User talk:Ariadacapo

Duplicate

Salu, Ariadacapo. You filed the deletion request for the NASA F-8 photo. If you find a picture that is already on Commons you can just tag it with "duplicate" (use double template brackets "{" before and after). The deletion request is for problems with the license or its content. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I just did. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

...Didn’t work

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that the duplicate applies to this case, anymore, as I altered the size of the picture to avoid the duplicate. I just wanted to give you the advice, that, if you'll find another picture that is the same as another - apart from size - that you can use the duplicate. However, if you want to upload a new file, for example the NASA F-8 photo, but it already exists, you can upload a new version of the file, like now 10 MB instead of 200 KB, like I did with the other NASA F-8 photo. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Cobatfor. I hope I didn’t cause too much disturbance. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.jpg

File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

— Huntster (t @ c) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to tag this file as a copyvio, but the original Flickr uploader had no right to license it as he did. Trust me, I scoured the net a while back for useful images of the Sea Launch vessels, and what's here on Commons is all there is that's actually free. Even photos by Steve Jurvetson, whom I love to pull images from, aren't always appropriately licensed on his Flickr stream :) — Huntster (t @ c) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hunster for correcting me. I was so happy to find this beautiful picture that I didn’t hear the "too good to be true" bell in my head, even as I wondered how involved a photographer must have been to be on the boat. Thank you also for reverting the Sea Launch article modification accordingly. I’ll be more careful from now on. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it much...if you have any questions about the legitimacy of an image, just ask on my talk page. I'm pretty good at detecting things like this. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 9280826af18f59ded117f69b7ad00bc8

Note de service. Getting started with a TUSC account.

Airfoil schematic

Hi Olivier, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Airfoil#Better_airfoil_schematic perhaps you can make the image What would btw also be useful is an image of the profiles of only rotors (airplane and helicopter/autogiro rotors). Perhaps that different profiles need to be made depending on the number of blades (not sure on this)

91.182.226.124 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File move

I see you've requested a move for File:Transonic Vapor F-16 02.jpg. This image corresponds with File:Transonic Vapor F-16 01.jpg. Can you request a move for this one also, and I'll move both? INeverCry 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you for your vigilance and maintenance efforts... I deeply appreciate the administrators’ and filemovers’ quiet work. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and ditto for your work. INeverCry 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Runway Visual Range illustrations

Hi, two days ago I got a message from you concerning pictures licensing violation. I contacted once again the owner of those pictures: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:AGVIS_FSI_Forward_Scatter_Runway_Visibility_System.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AGIVIS_2000_Runway_Visual_Range_System.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AGIVIS_2000_Runway_Visual_Range_Transmissometer_System.jpg and put the email conversation public (with deleted contacts) on discussion pages of those three pictures. Is that enough or should I do more to prevent their deletion? Thank you very much for an answer. Cs wikipedro (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Noticeboard

Hi, I (very belatedly) replied to you at COM:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Skip Stewart and Patty Wagstaff.jpg (and others) of Skip Stewart. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Files to be deleted

Refering to the message that you left on my talk page. I actually moved them from Wikipedia Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human...The deletion will in no way be an inconvenience but I will take that as lessons for my future contribs to commons. _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 13:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stephenwanjau, thanks for the heads up. I don’t think that there is much to be learned, nor that this is an important problem overall. I simply see this as a benign, good-faith copyright violation that was not easy to spot. All the best in your future contributions! Ariadacapo (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I missed the message you left on my talk on the 7th and just noticed it as I was doing some archiving. Thank you for the kind words. INeverCry 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded to you, Ariadacapo, in recognition of your extraordinry scrutiny, precision, and community service. Thank you for everything you do to make Wikimedia Commons a better place. Senator2029 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

wheee! Thank you =) Ariadacapo (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stationary_gas-based_turbomachines_("gas_turbines")

Category:Stationary_gas-based_turbomachines_("gas_turbines") 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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

added translation "Werkspoor Diesel", as you requested years ago

Hi Ariadacapo. I've translated the dutch description of File:Werkspoor aanzicht.jpg into English, as you requested more than two years ago on its talk page. I've also added a French translation to the file info page. Considering that my French is just as bad as that of Google translate, would you please be so kind to review the French translation? Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jahoe (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oooh that’s fantastic! Thank you so much! I’m heading to the translation now =) Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you too Ariadacapo. :) I'll see if I can find some more on this cute little engine, like where it was deployed and what happened to its three brothers. More pictures perhaps. Since most pumping stations are much smaller and fully electric, it can't be that difficult to find, two or three possible location spring to mind already. I'll post here if I find something, but I'm a slow runner myself, so please be patient. Regards, Jahoe (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

But I need a little clue in identifying. The engine is 6 cyl. 4 stroke; do I see that correct? Jahoe (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Most likely yes, judging by the mechanisms on top. I’m not an expert though. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for now, I'll be back. :) Jahoe (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 32e029ab7e60614ae3d2a01568514c58

Trying to work around a bug in my TUSC account

Top views of aircraft

Hi, I noticed that you created Category:Aerial photographs of aircraft, and other related categories. Several of the sub-categories of (Views of aircraft) appear to be poorly defined and poorly located in the hierarchy. I suggest the following hierarchy: (Plan views of aircraft) is level 1, then at level 2 is (Bottom views of aircraft) and (Top views of aircraft), with (Top down plan views of aircraft) converted to a redirect to (Top views of aircraft). Below (Top views of aircraft), at level 3 is (Aerial photographs of aircraft). This assumes that (Aerial photographs of aircraft) are all top views, (ie directly above the subjects) and ignores oblique views, but perhaps that can be ignored for now ? I welcome your comments before making any changes.PeterWD (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello PeterWD, first thank you for your tireless work categorizing images. Bits of your work regularly show up in my watchlist and it’s always a good thing! =)

I don’t think that Aerial photographs of aircraft should go below Top views of aircraft. It contains many great photos which just would not fit. I agree with all your other proposals.

In time I would like to turn Views of aircraft into something much more useful, perhaps something that would look like:

• Views of aircraft (or "aircraft by situation"?)
  • Aircraft taxiing
  • Aircraft in hangars
  • Aircraft taking off
  • Aircraft in flight
    • Aerial photos of aircraft in flight
  • Aircraft in crosswind
  • Aircraft on aircraft carriers
  • etc.

This would be an interesting alternative to our current aircraft type/registration-based approach to categorizing aviation photos. I’m not sure where to start with this, nor that it would be a popular idea. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your carefully considered response, and your kind words. I have just made the first few changes, without including (Aerial photographs of aircraft). I can now see that the sub-cat of that (... in flight) should not come under plan views, but perhaps that can be later diffused into a lower level plan view sub-cat that could also be under (Top views of aircraft). One of the principles I sometimes employ in aircraft recognition is to place images in a category even when I am not 100% sure of my identification, then I and other people can see them in context and decide to keep or discard the categorization for such images. I find that the same principle of trying out an idea is also useful for new or existing categories. In your suggested hierarchy, yesterday I added (Crosswinds in aviation), but I generally ignore (Aircraft in flight) as a mostly irrelevant category, otherwise perhaps we would have to categorize all other aircraft images under (Aircraft on the ground)?? Personally, I don't regard (Aircraft landings) or (Starts in aviation) [ugh] to be very important, being so numerous and sometimes difficult to differentiate between each. Feel free to tweak my identification or categorization (usually made with minimal time-consuming discussion or consensus) - I'm not easily offended.PeterWD (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Junkers opposed-piston engine (Pitman, Automobile Engineering, V).png

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A400M at Paris Air Show categories

Hi Ariadacapo, you just made some changes to the category structure of the A400M aircraft at PAS this year. These changes would, in my opinion, only make sense if there was only one A400M aircraft at PAS, but there were three different aircraft there. F-WWMQ was on static all the time, F-WWMZ flew the display on June 19 and F-WWMS flew the display on June 20. Leaving Category:Airbus A400M at Paris Air Show 2013 only as a subcat of Category:F-WWMQ (aircraft) makes no sense to me for that reason. It should either be a subcat of A400M directly or there should be three different Paris Air Show Categories for each one of the aircraft, or a different structure that I missed. I'd be interested in what your opinion is regarding that. Thanks, — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Julian, thank you for the note. I only saw one A400M there so I (wrongly) assumed only one aircraft had been seen there. Indeed, my edits make no sense! Sorry! I am undoing this right now. Please let me know if I forget something. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the fast response. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fluid machinery

Hi Ariadacapo, I've declined your request for a speedy delete of Category:Fluid machinery, first off we never delete categories which are populated, and this was my initial reason for declining. However looking at those sub-categories, the category is not just of machines that are powered by fluids or transmitted by fluids but devices that move fluids and use fluids, e.g. Category:Blowers, the category may need renaming and its contents re-organising, but I think for the moment it should be kept.--KTo288 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the content was clearly turbomachinery, so I moved it there. Some content remains, however, that isn't. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Eclipse Concept Jet - Oshkosh Air Show 2007 - 002.jpg

Sorry, my error. --JotaCartas (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and no need to apologize! Keep up the good work,

Ariadacapo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Files related to helicopter flight mechanics

Hi, I don't understand your warning here, and I am not sure why my recent uploads were deleted, as no reason was given, and no records of uploads/deletions can be found. Please respond at my talk page, thank you. TGCP (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I heed your word, and will make a better effort. TGCP (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you are interested in rotorcraft functions, the "new" Helicopter Flying Handbook has updated diagrams which I would like to upload (not the photos acknowledged in the preface), but now I want to be extra careful about it. I have asked FAA, but so far no answer. TGCP (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha! I just do not know about this one (beautiful document, great find, by the way!). I could not find any copyright statement, either. Probably the best would be to ask more knowledgeable people, at the Copyright Village Pump or in the Wikiproject Aviation. Sorry that I can provide no help here... Ariadacapo (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked at the IRC, and they said to ask FAA, so I did - and we may wait for a looong time... Even if they reply to me by email, it would be difficult to use that email as validation. Someone might be bold and upload anyway, but probably not me. If you want drag specified, here is a calculated curve in Figure 26, page 14. TGCP (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

FAA heli-manual 4forces

I thought text was missing from arrows in your Heli-manual edit File:FAA heli-manual 4forces.svg , so I uploaded a new version - now I can't even undo my own edit ?? It says Undo has already been done. I don't know how to use Inkscape properly, so I hope you and others will continue to rectify my uploads. TGCP (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello TGCP, uploads are not reverted the same way as page (wikitext) edits. To revert to a previous file version, you need to scroll down the description page and revert and use the links in the file history table.

I just uploaded a new version of the file. Inkscape is not very hard to use but there are very often issues with fonts on the Wikimedia software, which prevent text rendering on Commons even though it is in the file. The easiest way is usually to delete and re-type the text from scratch in Inkscape, using simple fonts such as "Nimbus Roman 9L" or "Nimbus Sans". I hope this helps! Feel free to experiment! Ariadacapo (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It has now been deleted due to lack of OTRS. As it is FAA material, it should non-controversial to upload it again, with FAA stamp and without OTRS stamp. I don't have it, do you? TGCP (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, TGCP. I have looked into the issue with the help of OTRS volunteers and the file is now restored. I apologize on behalf of Commons that we went too fast here! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it was your upload, as I can't process .svg correctly. I don't fully understand the OTRS process, but it seems from that discussion that most ordinary files from the FAA manual are allowed on Commons - will the next uploads require OTRS or can they be uploaded with just the FAA template? TGCP (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi TGCP, yes, I think the consensus is very clear, that you can upload any files from that document without an OTRS proofcheck, as well as any other file produced by the FAA (not merely hosted or commissioned by them). Simply slap the {{PD-USGov-FAA}} template onto them. In case there is a problem, give me notice and I’ll do my best to help. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cockpit windows of a Boeing 787 (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Attaching many categories to a media file makes that file more reachable for public reach and makes that more searchable for people especially for students of all types. So I do attach more categories to files to make it people friendly/reachable. Orgio89 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And your deleting of valid clear meaningful categories is clearly certain vandalism act!! Do not delete valid good categories please learn from others!! Orgio89 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since your primary language is french, in english speaking world Green Technology, Green Energy, Green car are clear valid public terms that newspapers, tv and other press use them. So those categories are clearly acceptable in public encyclopedia like WP. Orgio89 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Go to Commons:Categories. Read. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:LiquidOxygen.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:LiquidOxygen.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:LiquidOxygen.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Categorization of my curve of the sphere drag vs Reynolds

NASA drawing

New file

Thanks, dear Ariadacapo, for your contribution on my curve (after the equations of Clift, Grace and Weber). May be is it the place to say that I realised that work because the curve after the NASA is quite false (see the irregularity of the ordinates !). Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you for the great work creating this diagram. I think the NASA-based file is quite alright -- it is clearly a sketch, intended to show the overall trend. Your file goes beyond that and provides a numerical description of the phenomenon, which is a great contribution (we had no such freely licensed file). Keep up the good work! Feel free to ask me for help if you need (also in French :-) -- Ariadacapo (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The overall trend ! Well, it is possible... But look at the 0.1 ordinate ! In French, one will say "Ça frise la forfaiture !".

I just write (in French, it's OK for you !) 54 pages on the sphere Cd (with almost as many pictures). I'll publish it in a few days. I'll try to found my own user-page (I thought I did it in French some years ago). Friendly Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ariadacapo ! I just published my text on the Cd of the sphere (in French, as you know)! The address is : http://perso.numericable.fr/gomars2/aero/cx_sphere.doc . In some days this .doc will be converted in .pdf, but I have not personally the software to do it... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ariadacapo ! I wonder if it will not be useful to publish in the Wikipedia Commons the following picture (after Prandtl, 1904) :

http://perso.numericable.fr/gomars2/aero/boundary_layer_separation,prandtl_1904,colorized.png

and its French version :

http://perso.numericable.fr/gomars2/aero/decollement_couche_limite,prandtl_1904,colorise.png

I only colourized the sketch of the great man ! Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bernard de Go Mars, good work on the report =) I skimmed through it and it looks like an interesting read. By the way, it’s spelled Stokes without a "c" (I know because I have made that mistake, and others much worse that I shall not reveal =)

Publishing the diagram would be a great thing. I recommend that you upload an "original version" separately from your colorized version, so that users may choose which one they like best and adapt them according to their needs. If you need, here is a high-resolution version (this is my favorite diagram in all fluid mechanics, and I’ve been using it for some time). In English one would write "lower pressure/higher pressure" rather than "less/more pressure". Don’t hesitate to ask if you need help.

By the way, you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer -- it’s not an easy task. Keep it up! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't upload the original version, because I am not sure I got one really free of copyrights (this sketch, in the NACA report, is in bad definition). May be, if you have got one (the one you show is very nice), you can upload it by yourself. Concerning my colourization, it brings enough qualities so that I can say it is "my own work" (with a help of Ludwig).

The purpose of that kind of colourization is nothing but to facilitate the comments of the teachers or the contributors, in our case !

Thank you for Higher/Lower pressure, and also for Stokes !

>>>>>>>>>>>you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer<<<<<<<<<<<<< I do simplified a lot, but the problem is hard to explain, especially for me... With thanks, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When I thing to the problem of copyright, I am not sure I can upload my colorization. What do you feel about it ? Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia

I just uploaded my own picture :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D%C3%A9collement_de_la_couche_limite_pour_Wikip%C3%A9dia.png . I'm afraid I made a new mistake with the name of the file (it would gain not to have any accent ! By the way, do the categories Reynolds and Boundary layer exist ? How would you translate the French expressions of this picture in English ? Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bernard de Go Mars, sorry for losing track of this conversation.

I have just worked on the categories of your upload. Category:Boundary Layer does not exist but Category:Boundary layer does. If you use the HotCat gadget (to be enabled in your preferences panel) it will auto-suggest/auto-complete category names.

By the way, this file does not belong to Category:Reynolds number since it does not depict or represent the concept of the Reynolds number (see COM:OVERCAT)

There is also no issue with the accents in the filename. You can link to it like so: File:Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia.png.

As for the copyright restriction on Prandtl’s drawing, there is none anymore. It was published in 1904 so it can be uploaded with a PD-old copyright tag (see en:WP:PD for how to determine whether a work is in the public domain or not). Best, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interlanguage link edits

Hello, I noticed with this edit you made, you removed the interlanguage link citing provision by Wikidata. However, Wikidata did not yet have the association in its database, so this link was not redundant and your removal effectively just disassociated the two. I've gone ahead and added the association to the Wikidata page, but thought I should mention this in case there are other similar edits you made. Thanks! djr13 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Djr13, thank you for the heads up. This was indeed a mistake. I am behind a slow Internet connection, so I deal with many edits at once on Commons. On this one, I must have lost track and forgot to make the Wikidata edit also. I will be more careful. Good that you let me know! Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

File:WattsSteamEngine.jpeg

Could you please explain, how this file could be user's own work? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This file is (allegedly and believably) a scan by the user of a drawing published in 1797 in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why the "source" field says "Encyclopædia Britannica Third Edition ({{own}} scan)". Is it the licensing (obviously erroneous as this is PD-old) that you are questioning? Ariadacapo (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sukhoi Superjet 100 at Paris Air Show 2013 (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbeitsweise Zweitakt.gif

Wziąłem z niemieckiej Wikipedi. Był na stornie z 2004 roku. Nie mogę sprawdzić jej opisu ponieważ aktualnie storna ta odwołuje się do Commons. Topory (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok dziękuję! Skontaktuję pierwotnego autora do omówienia licencji. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Email re Wikipedia

Hello, Ariadacapo. 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.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect for manufactures rename?

Re: Category:Airbus Helicopters AS350 Ecureuil Redirecting a category in response to a manufacturer renaming a product line seems awkward to me. The aircraft is what it was when it was built and other sources do not change the name. It is also awkward for users who may have an accurate name for a particular aircraft but no knowledge or interest in the product line history. In my view this could better be handled with subcategories, especially in cases where the manufacturor has changed over time as well. Dankarl (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dankar, I made the edits in good faith because I felt it is much less awkward this way. In my view, when the aircraft design does not change, the name does not matter much. Keeping all the names seems confusing, e.g. it would be hard to know where one given aircraft would fit in a tree such as Eurocopter EC 225 Super Puma 2 → Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma → Airbus Helicopters EC225 Super Puma → Airbus Helicopters H225 Super Puma 2. We should probably discuss this at Commons:WikiProject Aviation, do you want to open a discussion there? Thanks for your patience. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is that each iteration get its own subcategory, likewise the B, C suffixes. This would be overly cumbersome for a small category but we have lots of images in this case. Do you know other examples either way?Dankarl (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have just opened a thread at the WikiProject Aviation to discuss this. I look forward to your input and that of others there. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour Ariadacapo

HELP  !!!!!

comment mdofier mon logo

This illustration was made by (User:Royonx) and released under the license(s) stated above. You are free to use it for any purpose as long as you credit me and follow the terms of the license.

Example :  © Michel Royon / Wikimedia Commons

If you use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, I would be happy to hear from you par courriel ( royonx gmail.com). Thanks !

---

Ce message en français

c' est mon parrai Phymouss qui me l'a dessine il y a longtemps longtemps je ne le trouve plus ...

je Voudrais enlever la Mention Dr et enlever l adresse mail 'royonx@wanadoo.fr'

avec l age tout devient difficile !

Merci pour votre aide +++ (message non signé par User:Royonx)

Bonjour,

La réponse est très simple : il vous suffit d’éditer la page User:Royonx/Credits (et sa traduction User:Royonx/Credits-fr). Lorsque vous utilisez le code {{User:Royonx/Credits}}, vous incluez directement le contenu de ces pages (c’est ce qu’on appelle une transclusion en anglais)

J’en profite pour remarquer que la condition "Vous êtes libre d'utiliser cette photo sous réserve de me mentionner et de respecter les termes de la licence." est redondante : les termes de la licence contraignent explicitement les ré-utilisateurs à vous mentionner. Il est inutile de rajouter des contraintes "à la main" : vous risquez de rendre la situation légale bancale ou contradictoire. Dernière remarque, le "j’apprécierai" est au conditionnel, il doit donc prendre un "s". Bonne continuation ! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Advice

Hi Ariadacapo

I see you have been checking files and usage and wondered if I could ask you a question?

I would like to use some images/photo's that have been uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons for a text book. when looking at the licences it says the images are in the public domain and can be used to copy, distribute, print etc. does this mean that I can use them provided I have accredited the author on the page in the book and then put them in the accreditation listing under the licence in the back of the book without seeking individual permission unless of course it states that I should?

Many thanks Bev's Book (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Bev's Book

Hello Bev's Book,

Not all images on Wikimedia Commons are in the public domain. The license and the conditions for re-use are stated on each file page. For example, File:Knitting wales slip stitch.png is published under a CC-BY license which makes attribution of the author a mandatory condition for re-use. For CC-BY-SA images, you additionally have to maintain the license under which the file is published. Public domain images can be re-used without attribution at all. Read carefully the text and explanations associated with each license.

Nevertheless, whichever the case, you can re-use any image on Wikimedia Commons without asking for permission. All you have to do is abide to the terms of the license. If your publisher requires written permission, educate them about free licenses. It is good practice, but nor mandatory, to inform the authors of files that you re-use. You may contact the authors to negotiate different license terms (perhaps for a fee) or higher file resolutions.

The bulk of this information is explained on the page Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you have doubts or questions, don’t hesitate to ask. Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ariadacapo Thank you so much for getting back to me. I am really confused by all the jargon which is used and am not totally sure what I can and cannot use. I have had long discussions with the publisher who is grinding their heels regarding the issue even though I have sent them the copies of all the licences I have used. I have contacted a fair few of the authors of uploaded images and sought their written permission. There are, however, quite a few that I cannot find/get in touch with even though I have left messages on the talk/discussion pages. Do you think you could help me is I sent you links to the images I am still unsure of and you can categorically tell me if I can use them without written permission and exactly what accreditation I have to write? I realise this is a huge thing to ask but I am really struggling to understand the information in the licence in the way it is written. Many thanks for your time Bev's Book (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Bev's Book

Hello Bev’s Book. It is not jargon. All you need is to read through the text of each license, e.g. the summary of the CC by-sa license. It is not hard to understand — just sometimes hard to accept!

These licenses have been written by experts. They have been enforced throughout the world in many court cases (for example when a re-user fails to respect license terms). The licensing is irrevocable and permission for anyone to re-use is granted in advance. The Creative Commons website has some frequently asked questions that may help you.

If you want to negotiate different license terms with an author (for example you want to re-use a CC-by photo without having to attribute the author) then you need to contact them. Otherwise it is not necessary (and very time-consuming!). If you did get in touch they could only repeat what they have stated when they uploaded their work on Commons.

Neither I nor anyone here on Wikimedia Commons can guarantee that the uploader of any one file is really the copyright holder of the work. Reasonable efforts are made to detect and remove copyright violations. This is the same as anywhere else (including non-free image data banks). How much effort you are willing to put in the verification of copyright ownership is up to you. In practice it works very well: bad or contentious uploads here are detected and removed swiftly, and works on Wikimedia Commons are routinely re-published elsewhere. I have seen several photos and diagrams of mine in print already.

If you or your publisher want to understand the underlying ideas behind this system of licenses, I recommend Free Culture by en:Larry Lessig. It’s a very good book. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Aviation disaster in Prague-Suchdol

Hi Ariadacapo. I noticed you questioned set of photos from the disaster in Prague-Suchdol.

The website stated as the source declares (in its foot) that its content is generally released under cc-by-sa-4.0 and that the set of photos was provided to the website by Mr. M. Černý (btw., one of 3 authors of the web is Mr. František Černý, maybe a relative). Thus, it's possible that the photos are really released under the stated licence. Just to be sure, I asked admin of the web to confirm explicitly that Mr. M. Černý provided the photos as their author. --ŠJů (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dleted file NOVAE

You erased a file: File:Novae, Ruins of the city.JPG The image from file was extracted from Google maps and there is no elsewhere. Eurocentral (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Eurocentral, indeed, but the fact that it is not available elsewhere does not make it free. The terms of use of Google Maps prevent re-use in Wikimedia Commons (see COM:LICENSING). In any case this is not "own work" and you cannot choose to distribute satellite imagery from Google Maps under CC-by-sa. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ariadacapo There is no reason to erase a Google map (erased from Lupus from Novae). There are a lot of Wiki pages with captures from Google maps (see Kosice etc, etc) -- Eurocentral (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Which pages and which files exactly? They need to be deleted too, if they are copied from Google Maps. This is not up to me, nor is it a question of them being useful… it’s just a matter of copyright law. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.95

Evening Ariadacopo,

First, thanks for your persistence with the Flight problem. It's an important cause.

I wonder if you can advise me on a copyright issue. I've an almost complete draft on the Caproni Ca. 95 but some important points and clarifications have come from looking at these images and I'd like to cite them. I have no Italian and Google trans is little better; is it OK to upload them to WikiCommons? They may be out of copyright in Italy, but here ...? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello TSRL! To be honest, I have no idea! I can skim through and vaguely read the Italian text, but I do not understand the copyright tag on, say it:File:Caprono_Ca.jpg, precisely enough to be sure. I would recommend you ask at the Village pump/Copyright board. Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try there.TSRL (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

File(s) appeared in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter

Hello Ariadacapo, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) Caterpillar 3512C Generator Set.JPG broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

my edits

Hello Ariadacapo, Thank you for your feedback on my tiny contributions. Best regardsPieter1963 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Further images from Flightglobal

Hi, thanks for all, for your initiative on the historical images by Fight(Global) archive website, but I cannot find in which range of images you can upload them to move to Commons without violating a copyright, can you help me? All images up to an exact date? There are still many articles that, for example, in it.wiki where I write, which are free of images because present only in en.wiki by Fair Use, and I would understand if I can go find quietly the images that are missing.--Threecharlie (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Threecharlie: The answer is: I don’t know.

Flightglobal licensed the images already uploaded to Commons as CC-by-sa. Other images from their archive are not covered. So, to import more Flight images to Commons you need them to be part of the public domain. Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain details which "types" of public domain are appropriate for upload, and the short version is: it’s complicated. As for images used under fair use on Wikipedia, they cannot be imported onto Wikimedia Commons.

Sorry I cannot help more! Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

		The Historical Media Barnstar
		For tackling the FlightGlobal 'Somebody Else's Problem' system head-on. I saw the emails. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Steelpillow! It’s a cool thing to wear ;-) — Ariadacapo (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to spell out my thanks and support this barnstar for your efforts in this matter. What a wonderful work on this complicated license situation. It was purely due to your work that we were able to keep over 500 hundred unique and used images. Basvb (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Airfoils_and_wing_sections

Airfoils and wing sections 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The new graph of the Cd of the sphere

Hello, Ariadacapo, thanks for modifying the categories of my new publication of the Cd of sphere. I am working on an english version of this file !

Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars

File:Ariane 6 les chiffres clés.jpg

File:Ariane 6 les chiffres clés.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Je conteste votre suppression. Gnurok (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, la licence sous laquelle ce fichier est publié (CC-by-nc-sa) n’est pas compatible avec le projet Wikimedia Commons (clause NC: pas d’utilisation commerciale). À moins d’avoir l’autorisation des auteurs, vous ne pouvez pas en modifier la licence et donc pas le déposer ici. Je vous recommande de lire attentivement notre page concernant les licences. J’espère que vous ne serez pas découragé(e) de participer. Merci de votre compréhension ! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No Copyvio on File:Transonic.jpg

Found on http://airnavys.blogspot.de/2012/07/era-supersonica_09.html with publication date 2012 => this & mine were both copied from GNU file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transonico.svg dated 2007

--Mcapdevila (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you going so fast without verifying all the links?

--Mcapdevila (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t go "so fast". I stumbled upon this file as it was recategorized. I spent some time looking through the information: author with no link, license tag as 'self', image hastily edited. Then I reverse image-searched for the file. Here there were many characteristics typical of copyvio, and there are many copyvios uploaded to Commons… It is not very enjoyable nor very rewarding work. In all of this I did not see or click the link in the source field. This is my mistake. Thank you for contacting me. I sincerely apologize. Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Mujeres con pelotas.jpg‬" File:BorrandoaPapá.jpg

Hello Ciao? per caso parli italiano? we are stating Gabriel Balanovsky page, Gabriel is the codirector and producer of both films. We are the owners and have rights of films and images as well. There're no problem to share the images. What should I do next?

Greetings and thanks for your help--Leticia Barletta (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mrs Barletta,

(I do not speak Italian — only English, Français, ein bisschen Deutsch.)

The files you refer to, Borrando a Papá.png and File:Mujeres con pelotas.jpg were just deleted because they were published elsewhere and you indicated this was your "Own work" during upload. So we considered them to be copyright violations.

Don’t worry! We can undelete them. Please send a permission email to our OTRS team using one of our email templates. Make sure you indicate the name of the files that should be undeleted. When the mail has been processed by the OTRS team (this can take several weeks) the files will be restored.

Thank you for sharing your work on Commons! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:JacquesPrado.jpg

Bonjour, Comme demandé, un email a été envoyé à OTRS (permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org). Il s'agit d'une photographie familiale datant de 1928, dont je suis propriétaire. Si des précisions complémentaires sont nécessaires, n'hésitez pas à me contacter. Merci. Costemane (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)