User talk:Huntster/Archive 8

Deletion of Soviet era space images

I wish to express my very strong concerns about your recent nominations for deletion of Soviet era space images on assorted Wikipedia pages. These images are of significant scientific and historic value and their removal would significantly reduce the educational value of the Wikipedia pages concerned. That is particularly unfortunate since Wikipedia is a free educational resource that is open to anyone to access irrespective of income or location.

While I might concur that NASA simply reposting Soviet space images does not solve the original intellectual property rights issue, there are also issues with Wikipedia's own guidelines on this matter regarding Russia because those guidelines are in themselves just a crude and incomplete summary in English of a situation that is, in reality, a more complex and more nuanced state of affairs.

I am now in the process of seeking advice from intellectual property experts within the Russian Federation on this matter and they are the ones who are best placed to provide the best possible and most authoritative advice on this matter. That is no doubt going to take some time and in the meantime I would be grateful if you could kindly consider showing some restraint on the matter of Soviet era space image deletions.

DigitalTim, Thursday 30 May 2019

DigitalTim, I am following our procedures for dealing with potential copyright violations, and the scientific and historic value plays no part in whether or not they are copyrighted or not. If you can determine beyond doubt that Soviet-era photographs taken by spacecraft have fallen into the public domain, then we will be richer as a community for it. However, as it stands this moment, all indications are that they are not freely licensed/without license. Thus, they violate our policies by being here. There is no ill-will or malice intended, certainly. As a whole, we upload and delete, upload and delete, every day and work to find a balance that is acceptable under national and international copyright laws. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the above response for that is appreciated. I must also thank you for not nominating any new Soviet era images for deletion at the present time for that is also appreciated.

I confirm that obtaining clarification of the status of these images is an absolute priority for me and it will take some time. As soon as I have any definite answers, I will report back as soon as possible.

There is no shortage of copyright and intellectual property rights information, guidance, advice and legal cases and precedents pertaining to English speaking countries in English language media. Regrettably, there is a dearth of comprehensive and useful equivalent information in respect of non-English speaking countries and that particularly applies to Russia and the old Soviet Union hence my concern that the real status of these images ought to be thoroughly determined first before any action is taken.

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

DigitalTim, Saturday, 1 June 2019

I am sorry this matter is taking longer than I expected but it has to all be done in my spare time.

My initial investigations in respect of Soviet space images from original and relevant Russian language material indicated that it does appear that the former Soviet Union did have a relatively relaxed attitude in respect of, for example, educational use, provided that the original material was of a science or technical nature (i.e. not a work of fiction, art, etc. by someone) and that had already been published and was in the public domain. Since the Soviet space efforts were of great state promotional use, such images were invariably published in the likes of Izvestia/Известия and Pravda/Правда thus making such images public domain works - please see an example here from Tuesday 27 October 1959: http(colon)//tinypic(dot)com/r/in60bk/9 (however, I suspect that this might not confirm to Wikimedia Commons guidelines although it might be sufficient for individual Wikipedia language entries).

I followed that up with a clarification request direct to the Russian Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences but so far they have not responded (it has been a couple of weeks). What I next propose to do is seek clarification from some Russia-based intellectual property experts to see if they can shed any light on this issue. Thanks again for your patience.

DigitalTim, Monday, 1 July 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalTim (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DigitalTim, just to clarify something. You mention that it seems Soviet attitudes toward educational use were relatively relaxed. I agree, but Commons requires all images to be freely licensed for all applications, which includes commercial reuse (even if that requires attribution or other requirements). Additionally, unless I'm missing something in your statement, merely publishing an image in a newspaper, even Izvestia or Pravda, does not release it from copyright, which is our definition of public domain. This is different from works simply available to the public sphere, which is what a newspaper publication would be. See public domain. If you already knew all this, I apologise, but I wanted to make absolutely sure. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Consolidated plot of KIC 8462852 dip maxima

Hello.
Can you please merge upload histories for both PNGs? Dumb deletion would make certain events not traceable, which is frowned upon. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi: Sure, since your okay with it that is no problem. I'll take care of it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:WarwickHSarial.JPG

I can't tell you whether this image is properly licensed or not as I merely bot-transferred it from Wikipedia eleven years ago. What I can tell you is your proof that it is a copyright violation fails in that the images do not match. The football field is painted differently, the parked cars are in different places. Clearly a different dataset. The coordinates, for your reference, are 40.154800, -76.314500 ... Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the image currently on Google Maps, that is true. But this nominated image is taken from a dataset made between 2003 and 2006. You can check historical imagery on Google Earth and see it will match. There were four similar images I nominated, all of which were taken from this same dataset. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey over here

Well I'll be. I noticed you hadn't been around en-wp nearly as much, but I didn't realized you moved. :). I saw some WMF stuff I felt I wanted to respond to, and kinda got involved in a little bit of editing while logged in. Anyway - I'll get an email sent out in the next couple days and we can get caught up. All the best my friend Ched (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.foxnews.com/us/nasa-astronaut-identity-theft-bank-account-divorce-wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ched wtf... — Huntster (t @ c) 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

wtf? The article? Oooppps - forgot to sign? Me over here at commons? Ohhh ... I never got an email sent - sorry. I'll do that tomorrow if you'd like. Not sure what the wtf means. Ched (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ched, nononononono, I meant about the article. That's so totally bizarre. What the hell was McClain thinking?! For that matter, I thought their internet activity was monitored by ground. This is bad for NASA. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I was shocked. (and wasn't sure if you'd heard yet). Something like this is bound to attract much more mainstream news media I would think, so I suspect it will get much uglier before it gets better. Like you, I was amazed that she even had the ABILITY to use her card like that. Perhaps Worden is overstating things, but it is still bound to get more attention (although perhaps that's what Worden wants). If McCain really did anything more than check on things, then it really has the potential to give NASA a black eye. One silver lining ... the old "Don't leave home without it." catchphrase is likely to become popular again. :-D Ched (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, while I'm here - could you point me to any policy about pictures of books? Ched (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ched, pictures of books? Um, if there is cover art, it would be copyrighted unless it is pre-1923. Do you have anything particular in mind? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That pretty much answers my question. I have some books on NASCAR that I've used in the past and intend to use in the future for reference material. Most have some photos on the cover, and IIRC that is considered, or at least covered under, art. It was more a curiosity question than anything, although I also am wondering what happens when someone is called out in that regard too. Ched (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

well, the offending image would either be taken to discussion for deletion if it was questionable, or speedy deleted if blatant. If the user had a history of flaunting the rules, especially if they should obviously know better, they'd eventually get blocked for community disruption. Pretty much the same as en.wiki, just with local spin on things, mostly the "no fair use" rule. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ched — Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much what I figured. In all my time I only remember 2 or 3 arguments about whether or not someone was accurately depicting the information in a book, so it's not a big deal at all. Ched (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Venera images copyright

Hi! I don't know if you remember me, I'm the one who is very interested in images of solar system bodies. I remember you as someone who is very knowledgable on copyright questions, which can get confusing with non-NASA space program images. Of late, I have been particularly interested in the only images of the surface of Venus, all of which were taken by Soviet Venera landers between 1975 and 1981. This is something we've discussed before, and your comment in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 8#File:Venera9.png was authoritative, especially since the NASA gallery under discussion later added wording that those images were not necessarily public domain.

To get to the point: all of the Venera images of the Venusian surface are available in top quality on this webpage owned by one Don P. Mitchell. On this page from the same site, Don Mitchell describes in (to me) believable terms how he legally owns the copyright to the entire website, including the images, which he claims to have had a significant hand in creating.

Could this be true, or is Mr. Mitchell deluded? Or do we need more information from him to determine? And if Mr. Mitchell does not own the copyright to these images, who does? As noted at Roscosmos, there was no central Soviet space agency. How could we find out? What do we make of ru.wikipedia's attribution of one of the images to NPO Lavochkin: [1]?

Sorry for all the questions and thank you so much for your help! A2soup (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A2soup: regarding Mr. Mitchell's website, he can claim copyright over works *he* has produced. The images are not his, no matter how much processing work he has done. If they were public domain, sure, he could claim copyright over the modified copies, just as you can do with NASA material, but as far as we are aware the early Soviet spaceflight works remain copyrighted to the Russian government, who is the inheritor of the central Soviet material. ru.wiki's use of that file is probably okay, since they are claiming fair use. As far as the attribution, NPO Lavochkin appears to have been the responsible party for the Venera program, so there's no issue. We credit various works to NASA/JPL or one of its other centers all the time, for example. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for clarifying all that. So it seems like if you wanted to get the images freely licensed, the party you would need to convince would be NPO Lavochkin? A2soup (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A2soup: precisely, if it regarded the original material. If you wanted to use Mr. Mitchell's enhanced works, you'd need an agreed-up license from both Lavochkin and Mitchell. 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

An image, possibly for deletion

Is there a quick-and-easy method for proposing image deletion on Wikimedia? Sort of for where there is unlikely to be contested, and if is, one person can stop it (like English Wikipedia "SPEEDY")?

If not, what is the regular way to handle this?

I'm thinking that this (very incorrect) image should just be put in file13. [2]

Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

N2e, you mean like {{Speedydelete}}? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I don't have much expertise on the Wikimedia processes for such. I decided to Speedy nominate that incorrect image. If objection by anyone, we can have a fuller discussion. This is my first ever such nomination, so if you happen to notice I screwed anything up, please kindly poke me. N2e (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Vote from PA

Thought you might get a kick out of this.

• https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-astronaut-pennsylvania-ballot-from-space

Ched (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I imagine the election officials got a real kick out of facilitating that vote. They're usually good folks, and as this shows, typically work hard to make sure everyone has a chance. This one was just an out-of-this-world situation! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL - well I guess we both like our puns. And yea, I'm in southeast PA, and our local folks are great. Ched (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanations required concerning the images you have removed

I do not understand. ESA states here https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images "You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes". So what is the issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FKE94 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FKE94, you have a misunderstanding of how encompassing that permission is. Commons images must allow for all that and commercial use. ESA does not allow unfettered commercial use without permissions and sometimes a fee (unless the image is specifically marked as CC-by-sa-3.0 IGO). — Huntster (t @ c) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Huntster, It is stated "If ESA images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to: spaceinimages@esa.int" So if I get an approval from ESA and forward it to Wikicommons, the pictures can be used for the wikipage, right? FKE94 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FKE94, interestingly, no. That only applies to individual commercial uses. You would have to get a blanket release, covering all potential purposes, which is unlikely. What you could do, however, is petition them to permit those images' release under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}, which is their preferred free license. So far, their application of that license has seemingly been very random, so I have no idea what criteria they set for that license's use. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:96-5300 (aircraft)

Hi, your reversion would be fine elsewhere in Wikimedia, but in the Aviation side of it it has long been accepted and agreed that such categorisation is ok to enable a complete listing in one place of all registrations of aircraft of a certain type. See for example Aircraft by registration, Cessna 208 by registration etc etc. Please revert your change. Ardfern (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ardfern, Aircraft by registration is exempt only because of a CfD. It is by far the exception to the rule of COM:OVERCAT, and as the CfD showed, it is a highly contentious issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems I can't win whatever I do, people objected when I didn't categorise like this, eg on Cessna 208 and others. Ardfern (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ardfern, sorry about the troubles. As far as I'm aware, there are a very few categories that have exemption from standard diffusion practices, and they come about through discussions like that AfD. I would suggest going to Category talk:Aircraft by registration and initiating a discussion there about best practices on other registration sub-categories, so that at the very least you will have something to refer people to if they question your actions. Just a thought. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation {{Usaf serial}}

I tried to fix these ones: Category:Non-empty category redirects --> Category:Aircraft by United States Army serial number--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Estopedist1, thanks, I'll have a look at them. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

POTD Notification

⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐ The file File:NGC 3372a-full.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets.gif, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:BFR

BFR has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocking

‪Black Kite, Hello, I was blocked by you for 7 days, why? I haven't done anything wrong, see my modifications. 2001:18C0:61C:700:2CE5:1793:A62F:5D17 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who is this? Are you sure you have the right talk page? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I used your page because I am blocked for 7 days and I don't know why. Black Kite does not respond. I did not receive any warning before this block. I took your page to communicate with Black Kite. Can you forward my message to Black Kite. If I don't know why, then how can I improve. I started at the beginning of January 2020, it is on that I cannot know all the rules. Thanks in advance for your help. Cordially. 2001:18C0:61C:700:CB8:BD81:5E84:5AD1 01:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you are writing this on Commons. Black Kite is not an admin here. I think you are looking for en:User talk:Black Kite on the English Wikipedia. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Can you contact him for me. 2001:18C0:61C:700:CB8:BD81:5E84:5AD1 03:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me that you were blocked for disruptive activity on the CRS-20 article. I can't disagree. Looking at some of your other edits, I see the removal of a lot of formatting from various Kosmos articles, unsourced changes, etc. I would encourage you to make a user account when you are eventually unblocked. That way, you can communicated on your own stable talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. But for Kosmos satellites, the Soviets (Russians) use the metric system, right? So why always convert everything in the American system, even NASA uses the metric system. For CRS-20, none of my changes have been reverted. Nor for Kosmos satellites. And why no warning before my blocking. 2001:18C0:61C:700:C535:F5F3:59B6:AC5E 07:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Because we cater to all types. So, we convert from metric to imperial as well as from imperial to metric. I can't speak to the lack of reverts, but I can speak to the lack of warning: it's utterly pointless to warn IPv6 addresses, because they change all the time. There's no effective way to warn. Look at your own postings here...three of the four posts have different IP addresses. That's why I recommend registering for an account. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a way to block me, there must be a way to warn me. And thank you again for your help. Cordially. My IP is good for 24 hours after it changes automatically. Only the USA, Burma (Myanmar) and Liberia are not metric. 2001:18C0:61C:700:C535:F5F3:59B6:AC5E 08:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I will review all my edits and correct my mistakes that I saw. And thank you for listening. — 2001:18C0:61C:700:D010:B70F:B16F:A9D5 04:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what does this sentence mean: (Corrected citation errors by Vandal with Anonymous IP (German ISP)). — 2001:18C0:61C:700:68FC:5C90:2E04:E11E 20:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Without knowing the context, I cannot be certain, but I would guess that whatever editor wrote that saw a particular editing change and believed it was vandalism and fixed/reverted it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What does mean (German ISP) and How do you find my edits from Kosmos 1 to Kosmos 4? — 2001:18C0:61C:700:5D3F:32AB:638A:4727 08:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You've not told me where you saw that statement, so I can't venture to guess. I found your edits by looking up what IP range that Black Kite blocked, and viewing all edits made by that range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:18C0:61C:700:0:0:0:0/64 . And no, you cannot provide a warning to a range of addresses, only a specific IP address. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In CRS-20 (I am not German) and how do you find my edits from Kosmos 1 to Kosmos 4? — 2001:18C0:61C:700:38:42D8:27B0:EC0A 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that the editor mistook your IPv6 address with another one (2a02:8109:8ac0:346.....) that does resolve as a German address. Easy to do with IPs. I don't know, I'm not going to comb through each and every tiny edit here. I also already answered how I found your Kosmos edits, see my last reply. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I got blocked for things I didn't do. And I can't see your appreciation for my new edits from Kosmos 1 to Kosmos 8 (now). Cordially. — 2001:18C0:61C:700:38:42D8:27B0:EC0A 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right: . Can you contact Black Kite and tell him to remove this blockage from my file? It would be much appreciated. — 2001:18C0:61C:700:38:42D8:27B0:EC0A 00:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a file. You're on a rotating IPv6 address and have no account. As for Black Kite, you are welcome to speak to *them* about the issue, as you are no longer blocked. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My name on Wikipedia is CRS-20. And I'm going to contact Black Kite. And thank you for your answers. You are very friendly to correspond with. Cordially. — 2001:18C0:61C:700:38:42D8:27B0:EC0A 01:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I contacted Black Kite on 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC), but it is not responding. I believe if it came from you, he would answer you. Cordially. — 2001:18C0:61C:700:ED54:74E2:A758:D232 01:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (CRS-20)

References