User talk:Huntster/Archive 4

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

related changes

Hi Hunster,

I found the bug, it should be working now. Akoopal (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Akoopal, you are my favourite person in the world right now. Thank you so much for getting this working again. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Experimental aircraft of the United States

Hi, I am checking all the Category:United States tri-service aircraft designations navigational boxes and I have created categories at moment not present. In this particular case I didn’t see “X-planes” category. Chesipiero (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sun_white.jpg

See my reply at User_talk:Ulflund#File:Sun_white.jpg. Ulflund (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM - Mangalyaan) ISRO spacecraft-with-Labels.png

Ce fichier, dérivé d'un autre fichier (ajout de labels), a été supprimé alors que la décision de suppression du fichier original n'a pas encore été prise. Une fois de plus, Hunster, vous vous dispensez de respecter les procédures internes les plus basiques et vous montrez que vous n'avez aucun égard pour le travail des contributeurs. --Pline (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't read French as I think you know, and Google translate is missing some context, but it seems obvious that you are not understanding the copyright situation. The ISRO images are copyrighted, and derivative works of copyrighted images are still copyrighted. That the original was deleted is irrelevant, as the admin who closes a DRs can view the deleted information. I'm not displaying a lack of respect for contributors, but respect for copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Geistnebel VdB 141.jpg

You deleted the file. What was the problem? As I stated, I took it from here. NOAO's conditions of use: "These electronically available materials are considered intellectual property and are intended for use for educational, academic, and research purposes", "NOAO allows reproduction, authorship of derivative works, and other transformations of the original work strictly for personal, non-profit/non-commercial/non-retail use without further permission". The very picture is underlined "Minimum credit line: T.A. Rector/University of Alaska Anchorage, H. Schweiker/WIYN and NOAO/AURA/NSF"" (see here) - which I exactly implemented in the article Ghost Nebula. (The stupid deletion request there is another problem, but of no interest at this point.)

Question 1): What to do? Choose another CC than BY-SA?

Question 2): Could it be you got a hint to delete, by some user, maybe StringTheory? (I got reasons to ask.)

Greetings, --Consecutor (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Consecutor, NOAO files are copyrighted All Rights Reserved. They allow usage under certain terms, but that is not the same as being freely licensed. 1) NOAO does not license under Creative Commons. You cannot upload NOAO works to Commons, period...beyond the All Rights Reserved issue, they do not allow free Commercial reuse, which is a prerequisite for use on Commons. 2) I was not asked to mark for deletion, I performed a search for NOAO files and tagged them. Please let me know if you have any other questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Replaced by a picture definitly declared as "licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" ([1]). Greetings, --Consecutor (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Consecutor: Very good, nice find! I really enjoy Adam Block's astrophotography. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Huntster. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

INeverCry 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Antares Orb-3 launch failure (201410280011HQ).jpg

I am concerned about this image's copyright status. At NASA JSC Web Site Policy Notices, it says "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use." At the Flickr source for this image, it notes the image is CC BY-NC 2.0. This makes it not eligible for use in commercial uses, and thus not compatible with Commons licensing. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hammersoft: This is a long-known issue on Flickr that NASA seems to be either unable or unwilling to fix. These images are public domain, as they were taken by a NASA employee or contract photographer during the course of their duties for NASA. This is the same as for any government entity, such as the White House or the various branches of the military. Per U.S. law, such works may not be copyrighted. The JSC notice is primarily applicable when NASA posts images from private companies and foreign governments, such as when they post images taken by United Launch Alliance or Roscosmos.
Regarding a similar issue, NASA's prime contract photog Bill Ingalls stated (and I wish I could find the conversation) that while he does operate a private photography business, any photographs taken for NASA under his contract were absolutely copyright free. NASA public relations has said the same thing. I'll try reaching out to HQ and other accounts again and see why the licensing at Flickr can't be fixed to the U.S. Gov license, but there should be no issue for us on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Huntster! Please delete my picture. [2]. Thank you --Vincent Eisfeld (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done — Huntster (t @ c) 08:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

related changes

Hi Huntster, I don't know if you already noticed, but related changes is repaired again. Akoopal (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Akoopal, indeed! Thanks for your help in keeping this functioning. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Huntster, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

All the best and a good start. Sorry that I missed your rfa. --Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Congrats and  Support. Sorry that I missed your RFA. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
YAY!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, all. I'll do my best, and am always open to advice. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! If you need anything or have any questions, you know where to find me. INeverCry 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and wilco! — Huntster (t @ c) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, Huntster! I've missed your RfA since I was quite busy lately, but wanted to let you know that I would've supported it too. Trijnsteltalk 13:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Trijnstel :) — Huntster (t @ c) 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Comet 67P on 19 September 2014 NavCam mosaic.jpg

Hi, Thanks a lot for your new corrected version. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoy photomanip challenges like this, makes me less terrible at such things. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Looks like you're working on (at least somewhat) the same thing I am. Nice. :) Revent (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Revent, indeed! I'm always on the lookout for low res images to upgrade :) — Huntster (t @ c) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to systematically go through the archive and do it for all that we have, though I'll probably take a break from it after the Mercury program stuff. If looks like most of them came from the JSC archive, which is all 640x480 images, and a lot have borders or are very yellowed. There are also a pretty good number we don't have at all, though some might just not have the number listed... I'll have to compare it to what's actually in the categories. Revent (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It is rather discouraging that there are so many image databases on the NASA.gov domain alone, and now Kennedy, HQ, and at least one other center are switching to Flickr, but not transitioning their existing archives, nor are they using public domain license tags, which prevents the use of automated tools to transfer material to Commons. It's a horrible mess, especially when different divisions publish the same image at vastly different resolutions on different parts of the NASA.gov site. Good luck in your endeavours, and let me know where I can assist if needed. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Self-review

Hi Huntster, possibly I'm wrong, but you can't do this. According to the review guidelines image-reviewers may not review their own uploads. May I assume that administrators are not applied the same policies than non-admin reviewers? Best regards and sorry for the inconvenience --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 18:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discasto, that's news to me, but of course rules get changed all the time without those affected being aware of it. Thanks for the heads up. The reason I did that is because something apparently has broken and those images were not auto-reviewed by the Upload Wizard as is normally done for Flickr uploads. Anyway, now I know. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Otto Reckstat.jpg

Hello Huntster! Please delete my picture. Thank you! --Vincent Eisfeld (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Eisfeld, done. In the future, however, I would suggest you follow the procedure at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion rather than asking on a random person's talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

MY updated images from NASA

Hi. I uploaded new versions of images from NASA, check these images I got.

I uploaded the large images from NASA. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests for the stars (artist's impression not from SDO images at NASA)

I will vote these star images that not from NASA photos.

Bad general SDO image of the Sun from NASA, not an artist impression. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, why are you notifying me of this? Also, please remember to sign your posts. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Because they are not artist's impressions of it, I vote four pictures uploaded by Es08, who is uploading the Suns. Bad images from SDO, thanks for sure. :) --Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Allure of the Seas

Hi, Huntster! What the felps are you doing again? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1, Allure of the Seas was launched 20 November 2009, *not* in 2010. Yes, it had its maiden voyage and certifications, but that isn't how the category names are designed. Please do not move it back to 2010 without consensus. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

1.In general, name the category with the ship's name as painted on the vessel (when the picture was taken). Sample: This photo shows "Isla de Botafoc" in 2008. The category is named "Isla de Botafoc (ship, 1980)". This even if the ship had other names before and afterwards. 2.The general format for category titles is "<name of ship> (ship, <year>)". <year> is the year the ship was completed, see Category:Ships by year built for further information. Samples: "Golden Hind (ship, 1973)" or "Pacific Dawn (ship, 1991)". --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1: Yes, and Allure was launched in 2009, when her hull was completed. See Royal Caribbean's own press release about the launch, which in this case was her transfer out of the construction drydock. See also an article by Marine Reporter which mentions the launch date. Look, if you want to challenge this, that's fine. Perhaps the other folks working in ships will agree with you. But keep the category at its old name until such a time as there is agreement on this matter, okay? — Huntster (t @ c) 14:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I make categories for ships everyday using [[:|Category:Ships by name]] under How to create a category for a ship, and Oasis of the Seas was launched on November 21, 2008. May I move the Category:Oasis of the Seas (ship, 2009) to Category:Oasis of the Seas (ship, 2008)? What do you think about it?--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1: Interesting conundrum! I hadn't noticed that. Yes, I would suggest it should be under "2008", but again it might be better to leave both at their old category names until others have weighed in. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
        • The article in Wikipedia Allure of the Seas was written by me in much languages and I know that she was launched 2009, but we must write the year the ship was completed, then so are the rules,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


, this is ‘my upload’ today, Vision of the Seas was launched 1997, but I write Category:Vision of the Seas (ship, 1998), is it correct? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1, I'm not going to dispute the 2010 in the name. Looking at a variety of other categories, I see this seems to have become the standard, though it didn't used to be that way. Guess I'm just behind the times. I've gone ahead and moved the "Aboard" category to 2010 as well. And yes, your image looks fine to me. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huntster/Archive_4&oldid=510684509"