This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This isn't exactly a revert, is it... ? - ^theWOLFchild 03:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, no it isn't a revert. Where did I say it was, or am I missing something? — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, you reverted my edit, even though you weren't actually reverting to the previous version, but instead making your own different edit. I'm not sure why you would do that. The revert showed up on my notifications. It just seemed unnecessary... - ^theWOLFchild 05:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, aha, to be honest, I wasn't aware that the revert notification system worked that way. Sorry, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Basically, I misremembered what the sources said, so I hit revert, then checked the source and corrected, so that's my fault. — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no problem then. Some people seem to get off on reverting others, but an accident is different. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 11:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Image licensing and related *entirely* OK? => Featured Picture Candidate - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I've tweaked a couple of things, expanded the attribution, but it checks out fine. — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Huntster: Excellent - Thank you *very much* for your help with the image - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Several NASA-related images ^[1] may be of interest - but the copyright (credit: "University of Colorado") of the images is not clear - at least to me atm.

Related links include:

• http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/nasa-spacecraft-detects-aurora-and-mysterious-dust-cloud-around-mars
• http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/15-045a.jpg
• http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/15-045b.jpg
• http://www.cu.edu/techtransfer/copyrights

The images may not be available for use by Wikipedia of course - but thought I'd ask in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, unfortunately I cannot guarantee that these were made under NASA contract, so in this instance (since the credit line isn't formatted "NASA/University of Colorado") it would be best to not presume public domain. Sorry. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Huntster: Thank you *very much* for your help with the images - yes - I understand - and - agree - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Huntster,

I just emailed you a picture, and another copy with an area marked, that I was wondering if you would take a look at. The fireball/comet (or whatever it is) is fascinating all by itself - but the little area I marked makes me think "Twilight Zone" or some sort of "They're here" in regards to spaceships .. lol. Anyway - when you get a chance, have a look. I was fascinated. I'm interested in any technical or scientific explanations for both parts of the photo. Thanks and Cheers, — Ched :  ?  17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Huntster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.— Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Huntster: Please stop putting meaningless and crap in articles here:

• HD 40307 g (crap image, using Photoshop)
• Kepler-5b (bad Celestia texture using Photoshop, copyvio)
• Mu Arae e (bad Celestia texture using Photoshop, copyvio)

Just delete my crap images and meaningless artist's impressions. Thanks. :) -- Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012: I honestly don't know what the hell your issue is. I've never edited those articles. If you want your images deleted on Commons, go to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request and follow the instructions. Don't ask others to do the work for you. — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for defending the wily comma in Where the Wild Things Are. HullIntegrity\  talk / 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Commas are precious resources. I cannot allow them to be mishandled! — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard about this: Celestial Commons: SpaceX Makes Its Photos Easier for Everyone to Use?

My comparative advantage is clearly not in wiki-images so I'd be real interested in your informed opinion on the matter. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

N2e, I hadn't seen that yet! Unfortunately, the images are being released are not really free as advertised, since they are licensed as CC-by-nc-2.0, meaning they are non-commercial (images on Commons cannot have restricted use). It's their prerogative, and it's one step closer to truly free material, but at this time it is no-go. — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Crud! I was thinking that the "restrictions" the article talked about might be something Wikipedia might not tolerate. My premonition was correct.

Well, keep working with them. I think they ought to be embarrassed by such out of date photos of their stuff on Wikipedia as that 2 1/2 years old photo of the short Grasshopper sitting in Texas, on the ground, well before they ever flew the thing. Here's to hoping your contacts with them will get them to throw Wikipedia a bone. (I wrote them on Wikipedia use of SpaceX media one time too, and they did not even respond to my email.) N2e ( talk) 02:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

New news. Apparently Elon Musk himself was unhappy about that restricted license, or the press it got following the new news. Either way, according to this thread, Musk has changed it and made the SpaceX images full public domain. Here's a URL a friend just sent me [1] where the topic is being discussed.

Let me know what you think. N2e ( talk) 11:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

N2e, oh wow, now they're the standard CC-by-2.0. I'm gonna have a busy evening uploading and sorting images when I get home. Musk continues to be my professional hero. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

N2e, looks like a Russavia clone already uploaded most everything to Commons:Category:Photographs by SpaceX. That was fast. Now I just need to go through and verify their categories. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hooray! There will be a lot of article improvement happening as a result of better images. But I think I'll hold off until categories and file names are sorted over a few days. N2e ( talk) 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Good news! 3 weeks on, SpaceX have released more images on their Flickr stream. There's a really nice one of the entire launch and controlled-descent test sequence that I'm sure will be useful to article improvement. A tip of the glass to you from the Pub, N2e ( talk) 23:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! One had already been uploaded, but I grabbed the others. Nice F9R graphic on there. — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Super. I've just added two of the new ones to articles.

I'm really glad you have that category of SpaceX-released pics. Helps find them. I just wish it showed them in date-added-to-Wikimedia order so we can easily isolate on the new ones each time SpaceX releases another set of them. N2e ( talk) 02:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

N2e, there's an easy way to check on that. When you're in the category page, look on the left side, under "Tools", for "Related changes". That will show you all the changes made to files in the category in chronological order. — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for letting me know that. I will now look at that category even more, and be scanning the wikimedia media for new SpaceX-released images. N2e ( talk) 04:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Huntster,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We may need a lock on this article, due to a persistent vandal. Bms4880 ( talk) 17:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bms4880, I've added it to my watchlist. The current level of vandalism isn't enough to justify page protection, but I'll reevaluate if it escalates. — Huntster ( t @ c) 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, i came here clear a doubt that i have about this picture File:INS Arihant at launch.jpg as i have very little knowledge about copyright and commons rules and guidelines, so if possible can you please explain me why this picture cannot be added on Future of the Indian Navy Submarines-Nuclear powered-Arihant class- picture section but allowed only on Arihant-class submarine and INS Arihant. what makes this picture different from others and is it in anyway possible to add this picture in any other related page? thank you :) Nicky mathew ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicky mathew, that image is not freely licensed, so it's usage must be kept to a minimum. I think it is justified to use the image in the ship and class articles, since the image specifically relates to those, but including it in the Future of the Indian Navy article would be very difficult to justify, especially considering there is a freely licensed graphic of the ship already present. — Huntster ( t @ c) 23:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Huntster, look I put {{Copy to Commons}} on these files:

• File:Venera-4.jpg
• File:Divalia Fossa PIA15673.jpg
• File:20131105 2002 UX25 hst.png

You can transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Just okay, thanks. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Huntster. JorisvS wanted to nominate this file for deletion on Wikimedia Commons, because it shows the hurricane photo as seen from space.

The copyrighted violation found from the random internet called Astro-Espace since last months. If the copyright violation is found from laterrej33.jpg to make an artist's impression using Adobe Photoshop (CS5).

If it's not an artist's impression of KOI-1686.01, so delete this file, thanks. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Jcpag2012, it's you who came to me requesting that I nominate it for deletion. I'm all for deleting this useless image, but you shouldn't distort the facts. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, why did you upload and claim it as your own work? — Huntster ( t @ c) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Huntster: This is a copyright violation from laterrej33.jpg, you did it, thanks, because the planet does not exist, so artist's impression is not appropriate. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, that did not answer my question. Why did you claim it as your own work? — Huntster ( t @ c) 10:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Huntster: The answer is yes, because the planet does not exist, so artist's impression is not appropriate. Thank you. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 23:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, again you refuse to answer my question. I can only assume you intentionally committed a copyright violation. I will not hesitate to block you indefinitely the next time I observe this behaviour. — Huntster ( t @ c) 08:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will not refuse to answer your question. Do not do that again, thanks. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Huntster. Cannot revert, just upload a full resolution on Wikimedia Commons, don't make moiré pattern, okay. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 06:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012: You are blocked on Commons. Do not ask others to perform edits for you there, especially edits that are the direct reason why you are blocked! I cannot even fathom your thought processes. — Huntster ( t @ c) 08:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will not talk to you again. Do not do that again, thanks. :) -- J C P (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue in the first place was that the reference style was changed arbitrarily; there is absolutely no reason to adopt the template style when the citations and reference sources were correctly formatted. Citation templates are neither mandated nor recommended when other referencing styles are present. Besides, AFAIK, the referencing was undone by an editor who has long since been blocked, mainly for disruptive editing. What I was attempting, was to have the output read in the MLA style that existed before the change to APA, without loosing the templates which seem to be in use for a period of time. The problem always exists is that the Wiki templates do not allow for anything but the APA style and "workarounds" have to take place within the tracings. The other issue was this article was another in a series that had been revised by blocked editors so when I saw that the referencing style was changed, I attempted to redress the issue. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, it was not an attempt to make wholesale changes to the article but to look at some of the editing done by at least two blocked editors. One of them has been engaged in revising the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Consolidated B-24 Liberator, Consolidated PB2Y Coronado, Martin B-26 Marauder, North American B-25 Mitchell, North American P-51 Mustang and also the North American P-82 Twin Mustang for starters. A number of administrators are already reverting all the changes made from this prolific sock master. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi ! Regarding such global replacements - really, no big difference :))) It has importance for scientific image recognition software, I know, but here - not. Regs, Doctore ( talk) 00:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)