but they appear to be red-blue instead of red-cyan (I'm a little irritated at that). They work really well for images like this, but not well at all for the Matijevic Hill image. I'm going to try and get a pair of glasses that I know for sure will be red-cyan, but who knows how long that will take. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome

Heh. I assume by now you've noticed from your watchlist that I'm going through the corpus of GRiN images and checking things. It had been on my list for a while now, but the spam of dupes from Flickr jumped it up the list. I'm actually making a spreadsheet of the GRiN data, and that from the actual NASA center archives... there are a lot of cases where the GRiN dates are wrong (which I will go back through and fix) and quite a few where the Center has released a higher res version since the GRiN dataset was created. I haven't been uploading the better versions yet, but will when I go back through the list. There are also a few where the GRiN version and Center version (or a DVIDS version, there are duped from there as well) aren't actually the same (different color or framing), so I'm putting them down as 'other versions'. I'm also adding the GPN ids as sort keys for that category. If you have any comments about how I could do a better job on them, or complaints, please let me know. Revent (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, just the fact that you're taking on this task is fantastic. Regarding the Flickr dupe spam, if you'd rather streamline your processing and leave the deletions to someone else, I'll be happy to take care of them. I've been killing off the dupes as they appear in my relatedchanges watchlists. I was going to troll through that user's upload history, but I simply haven't had the time to sort through the absolutely vast number of terrible uploads properly. Anything I can do to help out, let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Killing the dupes isn't really adding much to the process... I'm actually searching for the images by the center IDs, so the dupes pop up at the same time. It's also finding the DVIDS ones, and a few cases where people had uploaded images manually before that site was crawled by the bot. I'll keep ya updated, tho... so far I've looked at just over 200 of them. Revent (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note for the future, regarding the NASA Ames image from GRIN... the Ames archive is still missing a lot of images, but... the ones they do have look like scans from the actual film, instead of the scans from published copies that it looks like GRIN used. They aren't actually 'duplicates', since they have different contrast and framing, but are much better technically. As some examples of what I mean...

• File:Free-Falling Body Nose Dives in Desert - GPN-2000-001624.jpg vs File:Free-Falling Body Nose Dives in Desert - A-15481.jpg
• File:H. Julian Allen with Blunt Body Theory - GPN-2000-001777.jpg vs File:H. Julian Allen with Blunt Body Theory - A-22664.jpg

The ones from the Ames archive are so incredibly much better that it's probably worth keeping an occasional eye on what they add to their archive, and swapping images out when possible. FWIW, btw, the 'cosmetic' changes I'm making to the file pages (using {{Web source}}, in particular) are just so it's immediately obvious to me which ones I've double checked... I'm not really that anal, lol. Revent (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I absolutely agree. The GRiN images are nice for their diversity and general high quality, but they are certainly not the end-all-be-all that some folks hold them in regard. Ames and Armstrong both have fabulous repositories of high quality images. I only wish that NASA would create a centralised, Commons-like database of images, rather than having them spread across every conceivable site, often with an absurd number of variations in quality. JPL is especially bad about that. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NGC 2023

Hi, you've left a message for possible copyright violation for File:NGC 2023.jpg. I don't know what happened there on the last 7 years, but I created a derivative work from another file that was hosted here on Commons (I remember a sort of interactive file with names popping-up when the cursor was moving). This file may have been deleted in the meantime and its name may have been used for another file. This file is clearly another derivative work from the original greather image. Anyway, if you consider my file a violation, no objection from me. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Roberto Mura, thanks for the message. The image you uploaded is a composite image, made using images taken by both Hubble and an NOAO telescope at Kitts Peak. Unfortunately images credited to NOAO are copyrighted and not allowed for commercial use, thus are not allowable on Commons. I know it has been on Commons for a long time, but there tends to be a strong assumption that anything hosted by NASA or STScI are automatically public domain, regardless of the actual sources. Regarding File:Horsehead Nebula.jpg, it was photographed at the European Southern Observatory, which releases their files under Creative Commons. It is not a derivative of the Hubble/NOAO image, so it is perfectly acceptable. Let me know if you have any other questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No other question, it's clear. Thank you! :) --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as a further, somewhat related note, Natuur12 mentioned a DR to me the other day on IRC (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Digitized Sky Survey image of the star HD 59686.jpg) regarding an image from a NASA press release that was marked as PD-Nasa, but attributed by them to the Digital Sky Survey without any specifics. I've since added a project to specifically clear our various Digital Sky Survey images to my 'to do list' (I've made a start at hunting them down that is located at Category:DSS files for cleanup, but there appear to be a little over 300 total), and intend to specifically add a license review template to ones that have been double checked. The large majority seem to be ESO images that are CC-licensed, but they all need verification, I think. Revent (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, thanks for the note, I'll try to help out when I have time. Great idea about using the license review template, I'll keep it in mind. The utter mess that is astrophotography licensing etc etc (and I don't mean just on Commons) is sometimes enough to make me want to sob. But then I remember I'm a volunteer here, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at that DR if you think I was mistaken about any of the specific details... I think that particular one is indeed a delete (on PRP grounds) unless someone cares to take the time to track down it's exact provenance. Revent (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I'll comment in support of it. I strongly feel Commons doesn't adhere to the Commons:PRP nearly as much as it should. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Jason-3 Rendition (24254382861).jpg

Hi, why was this file deleted as a copyvio? It's a PD file according to NOAA's Flickr. Also, NASA credits NOAA for creating it. Aren't NOAA works in PD as they are made by someone working for the US government? --MsaynevirtaIMG (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

MsaynevirtaIMG, the image was actually created by CNES. See http://aviso.altimetry.fr/gallery/entry_4_artist_view_of_the_future_jason_3_satellite_cnes_nasa_eumetsat_noaa_.html, which shows a detailed copyright statement of "© CNES/ill./DUCROS David, 2013". Note that NOAA doesn't actually provide a credit statement, and the Flickr license used is simply their default, so I'll chalk that up to ignorance. I cannot fathom why NASA would credit NOAA, other than sloppiness and even more ignorance. Some mission and agency divisions are managed better than others. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2 images that you might have incorrectly tagged as possible copyvio - review?

You tagged 2 media files I uploaded from Caltech/LIGO as possible copyvios, although they have full copyright details and source image use policy link is provided, and the source/creator also clearly states "any use or reuse allowed with attribution" which is a clearly permitted basis for Commons media.

Can you take a look and let me know more specifically (if you still feel there is a real issue) exactly the issue you think might exist? It's hard to address any concern otherwise, or indeed to know if it was a mis-tagging.

Thanks! The 2 images are linked on my TP. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

FT2, hello! If you'll notice on the LIGO image use page, the very bottom item:

Some image and video materials on LIGO public web sites may be owned by organizations other than Caltech or MIT. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech or MIT is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image.

In both image cases, SXS is specifically credited as being the creator of the material. While the first clause does indeed apply, the "non-commercial" part of the SXS license (CC-by-NC-3.0) makes their work ineligible for inclusion on Commons. I hope that answers your question. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

FT2, well, it is an entirely moot point now, as the SXS team has decided to change their site license to CC-by-SA-4.0 to make their works compatible with Commons! It is a very generous gesture; please do join me in thanking User:Selecsosi and team for doing this. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment

I request that you immediately cease your harassment:

• this
• and that

It is very regrettable that you chose JFK for training your harassing skills. And if you do it out of boredom, there are tons of files waiting to be moved to Commons:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, --Taterian (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Taterian, I'm sorry if you've taken this as harassment, but it is not, and is certainly not targeted at you. The fact is that the "permission" field is not mandatory to fill (and is actually very rarely used on Commons), but if you *do* want to fill it, just don't insert an inappropriately non-specific licensing template alongside an already existing specific license template. I see that you have corrected this in your final edit, so thank you. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Huntster, I accept you apology and leave everything behind as we are both here not to squabble but to make a difference. Regards, --Taterian (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about conflicting copyright information

I am referring to the decision, not to delete an image: File:Rosetta_mission_poster_(11206645224).jpg

As already mentioned by another user in the discussion on this entry, ESA's copyright policy is generally very strict. Also, the Flickr page, the image was downloaded from clearly states "all rights reserved". So does the general copyright statement on the ESA websites. Therefore, I wonder, where information about the CC BY-SA licence comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dishmaster (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dishmaster: while the license has now been changed on Flickr to All Rights Reserved, at one point the license for this and other images by ESA was CC-by-sa-2.0. Once something has been released under a certain license and has then been reused under that license, the license cannot be retroactively revoked. However, were ESA to request it, the Commons community may decide to provide deletion as a courtesy to them. As far as I'm aware, no such request has ever been made. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Greece's Köppen Climate Types Peel et al. (2007).png

File:Greece's Köppen Climate Types Peel et al. (2007).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!

Artoxx (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cannot update a description here

at [[1]]

Was successful at updating the description of most of the other files.

This one, if I could, would be "Interplanetary Spaceship, at Saturn."

If you know how to edit the page, maybe you could add the correct description.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

N2e, done. The page was locked because the image is on the front page of the Chinese Wikipedia. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's very interesting. Glad to see the Chinese Wikipedians have found SpaceX renderings interesting. I'll try to remember to get back here and update the description text some other day, once the image is not quite so public.

As usual, thanks for the helpful explain of all things wiki-image. N2e (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Venus venera13.jpg

Just FYI:

If anyone else is interested in uploading File:Venus venera13.jpg as fair use, I have done so on Wikiveresity as v:File:Venera13-venus.jpg. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Marshallsumter, excellent. Local fair use is absolutely acceptable for the Venera files. Hadn't thought of mentioning it here, but if anyone arrives on my talk page about needing to copy those Venera files to their local projects, I'm happy to pull them for you. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

NOAO stellar spectra

Hi,

I was about to upload the NOAO image showing standard stellar spectral types before Wikicommons' upload wizard pointed out that it had been deleted before. Apparently you deleted it on the grounds of being copyrighted, whereas I read on the NOAO webpage on image use:

Educational/Research Use: NOAO allows reproduction, authorship of derivative works, and other transformations of the original work strictly for educational and research purposes without further permission, subject to the General Conditions section stated above. Some examples of non-commercial uses for educational and research purposes are: academic curricula developed by teachers, research papers written by students or scholars, non-profit educational or non-profit research publications produced by authors or publishers, educational outreach activities composed by amateur astronomers, and news media stories. For other non-commercial uses, permission should be obtained from NOAO/AURA.

I presumed that usage on Wikipedia would be a fair interpretation of this segment.

In addition, there is a Polish version (File:Widma.jpg), which claims that the material is not copyrightable because it isn't sufficiently original but I'm not sure about that. I've downloaded the raw data from the Jacoby et al. (1984) paper and am trying to make a similar plot for my own purposes. I guess when that's finally ready, I can upload it instead, but this is a nice, illustrative image, and probably better than whatever I'll manage any time soon. Warrickball (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Warrickball, look again at that NOAO permission statement. It specifically states it is free for use only for educational and research use. Commons is a repository for entirely free, unrestricted files, which includes allowing commercial use. When you are able to plot out the data yourself, so long as it isn't simply a derivative of the NOAO image, then I'd love to see it uploaded here. Thank you for pointing out the Polish file...sadly that will have to go as well. There's a lot of misinterpreting and misunderstanding of Commons rules. What I might suggest is uploading the NOAO file on your local Wikipedia project as fair use, and then when you complete your version, simply replace it in whatever article you need and the fair use image can be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: I'm thinking in terms of Wikipedia because I switched to the Wikicommons Upload Wizard. Your point stands, so I'll upload it at Wikipedia rather. Then hopefully one day I'll also create such an informative image an can put it on Commons! Thanks for the speedy and helpful response. Warrickball (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)