User talk:Huntster/Archive 2

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

Closure of file deletion discussion

See discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Closure of file deletion discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the least bit interested. If an admin has a problem with it, they can let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

please wait with uploading the OR video

They want to tweak it first before "publishing". If you end up uploading, before seeing this, I will hold off on putting in the article. Just think this is the reasonable thing since we just got the permission a few hours ago and they are acting in good faith. And probably the changes are to improve the content of the video. Sorry for the flutter. At least it shows people care! TCO (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just woke up, so there's no danger of me uploading anything. Didn't yet know that they had given permission. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
One team, one fight. Thanks man!!TCO (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

showtime!

(dupe of commons message)

I have the new video from Oregon. Viewed it and it is fine. (It's a little long, but the stuff I care about is front-loaded so it's easy for my reader and I'll call out features to look for in the caption. And obviously now that we have it anyone do derivitve work. But I'd like the full play for base file please.) Here is the youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeTVghxdZwI (will send you a talk page note as well. but just commons this time.)

Really appreciate your expertise in the conversion and all. Please come over to the "other side" and give me a hand if there are any playback issues when put in article. Just want to make sure the whole bit of work finally delivers a result.

BTW, this is really kinda cool. They were very up for the deal and kinda think we are a big deal. I kinda think they are kinda right! Anyhow, positive interaction...and you know they have more stuff on their site! TCO (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, file has been uploaded to File:Oregon's Native Turtles.ogv. I've only added a basic category, so I'll let you categorise by species or however else you want to do it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the work and for being so nice to the donor. I will add the cats. Technical problem. neither myself nor my co-editor can watch the movie. Just get a blank screen and it does not run.TCO (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason that should happen. What browser are you using? If IE, try using FireFox...IE is known for, well, not supporting much of anything, though the built-in Mediawiki player should take care of that. Take a look at Commons:Video#Playing videos and Commons:Media help, see if the answer lies on those pages. Could be you are just missing a single component that isn't auto-installing. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please come over to the other side and see the talk page discussion? We've had three people try it and in three browsers and can't get good play. I'm not concerned about me seeing it, but my readers. (Surely more than 50% of the readers use IE anyhow, but we could not get it in Chrome or Firefox either). Maybe there is some kludge you can do to get it viewable by bulk of readers? Sorry to bug you and I know you don't have to do anything. I just want to figure out how to get it article, viewable. Anything else we can try? Youtube embed (since we have copyright agreement on content)? TCO (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is an issue with Commons, but there's not really much that can be done. We can't help that Microsoft refuses to make a robust browser, nor that Ogg Theora is really the only option for free formats out there. I wish that MediaWiki would add a warning of some kind for IE users that they may encounter problems when viewing OGV files. In any case, it doesn't work for me in IE 8, even with the VLC and Java plugins. Hopefully the new IE 9 will work better. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just use Windows Media Player format or something? Why does it have to be some OGG? I mean I know having no advertising. But software? I mean we didn't build the computers ourselves! And I bet the servers have some purchased software on them. What's the object to just using a more industry normal video format? The content is convertable anyway (as we've shown). Not beating on you honest. I'm whining, like a puppy, but not beating. I'm not into the Mac-Windows-Linux wars, I just want to get a slick article that is easy to ingest.TCO (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK...I'm gonna stop asking for a fix to something we can't fix! I'll send a nice note to the donor. Don't worry, I won't throw Wiki under the bus. Will just say that we're hosting the media on our files and that it's available for view. But that we're holding off on embedding as there are some viewers with browser issues (I'll throw the browser people under the bus). But that I'm going to call attention to the content and link. (which is true...it really is nice content for the first half of the video to show some things for me.) You were so poised and good with the donor, want to keep everything positive and make it look like we are using their stuff. TCO (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's because all the more widely supported formats use proprietary technology for compression and playback. Since we only use freely available formats (well, for the most part...technically gif and jpg aren't free, but those are a bit of a different situation), we have to use OGG and OGV. The hope is that the formats will mature and be more useful.
To be honest, I wouldn't even worry about sending a message to Oregon. You never know when it will be useful in the future, or if someone else may determine it does serve a good function in that or another article (or an article in another language). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sundancer Model.jpg

Is there any way I can save the image (maybe if I upload it to wikipedia instead)? Can you link me to where Commons states "As a model photographed in the United States, this is copyrighted.".--Craigboy (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"It has no utilitarian function and exists solely to portray the appearance of the object." These two things are kind of the same, the image portrays how the crew quarters would be (which is different than ISS or Skylab had), demonstrates the interior layout, demonstrates location of maneuvering thrusters. The image of Sundancer provided by Bigelow features the Russian probe and cone docking mechanism, which the module will most likely no longer use (since its no longer intended to be serviced by Soyuz/Progress).--Craigboy (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are right, if I moved some of the images to en than what would I put in the copyright description indicating that the image is copy righted due to it being a model?--Craigboy (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What about the Alpha and Beta Complex modules?--Craigboy (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There's only one for Alpha, not Beta.--Craigboy (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that a policy of en?--Craigboy (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I know you're probably sick of me bothering you by now but is there anyway you can make a exception for an image of the Complex Beta?--Craigboy (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you--Craigboy (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: File movers

Thanks for adding auto-categorization to {{User filemover}}. To be honest, I never even thought about it until you've mentioned it. Guess it would have saved me a lot of work. Also sorry about editing your user page, I was just going about adding people to Category:Commons file movers. However there are still more people who have not added {{User filemover}} to their user pages. For users without ubx/babel boxes, should I just go ahead and add it, or wait for them to add themselves? —stay (sic)! 06:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable image?

I'm wondering if this image from Flickr is acceptable to be added on Commons? I've read through Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and I couldn't find anything objectionable per COM:PEOPLE#Examples. Since I'm not the person who took this image, would it be okay if I was to, say, upload the file? —stay (sic)! 04:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For moving the Lunar Electric Vehicle page to Space Exploration Vehicle.--Craigboy (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Image Concern

Its an image of the international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS)/ Nasa Docking System (NDS) (the caption on their website even says it is) which is a property of NASA, their gallery even includes other NASA photos. Even if the image was of the International Docking System Standard (which doesn't exist, its just a list of requirements) it would be in the public domain.

I usually try to include the NASA ID, I did not know there was a template, I'll try to use it in the future.--Craigboy (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IP 85.132.27.130

Salam. Mən və User:Vugar 1981 və digər bəzi iş yoldaşlarımız eyni IP-dən istifadə edirik. EnVikidə Vugar 1981-nin bloklanması nəticəsində bizim IP-də bloklanmışdır. Sizdən blokun götürülməsini xahiş edirəm. Və yaxud da mənə Ipblock-exempt istifadəçi hüququ verməyinizi xahiş edirəm. Təşəkkürlər! Hörmətlə, Cekli829 (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Space Shuttle Enterprise

Thanks, that did confuse me for a moment, as you can see from the page history. I thought the upload-wizard didn't correctly apply the categories at first, until I looked at the history myself. I went and read the Category guidelines, though, and saw that putting things in a category *and* the parent category is a no-no, so I'll know for next time! One question though: Though the pics were taken at Udvar-Hazy, that is incidental at best to the focus of the pics themselves, to wit, the wing panels. Would it be better to put these only into the main Enterprise category? Or is most-specific always preferred? Thanks for the message on my page! ☢ Prompt Critical (talk) ☢ 17:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster? It already contains File:Impact-test.jpg which is similar in purpose. ☢ Prompt Critical (talk) ☢ 17:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


Logic

We differ in logic at Category:Sea Launch Commander (ship, 1997). No problem at all, as I learned when I whas a softeware programmer. I myself even think about to start the series with the IMO number, than the country of built, the year of completion, the type, followed by the data at the time the picture was taken: the company, the country and the name. Up to now we start with the coutry of built. The shipyard can best be categorised at the IMO number, as ships can change their names very often, the IMO number is the same during the lifetime. The reason of my comment here is another: you used DEFAULTSORT, as I thought that it only works for sorting. The category is already sorted as Sea Launch Commander, so what is the use here? --Stunteltje (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite a lot of stuff can be added to the IMO category, I guess country and year of build could be added to it. As for Defaultsort, I do that more because I don't trust the software to properly take care of everything on its own. I recall problems in the past, so I prefer forced behaviour. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

1824 Flag

I noticed on your user page that you move free media from Wikipedia to the Commons. An svg version of the 1824 flag of the Texas Revolution already exists in Wikipedia, File:Texas Alamo Flag.svg, and I've tried to move it into Wikimedia Commons Category:Historical flags of Texas, without luck. I created an svg of the flag myself before finding that someone else already has, and since he released it to the public domain, I don't see a need to upload my version. It does belong in the Historical flags of Texas category with the others, though. I'm hoping you could move this file for me.

Thanks again for all of your help.--Glasshouse (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

propellant depot

thank you , i forgot to move it to the commons--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name

about prefix USS for ships. I made the discussion wider, for all ships on COMMONS, not for local Wikipedias. You preferred the way as it is now, I gave my reasons for a change. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hey Hunster sorry to bother you....I hope you can point me in the right direction I'm having a problem with an Editor Fry1989 eh? who's edit warring w/ me on a file I've uploaded File:Transnistria Air Force Roundel.svg I'm not sure where to report this kind of activity. Any help would be surly appreciated, a million thanks Jetijones (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Unanswered OTRS/undeletion request

Hello, Hunster. Please excuse me for contacting you directly (I selected you from the meta:OTRS/personnel list, based on your recent activity on commons). I have posted a request at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Star Academy Winner 2008.jpg, File:Nader Guirat Crimea Music Fest.jpg, File:OxyMore.jpg, regarding an OTRS ticket that should have arrived about two weeks ago, but there was no response. Can you please check if the email with the permissions has arrived? Thank you, Razvan Socol (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pluto_map.jpg

File:Pluto_map.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Bulwersator (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes on NOAA

Hi Huntster,
Please avoid moving around the ships without any prior discussion. --  Docu  at 12:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Docu,
Is there anything in particular that is wrong with these changes? Just trying to create a bit of standardisation with the naming scheme in this corner of the tree. They were all over the place. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Most were in the same form as NOAA R 552 John N. Cobb (ship, 1950). Not sure why you moved them around. --  Docu  at 12:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I was standardising the names to those used by the vast majority of ships operated by the Uniform Services of the United States, of which NOAA is a part. The names are not "R 552 John N. Cobb", simply "John N. Cobb", with a hull number of "R 552". I don't do anything in a haphazard fashion, and believed this was the best way to represent the category names. I know there is some discussion to transfer all the categories away from "USS", etc, so I have no problem if the "NOAAS" (NOAA Ship) prefix is eventually removed, but we're not there yet IIRC. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally (sorry, forgot to include this in the earlier post), this is the format used on the en.wiki articles, and on many of the other language wikis out there. While, of course, those titles have no bearing on titles here, I do feel it is nice to have some degree of synchronicity between the various sister projects. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, even if I don't necessarily share it. I think it's frequently a good idea to keep at least redirects from the titles in use at one of the sister projects. The problem with solutions found there is that they don't necessarily scale well. AFAIK at least English language Wikipedia uses less frequently prefixes than they used to (e.g. JSDFS), possibly because they aren't in general use either. --  Docu  at 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I don't care if the prefixes are used, but the names previously used are highly non-standard and quite frankly look a visual mess. What is wrong with "Name (R ###)", without the prefix? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Somehow it could make one think it's a naval vessel with just "R 552" painted on it.
BTW, I did hesitate between "NOAA R552" or "NOAA R-552" and the above ("NOAA R 552"). If you prefer, we could drop the space. The advantage of this solution is similar to the one for subcategories at Fishing vessels by license number: it allows to identify the ship and find its vessel category when viewing the image. --  Docu  at 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. You mean to use a category name like "NOAA R 552"? As it is, the format is a bit unwieldy to browse. These vessels' names are painted on the hull as well, and they are referred to as such (not by the less-well-known registry number). Again, these are naval vessels of the United States...they just aren't warships. I see no reason to not treat them as we do all other such registered vessels, just without the "NOAAS" prefix, as I know that's a currently contentious issue, and to be honest, not at all necessary for these. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, as to your specific question, the registry probably should be kept as it typically appears on the hull, with a space, but it's not that big a deal. As most U.S. naval vessels have a dash in the registry, I wouldn't be upset if these reflected the same. But I do strongly feel the category names should use a similar format as the other U.S. ships, just without the prefix (if that's desired). — Huntster (t @ c) 06:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping with my cat task, when nobody else could or would. I am sooooooo grateful. You are a super-special superstar. Thank you very, very much!!! :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol, thanks Anna, any time. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huntster/Archive_2&oldid=138321341"