User talk:Huntster/Archive 20

Tagged on File:Dimorphos_composite.jpg

Huntster, when I tagged you here, I had not yet noticed that the Juno image was your upload. I just remembered our discussion yesterday, where you explained the "NASA fallacy" to me. I think I should clarify that my comment on the new deletion request, where I basically directly quoted you, was done with good intentions (and not to sound flippant). Renerpho (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you could just change the license on the Juno image, so it doesn't have to go through the deletion request process. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC) That is not to say that the "CC NC SA" license given on nasa.gov would be appropriate. "CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0" would be; or "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0". I wonder why NASA gives a non-existent license on their page? Renerpho (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Renerpho, I'm at work right now, so I really don't have the time to go through the entire deletion discussion, but I'll address the Juno issue here.

It appears NASA is retroactively modifying their websites to reflect the apparently desired licenses of the individuals who made modifications to raw imagery. Juno was really the first mission to call upon the community to get involved in image processing via https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing, and the site allowed submitters to attach their own licenses. That said, I cannot fathom uploading the Juno image if the "© CC NC SA" has been present. The Internet Archive doesn't have a copy of "https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia22692-jovian-close-encounter" available, but https://web.archive.org/web/20201112003922/https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA22692 clearly shows there was no such copyright notation present until roughly November 2020.

As for the second part of your post, it would never be appropriate to upload something with either NC (Non-Commercial) or ND (Non-Derivative) unless the author released it under a dual license where the other license *was* permissible. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Huntster, thanks for the reply; and no hurry!
I didn't think it was possible to apply a license like this retroactively. You learn something new every day.
If you get around to the DART image: Your Juno upload was used in that discussion, as an example to justify why the DART image may not by copyrightable. I think it is copyrightable, but so far, I am alone with that opinion. Everyone else seems to agree that the DART image involved no creativity. I have processed NASA images myself, and I'd strongly disagree with that. Creating a stack like this from video frames is creative, and giving credit is more than mere politeness. Renerpho (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Renerpho, it's absolutely possible to change a license after the fact, it happens all the time. However, while any *new* uses of the relicensed image must follow the new license, the previous uses of the image under the old license remain valid, as do their derivatives. Applied licenses cannot be revoked.

And I hear you on the creativity aspect. The Commons long-timers tend to be extremely greedy with images and apply an unusually high (in my opinion) threshold or originality. I suspect it's combination of not wanting to give up images already on the site, and not comprehending the effort it takes to pull a good image out of raw astronomical imagery. I certainly cannot do it from raw frames. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Huntster. If you could, when you have time, repeat that support on the nomination page, that would be very much appreciated. As I said, so far I'm fairly alone over there. Renerpho (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Juno flyby of Jupiter, Perijove 16 (PIA22692).jpg

File:Juno flyby of Jupiter, Perijove 16 (PIA22692).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!

Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ingenuity categories

Hi, Huntster! I'm not in my best skills now, sorry for asking you the simpliest thing. Please create a new sibling for the «Ingenuity helicopter» named «Ingenuity helicopter fields» - just like the existing «Ingenuity helicopter flights».

This new «...fields» category shall be a host for a set of 6 (or 7?) subcategories named like «Field L», «Field T», «Field U» etc. Besides known two helicopter's cameras (NAV and RTE), some rover cameras shall be the source of the relevant images. Thank you, — Cherurbino (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Cherurbino, not a problem,  Done. What kind of parent categories would you suppose would work with this new category? Obviously the parent Ingenuity cat, but perhaps something like Category:Helicopter airfields as well? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Huntster, thank you! I suppose no other parent categories for it than existing 'Ingenuity helicopter'. Absolute symmetry with 'Ingenuity helicopter flights'.

Let me pass to the next step (feel, how slowly I work these days). Following the symmetry rule, I propose the following names for siblings of our new category. The name I propose is real; I shall ask you to create it for me as a sample for clone-printing.

• Ingenuity field H

Please, check with my source with this direct link (sorry I don't know the wiki syntax for the templates from commons). Destination field is in column 8. Easier way to find - 'left from elevation', and elevation looks like –2569,8.

All rows for the ground photos have non-standard backgroundː mostly 'lightcyan' with one exclusion for sol 330 where the color is 'wheat' (could not make another color for the last cells).

Thus, category "Field H" (where Ingenuity landed after flight 13 on sol 193) shall be applied to all photos from 'Ground ptotos' category which may appear to be loaded to Commons until the new standard-colored row for the next flight 14 appear.

...uuu-fffffǃ

Last question / request. Please verify (or correct) the special name I propose for the photos from deployment day through 1-4 (if any ground photos appear). Note that 'Field A' has never been used in practice̩, I remind this lettter only for compatibility purposesː

• Ingenuity field A (Wright Brothers Field)

This category shall host lots of photos. Cherurbino (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cherurbino, created Category:Ingenuity field H. Regarding field A, I would suggest using official names, so Category:Wright Brothers Field. This would as well correspond to the Wikidata item Wright Brothers Field (Q106574534). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank youǃ I agreeː

• Wright Brothers Field

Cherurbino (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Next set

Hi, Huntster! Yesterday's article of Balaram gave me the long-waited official category name for the 'cargo helicopter' which NASA intends to build for the Mars sample return mission. Now the category tree looks like this.

I created a new category Martian helicopters, as a sibling of Extraterrestrial aircraft and Unmanned helicopters.

In its turn, the Martian helicopters category hosts 3 subcategories:

1. Ingenuity helicopter
2. Mars Science Helicopter
3. Sample Recovery Helicopter

If you agree with this structure I shall ask you to create the Wikisource instances for 2 and 3. In ru-wiki I have already written the article for SRH (#3) and maybe shall do the same for the MSH (#2).

P.S. Finally, my article was awarded the 'featured' barnstar ))). It took very, very much from me, where 'from' means something like 'pulling the veins from the body' ))). Thank you again for your work under it! — Cherurbino (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Cherurbino, this seems great. When I have some time I'll build out the WD items. Congrats on getting "featured"! — Huntster (t @ c) 14:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mars Science Helicopter (Q115218740) and Sample Recovery Helicopter (Q114296811) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Huntster! Thank you for congrats, thank you for all you did with tne new categories! It's really terrific. - Cherurbino (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

---

My first Wikidata attempt failed on the halfway

Hi, Huntster! I have uploaded a new chopper picture and created the new member of the Martian helicopters for it:

• Advanced Mars Helicopter

After that I created a new Wikidata item for this category: Advanced Mars Helicopter (Q115247822) and added the infobox {{Wikidata Infobox}} inside the category page. However it shows “NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!” message. At this point I stopped, because after having found the Q115247822 link via “Search for Advanced Mars Helicopter on Wikidata” nothing happened. Cherurbino (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a miracle. Now it appeared with my picture and... the data I did nor enter! Does it mean that it existed before? Cherurbino (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cherurbino, hehe, no. I just added all that. To link the Wikidata item to Commons (or any other wikiproject), that local page has to be linked in the Wikidata item's right-side column. See where I linked "Category:Advanced Mars Helicopter" in the "Multilingual sites" section. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Orion Nebula image ok?

Hello Huntster - If possible (and to be sure), is the following ESA/NASA infrared image ok (or not) to use on Wikipedia? => File:PIA25434-OrionNebula-Infrared-20221122.jpg - should note several possibly relevant links => https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images - and => https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2019/03#Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_IGO - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Drbogdan, unfortunately no. If you read https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images, you'll note it says that the Creative Commons license is only applicable where expressly so stated. It is not stated on the Photojournal page, and while I suspect that https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2013/08/Orion_A represents part of the underlying Herschal data source it doesn't expressly state being released under CC. The Herschal material makes up a substantial (probably majority) of the visual work, so it cannot be claimed as de minimis either. I cannot see any way this is acceptable on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Huntster -Thank You *very much* for your comments and efforts with this - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Jones876

Hey, I noticed that you blocked User:Sox589 as a sockpuppet, and I believe User:Jones876 is the same person. They both have similarly structured usernames and are reverting election maps to old shapes without any reasoning. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Politicsfan4, thanks. Keep finding them and I'll keep bopping them. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Europa image ok?

Hello Huntster - image seems NASA and OK - but not entirely sure - worth a look? → File:PIA25696-Europa-JupiterMoon-20220929.jpg - Thanks in advance - and - Stay Safe and Healthy ǃǃ - ̃ Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drbogdan, see my edits here. You cannot use the PD-NASA license template if the image is licensed as Creative Commons. It is strange that I was unable to find this image in the JunoCam image processing gallery, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello sockpuppet of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jones876 has made a new account and is yet again going all out on reverting all the maps to the old versions after we just worked forever on creating the new maps

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smith849 Putitonamap98 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Blocked. You're welcome to post to my talk page, but I would encourage you to also post to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard in case I'm not around. This type of behaviour warrants immediate response. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Huntster sorry i think he actually just made another account https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Irf3233r

ugh, this is getting ridiculous Putitonamap98 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Blocked. I honestly don't know what to do about this. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ilshowall=1&title=Special:ListFiles/Yogurt513 Putitonamap98 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 blocked by AntiCompositeNumber. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Footballfan458 Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Doggy451 Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ilshowall=1&title=Special:ListFiles/FootballPlayer_6 Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Professor893 Putitonamap98 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. Thanks as always. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CatFood832 Putitonamap98 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't blocking their ip address make things easier? Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 I'll be blunt, I have no idea how to go about that. When I'm blocking these usernames, the option to block from the IP is not available. This is definitely not my area of experience. That said, because IP hopping is far too easy (or simply because they may be on a dynamic IP), long term blocking of IPs is not really done since it can adversely effect innocent users who may later inherit that IP. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, Sweater2022 and IronStreak are another. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Twotwofourtysix Done, thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ochestra3000

My god that's atleast 5 accounts in one day does this guy have nothing better to do with his life? Putitonamap98 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SportsFan1235555 Putitonamap98 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EditingMachine4444 Putitonamap98 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

(Candidate Creator) Well, that's quick. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 @Twotwofourtysix Done and done. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RecordBreakerMan Putitonamap98 (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I have about had it with this person, I gave up on reverting over and over again and decided to go ahead and just upload the new shape files separately and go into the election articles and put them in and i will be damned he actually made an account on english wikipedia and is now manually reverting the maps. this is just getting out of hand. i thought it would have been good idea because i thought he was ip banned from other wikis. at this point we should just add protection to the election articles specifically the ones he keeps targeting like the gubernatorial and senate articles of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Arizona. I have already alerted admins on english wiki about this extreme case of vandalism.

Here is the account he made so you can ban it also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ClutchPlayer Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

which one do you suggest we use?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

When you consider how protection works, the only (non-)option would be full admin-only protection, since they have shown they are willing to make enough edits to bypass the minimum edits needed to bypass the semi-protection minimums. There's no good way to approach this. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98 Blocked on both sites. While I understand the idea behind uploading a copy of the image, that just means there are now *two* targets for them to go after. So, I would suggest this is not a good course of action. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He can not target these new files because he can't just simply hit the revert button in rapid succession

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania_results_map_by_county_2.svg

unlike the old files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania_results_map_by_county.svg. i really didn't want to do this because it takes forever but it was the only way to stop him on commons but now that he can also just keep making accounts on english wiki we really need to protect those pages so new users can not just edit them right away or atleast make them pending review protected. this would be needed for a few of the ones the he likes to go after like the pennsylvania, ohio, georgia, and arizona articles specifically the years 1970 through 2022. that's the one way to stop it otherwise i am going to lose it because i worked forever on those maps Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I understand. I'm no longer active on en.wiki, but let me know if I can chime in with anything on the ANI post. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He took a break but he's back now can we please put a review lock on these pages now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Op233op2e Putitonamap98 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

update: he has been block but i realize now reporting his accounts are pointless, he appears to always make an account just to do 5 reverts then abandons that account and creates and new one every time. Putitonamap98 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not really pointless. The idea could be to make a handful of edits, get auto-confirmed status, then let the account be a sleeper for future activation. Reporting and blocking is always better than not, and is always appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)